NAMBLA: What is it really?

[Pookie]

... Hate crime laws go even further on your slippery slope by making certain THOUGHTS illegal. Why should someone be subject to a greater sentence just because they thought a certain way, while groups like NAMbLA are defended even as they outright incite people to commit crimes against children? ...

"ACLUM Executive Director John Roberts described the concerns which prompted ACLUM to take on NAMBLA’s defense. "While we join with all others in deploring the heinous crimes committed against Jeffrey Curley, two people have been convicted of his murder and are serving life sentences. The Curley lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages against NAMBLA because one of the murderers allegedly looked at the organization’s publications and web site prior to committing the crimes. There was nothing in those publications or web site which advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape."

"ACLUM Legal Director John Reinstein, who is one of the lawyers representing NAMBLA in the suit, acknowledged that "I think it is fair to say that most people disagree with NAMBLA and that many would find its publications offensive. Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA’s views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

Source: http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/namblareinstein.html

 

[Pookie]

Rape of children isn't considered a violent crime?

Did that post say rape of children isn't considered a violent crime? Get a grip.

Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action."

 

[LarzMachine]

Actually, legally you can...no one is stupid enough to run such an ad, though.

I used to know a diehard white supremacist (he was a coworker, and a former pseudo-gf wound up leaving Me for him -- long, hilarious story) who tried to run some ads that weren't even that bad -- he actually referred to the groups he opposed by their proper names -- as part of his attempt to run for Mayor of Minneapolis a couple years back (79 votes in the primary! What turnout! LOL) and the stations flat-out refused and cited some law. I'm not sure what the statute was, since they guy didn't bother to quote it. I really wish I had more info on this.

Of course, it might not be an actual law, but just evidence of the "evil Zionist conspiracy" he and his cronies were always babbling about.

Oh, for those who want to see the sort of thing the ACLU is OK with protecting (since they're defending NAMbLA who are just as disgusting), here's his platform: http://members.odinsrage.com/wwmp/
Obviously, it's some pretty fucked up stuff...

 

[LarzMachine]

They are STILL defending NAMbLA. What part of that can't you understand?

 

[LarzMachine]

Did that post say rape of children isn't considered a violent crime? Get a grip.
Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action."

Just as NAMbLA's is...

Therefore, their speech isn't protected.

 

[LarzMachine]

Oh, incidentally, the number he lists on his platform page is his home phone number. The assholes among you (especially the ones in Minnesota) might find interesting uses for this info, not that I'm encouraging anything, of course...



Larz, I have edited the phone number from your post. Lit rules do not allow anyone to post the personal phone numbers of others.-Queersetti

 

[Queersetti]

I'll just assume you understand what hate speech is and what hate crime laws are. Restricting hate speech (which happens ALL the time -- can you place a 30 second ad on CBS decrying the evils of "niggers, kikes and faggotts" even if you pay an unholy sum of money? By Bill Maher's definition -- who I know you support -- this is censorship and a violation of the 1st Amendment) IS a restriction on everyone's free speech rights, every bit as much as the slippery slope you present in defense of letting NAMbLA encourage child molestation. You can be fired for "hate speech" quite easily, and it wouldn't be considered wrongful termination. I know a few people it's happened to.

Hate crime laws go even further on your slippery slope by making certain THOUGHTS illegal. Why should someone be subject to a greater sentence just because they thought a certain way, while groups like NAMbLA are defended even as they outright incite people to commit crimes against children?

Which is it? Do we keep hate crime laws that legislate thoughts and extend that to their speech and other actions, or do we abolish every restriction on speech and thought that exists?



Regardless of how you want to spin it, the people at NAMbLA are encouraging people to commit crimes against children. THAT is the difference between them and most of the gay community. Are gay behaviors still illegal in any but the most backwards states?

If I find a group promoting gay rape, I'll be every bit as much against them as I am against NAMbLA, as will most sane people. I'm against the Klan and similar groups for the same reason. Groups that incite violence or other crimes have no right to their activities, at least in the eyes of sane people. With any luck, people will realize the Bible is the biggest work of hate speech ever written, and cite its numerous incidences of devout worshippers committing crimes on its behalf pretty soon.

FBI info on what constitutes a hate crime: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_98/98crime/98cius16.pdf

I know what a hate crime is, but apparently, you do not. Your own source points out that "Hate crimes are not separate, distinct crimes, but rather traditional offenses motivated by the offender's bias".

There are no laws in the United States against entertaining hateful thoughts, or to expressing them. hate crime laws address the motivation of those who commit acts which would be criminal under any circumstances. Motivation is a factor in most criminal sentencing. For example, so called "crimes of passion" are often punished by different sentences than though which were premeditated.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of Bill Maher. I find his knee jerk libertarianism juvenile. I would prefer in the future if you would allow me to present my own opinions, rather than assigning them to me.

 

[Queersetti]

Just as NAMbLA's is...

Therefore, their speech isn't protected.

If someone was to say "I am going to rape little Johnny who lives down the street from me." that is not protected speech.

If, however, they say "I think they ought to change the laws so that I am allowed to have sex with young boys" that is protected, no matter how strongly most people may disagree with the statement.

If NAMBLA makes statements of the first kind, they ought to be shut down and prosecuted.

The ACLU is saying that they have the right to make statements of the second kind.

Is the difference that hard to understand?

 

[LarzMachine]

"Hate crimes are not separate, distinct crimes, but rather traditional offenses motivated by the offender's bias".

