Should NAMBLA's freedom of speech be infringed?

[Missourian]

Where NAMBLA propagandizes for changes in the law, it's speech is protected. Where it attempts to subvert the existing law prohibiting child sex, the speech becomes criminalized. For instance, the 1st Amendment does not protect solicitation for child sex.

Martin Luther Kings calls for civil disobedience were an attempt to subvert existing laws.

In the Letter from Birmingham Jail written on 16 April 1963 when he was arrested for a non-violent demonstration Martin Luther King meets eight white priest from Alabama who had wrote four days earlier a letter entitled A Call for unity. While conceding the existence of social injustice, they expressed the belief that the battle against racial segregation should take place in the courts and not in the street.

Martin Luther replied that without direct and powerful efforts like those he undertook, civil rights would never be achieved.

He argues that civil disobedience is justified not only to deal with an unjust law, but that "everyone has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1383676/martin_luther_king_and_civil_disobedience.html
​

 

[JD_2B]

I fully expect to see at least 4 of you put your vote where your mouth is and vote yes.

You know who you are.

Silly Mani, expecting certain people to back up what they say with actions.

You know that by voting no, you support NAMBLA right?

I voted no, and I don't support NAMBLA. That is ridiculous. That is like saying that supporting the freedom of expression, and therefore voting to not suppress Islamic worship sites, or not wanting to suppress someone from saying they love Jihad, etc.. is somehow indicative of that 1st Amendment supporter also being an Islamic.

Blahhhhhh

Borrrring.. Booooo You suck

 

[JD_2B]

Uhhhhh... Did I just give him negative rep over a joke??? OOPS.. I'm Sorry.. <blush>

 

[Anguille]

I fully expect to see at least 4 of you put your vote where your mouth is and vote yes.

You know who you are.

Silly Mani, expecting certain people to back up what they say with actions.

You mean like PMing Gunny with a request to have rep set back to zero?

 

[Anguille]

Yes. Hate speech, inciting violence, and death threats are currently prohibited. If NAMBLA is soliciting sex with minors, that is criminal. If their speech is confined to adults only websites, then they should be monitored by law enforcement. If they've committed no crime, they have nothing to fear. People who fuck children should accept that minor intrusion on their privacy. Either that, or be de-balled.

Your post contains hate speech and incites violence.

 

[Anguille]

Hey C-rag,

The right to speak freely in an effort to change the law you fucking retard.

In case C-rag put you back on IGNORE before you posted this.

 

[Anguille]

I defend their first amendment rights even though their beliefs sickens me.

I also defend America's Second Amendment rights. If one or all of these people were to run into an errant bullet, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

I would think that anyone being struck with an "errant" bullet would be cause for concern. By definition that would make it random.

Should someone catch one of these shitstains assaulting his kid and blow his brains out deliberately, then I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

I might. No one should turn a blind eye to vigilante justice and witch hunts.
Let them be tried in a court of law.

 

[chanel]

Yes. Hate speech, inciting violence, and death threats are currently prohibited. If NAMBLA is soliciting sex with minors, that is criminal. If their speech is confined to adults only websites, then they should be monitored by law enforcement. If they've committed no crime, they have nothing to fear. People who fuck children should accept that minor intrusion on their privacy. Either that, or be de-balled.

Your post contains hate speech and incites violence.

Ha ha. Yes I hate pedophiles. But by "de-balling" I was merely referring to an effective deterrent used in other countries - chemical castration. Quite painless I hear.

Looks like FACEBOOK is "infringing upon the free speech" of known pedophiles.

Facebook has called on a fellowship of web safety organizations to prove that it really doesn't want your dumb kid molested online.

The social network hub - which recently purged 2,782 registered New York sex offenders in a single sweep - says it plans to organize a special (and properly capitalized) Facebook Safety Advisory Board that it will consult on issues of web safety for teens and tots.

Facebook forms board to lick molesters • The Register

I guess some people on here would have a problem with that. First amendment and all...

 

[Si modo]

Yes. Hate speech, inciting violence, and death threats are currently prohibited. If NAMBLA is soliciting sex with minors, that is criminal. If their speech is confined to adults only websites, then they should be monitored by law enforcement. If they've committed no crime, they have nothing to fear. People who fuck children should accept that minor intrusion on their privacy. Either that, or be de-balled.

Your post contains hate speech and incites violence.

Ha ha. Yes I hate pedophiles. But by "de-balling" I was merely referring to an effective deterrent used in other countries - chemical castration. Quite painless I hear.

