Should NAMBLA's freedom of speech be infringed?

[manifold]

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.

 

[manifold]

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.

 

[Modbert]

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.

 

[manifold]

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?

 

[Modbert]

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

That wasn't in the contract!?!

 

[xotoxi]

What gives us the right to be discussing the First Amendment openly in a public forum???

 

[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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I detest false choice polls, and therefore vote present. I detest 'worser' those who abuse children, in any way, shape or form.

 

[manifold]

I detest false choice polls, and therefore vote present. I detest 'worser' those who abuse children, in any way, shape or form.

What is the false choice?

 

[The Rabbi]

It is a false choice.
What is their "free speech"? It is the ability propagate their repugnant views and try to persuade people that sex with underage boys is OK? Then I support their continued ability to do that, as much as I oppose their objective.
If their free speech consists of actively trying to entice young boys into illegal relationships then that is criminal and they need to be prosecuted. There is a big difference between arguing for legalization of drugs and selling illegal drugs.

 

[del]

It is a false choice.
What is their "free speech"? It is the ability propagate their repugnant views and try to persuade people that sex with underage boys is OK? Then I support their continued ability to do that, as much as I oppose their objective.
If their free speech consists of actively trying to entice young boys into illegal relationships then that is criminal and they need to be prosecuted. There is a big difference between arguing for legalization of drugs and selling illegal drugs.

well put.

 

[manifold]

It is a false choice.
What is their "free speech"? It is the ability propagate their repugnant views and try to persuade people that sex with underage boys is OK? Then I support their continued ability to do that, as much as I oppose their objective.
If their free speech consists of actively trying to entice young boys into illegal relationships then that is criminal and they need to be prosecuted. There is a big difference between arguing for legalization of drugs and selling illegal drugs.

well put.

Ditto.

I meant the former. I wish I was more clear about it.

 

[Sunni Man]

The Fed's should round up every single member of NAMBLA and charge them under the RICO laws.

They are a well funded organization that promotes criminal acts against minors.

These sick sodomites need to be locked up and the key thrown away

 

[Cecilie1200]

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, and it doesn't allow you to promote child molestation.

Honestly.

 

[manifold]

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, and it doesn't allow you to promote child molestation.

Honestly.

I do not believe anyone here believes that.

Nice strawman.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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, and it doesn't allow you to promote child molestation.

Honestly.

I do not believe anyone here believes that.

Nice strawman.

I don't normally respond to you, since I normally have you on ignore, since you're ever and always an incredibly ignorant doofus. However, I'm going to deign to notice your pitiful existence this once. Try to learn something from it.

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

What "right to free speech" would the government be "stripping them of"? I'm pretty sure there's no movement afoot to keep NAMBLA members from protesting tax hikes or universal health care. So gee, that must be the right to encourage people to fuck little kids, wouldn't it?

Never wonder why I consider you beneath notice. Back on ignore.

 

[driveby]

Does ripping their throats out count as limiting their 1st amendment rights ? ......

 

[manifold]

Hey C-rag,

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

 

[Si modo]

Perhaps it would help the quality of discussion if folks were more informed. One should read a bit of the background of the case. Here's a conservative site's take on the ACLU defense of NAMBLA: Deroy Murdock on ACLU & NAMBLA on National Review Online

Here's the ACLU's take on it: ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations | American Civil Liberties Union

IMO, it is disgusting that NAMBLA exists and it is more disgusting that they give tips on how to have relationships with boys. The latter is what got them in hot water.

The way I see it is if this POS organization is not defended, even for giving such tips, where do we draw the line? If I get published for a synthesis of a great explosive and a terrorist makes an IED or suicide bomb using my synthesis, should I then go to prison for publishing that how-to? We all hate pedophiles as much or maybe more than terrorists.

Granted, my intent in this hypothetical would be for other purposes - information, knowledge, etc. NAMBLA's intent for the how-to was for something inherently illegal. Well, blowing shit up is mostly illegal (but pretty much a scream, TBH).

I still side with the ACLU on this, even after asking myself all these questions.

I am open-minded, though. If someone gives me a good reason to change my mind, I will.

 

[alan1]

Perhaps it would help the quality of discussion if folks were more informed. One should read a bit of the background of the case. Here's a conservative site's take on the ACLU defense of NAMBLA: Deroy Murdock on ACLU & NAMBLA on National Review Online

Here's the ACLU's take on it: ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations | American Civil Liberties Union

IMO, it is disgusting that NAMBLA exists and it is more disgusting that they give tips on how to have relationships with boys. The latter is what got them in hot water.

The way I see it is if this POS organization is not defended, even for giving such tips, where do we draw the line? If I get published for a synthesis of a great explosive and a terrorist makes an IED or suicide bomb using my synthesis, should I then go to prison for publishing that how-to? We all hate pedophiles as much or maybe more than terrorists.

Granted, my intent in this hypothetical would be for other purposes - information, knowledge, etc. NAMBLA's intent for the how-to was for something inherently illegal. Well, blowing shit up is mostly illegal (but pretty much a scream, TBH).

I still side with the ACLU on this, even after asking myself all these questions.

I am open-minded, though. If someone gives me a good reason to change my mind, I will.

Disgusting and foul people exist. That is no reason to restrict the right of free speech. I agree with you.