Looks like FACEBOOK is "infringing upon the free speech" of known pedophiles.

Facebook has called on a fellowship of web safety organizations to prove that it really doesn't want your dumb kid molested online.

The social network hub - which recently purged 2,782 registered New York sex offenders in a single sweep - says it plans to organize a special (and properly capitalized) Facebook Safety Advisory Board that it will consult on issues of web safety for teens and tots.

Facebook forms board to lick molesters • The Register

I guess some people on here would have a problem with that. First amendment and all...

I applaud facebook, a private organization, for their actions. As such an organization, they can do what they want to limit speech on their site.

 

[editec]

Free speech helps us know who to avoid.

 

[Si modo]

Free speech helps us know who to avoid.

You bet! Better to see who the enemy is than to have to wonder.

 

[Father Time]

Yes. Hate speech, inciting violence, and death threats are currently prohibited. If NAMBLA is soliciting sex with minors, that is criminal. If their speech is confined to adults only websites, then they should be monitored by law enforcement. If they've committed no crime, they have nothing to fear. People who fuck children should accept that minor intrusion on their privacy. Either that, or be de-balled.

Your post contains hate speech and incites violence.

Ha ha. Yes I hate pedophiles. But by "de-balling" I was merely referring to an effective deterrent used in other countries - chemical castration. Quite painless I hear.

Looks like FACEBOOK is "infringing upon the free speech" of known pedophiles.

Facebook has called on a fellowship of web safety organizations to prove that it really doesn't want your dumb kid molested online.

The social network hub - which recently purged 2,782 registered New York sex offenders in a single sweep - says it plans to organize a special (and properly capitalized) Facebook Safety Advisory Board that it will consult on issues of web safety for teens and tots.

Facebook forms board to lick molesters • The Register

I guess some people on here would have a problem with that. First amendment and all...

The first amendment prevents governments from limiting speech not private organizations.

 

[Father Time]

Oh, for crying out loud. Where did you twinks get the erroneous idea that inciting criminal activity has EVER been a protected First Amendment right? The First Amendment doesn't allow you to shout "Fire!" in a crowded building, ...

Honestly.

Really, where does it say in the 1st amendment that you cannot shout fire in a crowded building?

It doesn't, numbfuck. It says that you can't in the myriad state and local laws under which they prosecute your ass for reckless endangerment, which laws are held by the courts to be in accord with First Amendment civil rights.

I thought the courts were nothing more than 'unappointed lawyers in robes'

 

[rdean]

Everyone knows these scumbags are evil.

And it seems many here would be just fine with the government stepping in and stripping them of the right to free speech.

So let's see where everyone stands.

Should Mormons be allowed to marry 10 year old girls?

 

[Father Time]

Everyone knows these scumbags are evil.

And it seems many here would be just fine with the government stepping in and stripping them of the right to free speech.

So let's see where everyone stands.

Should Mormons be allowed to marry 10 year old girls?

You really don't see the difference between advocating a change in law and marrying a 10 year old?

I mean I agree that following their advice would be insane but they should still be allowed to suggest it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really, where does it say in the 1st amendment that you cannot shout fire in a crowded building?

It doesn't, numbfuck. It says that you can't in the myriad state and local laws under which they prosecute your ass for reckless endangerment, which laws are held by the courts to be in accord with First Amendment civil rights.

I thought the courts were nothing more than 'unappointed lawyers in robes'

They are. Nevertheless, they are the ones who get to apply the laws when someone is arrested for reckless endangerment, and they have applied it pretty consistently in this area.

Besides, people like Varth are usually impressed all over themselves by what the courts say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where NAMBLA propagandizes for changes in the law, it's speech is protected. Where it attempts to subvert the existing law prohibiting child sex, the speech becomes criminalized. For instance, the 1st Amendment does not protect solicitation for child sex.

Martin Luther Kings calls for civil disobedience were an attempt to subvert existing laws.

In the Letter from Birmingham Jail written on 16 April 1963 when he was arrested for a non-violent demonstration Martin Luther King meets eight white priest from Alabama who had wrote four days earlier a letter entitled A Call for unity. While conceding the existence of social injustice, they expressed the belief that the battle against racial segregation should take place in the courts and not in the street.

Martin Luther replied that without direct and powerful efforts like those he undertook, civil rights would never be achieved.

He argues that civil disobedience is justified not only to deal with an unjust law, but that "everyone has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

Martin Luther King and Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
​

False analogy: apples and oranges. Criminalizing solicitation for child sex is not an unjust law, except to a predator.