There are no laws in the United States against entertaining hateful thoughts [...] hate crime laws address the motivation of those who commit acts

If there are no laws against entertaining hateful thoughts, then why are hate crime laws based entirely upon the thoughts of the person committing the crime? That would be a law criminalizing certain thoughts.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of Bill Maher. I find his knee jerk libertarianism juvenile. I would prefer in the future if you would allow me to present my own opinions, rather than assigning them to me.

Ahh. That was Christa who outright quoted him, but you DID agree with her... "all add up to a pattern that makes Maher's statement that MzChrista quoted quite reasonable." (second post from the bottom: https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=195167&perpage=25&pagenumber=1 )

 

[Queersetti]

If there are no laws against entertaining hateful thoughts, then why are hate crime laws based entirely upon the thoughts of the person committing the crime? That would be a law criminalizing certain thoughts.



Ahh. That was Christa who outright quoted him, but you DID agree with her... "all add up to a pattern that makes Maher's statement that MzChrista quoted quite reasonable." (second post from the bottom: https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=195167&perpage=25&pagenumber=1 )

There are no law against the thoughts. The law is against the acts and the thoughts that motivated the acts are germane to how they influenced the acts. In the absence of actual criminal acts, the same thoughts are not illegal.

Yes, I agreed with a statement by Maher that was quoted here. That does not make me a "supporter" of him.

 

[LarzMachine]

There are no law against the thoughts. The law is against the acts and the thoughts that motivated the acts are germane to how they influenced the acts. In the absence of actual criminal acts, the same thoughts are not illegal.

Increased sentencing for holding certain thoughts definitely makes them criminal. In effect, hate crime laws allow the courts to sentence someone to X years (or other penalty) for a given crime, then sentence them to Y years (or other penalty) in addition for their thoughts.

 

[Queersetti]

Increased sentencing for holding certain thoughts definitely makes them criminal. In effect, hate crime laws allow the courts to sentence someone to X years (or other penalty) for a given crime, then sentence them to Y years (or other penalty) in addition for their thoughts.

Two men both run over their wives with their cars and kill them.

The first man says "I just got mad and in the heat of the moment, I stepped on the gas and ran her down."

He gets 10 years in prison for manslaughter.

The second man says "I hated that bitch, I wanted her dead, so I waited for a chance to kill her and when she stepped into the driveway, I took advantage of the opportunity.

He gets life in prison for first degree murder.

Do you believe that the difference in sentencing means that it was illegal for the second man to hate his wife, or is it based on the specific motivation for his actions that resulted in her death?

 

[Mary Hall]

The issue of NAMBLA is a tricky one but my opinion is if you sexually interact with young kids, then your a child molestor no matter what your views on it, it seems like they`re trying to defend the right to have sex with boys, which is disgusting

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Let's talk about other things that were not legal in the past:
Homosexuality
Premarital sex
Most rights for women
Any rights for enslaved blacks

Let's talk about things that were legal in the past:
Violating the rights of accused people
forcing blacks to use "separate but equal" facilities
Arresting interracial couples

If you take away NAMBLA's right to talk about changing the law, you remove the right of people to address any law which they find wrong or unethical, including the ones I have listed.

 

[Pookie]

... it seems like they`re trying to defend the right to have sex with boys, which is disgusting

Freedom of Expression - ACLU Position Paper

January 2, 1997

Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition -- this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.

But in spite of its "preferred position" in our constitutional hierarchy, the nation's commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home, people exercising their First Amendment rights have been censored, fined, even jailed. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. It was during WWI -- hardly ancient history -- that a person could be jailed just for giving out anti-war leaflets. Out of those early cases, modern First Amendment law evolved. Many struggles and many cases later, ours is the most speech-protective country in the world.

The path to freedom was long and arduous. It took nearly 200 years to establish firm constitutional limits on the government's power to punish "seditious" and "subversive" speech. Many people suffered along the way, such as labor leader Eugene V. Debs, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act just for telling a rally of peaceful workers to realize they were "fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder." Or Sidney Street, jailed in 1969 for burning an American flag on a Harlem street corner to protest the shooting of civil rights figure James Meredith. (see box)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FIRST AMENDMENT IGNORED

Early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations. Nevertheless, once in power, even the Constitution's framers were guilty of overstepping the First Amendment they had so recently adopted. In 1798, during the French-Indian War, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to publish "any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. It was used by the then-dominant Federalist Party to prosecute prominent Republican newspaper editors during the late 18th century.

Throughout the 19th century, sedition, criminal anarchy and criminal conspiracy laws were used to suppress the speech of abolitionists, religious minorities, suffragists, labor organizers, and pacifists. In Virginia prior to the Civil War, for example, anyone who "by speaking or writing maintains that owners have no right of property in slaves" was subject to a one-year prison sentence.

The early 20th century was not much better. In 1912, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control. Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted injunctions prohibiting strikes and other labor protests. Violators were sentenced to prison. Peaceful protesters opposing U. S. entry into World War I were jailed for expressing their opinions. In the early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags, symbols of communism and anarchism. In 1923, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the text of the First Amendment at a union rally. Many people were arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as "radical" by the government. It was in response to the excesses of this period that the ACLU was founded in 1920.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Free speech rights still need constant, vigilant protection. New questions arise and old ones return. Should flag burning be a crime? What about government or private censorship of works of art that touch on sensitive issues like religion or sexuality? Should the Internet be subject to any form of government control? What about punishing college students who espouse racist or sexist opinions? In answering these questions, the history and the core values of the First Amendment should be our guide.

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

During our nation's early era, the courts were almost universally hostile to political minorities' First Amendment rights; free speech issues did not even reach the Supreme Court until 1919 when, in Schenck v. U.S., the Court unanimously upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party member for mailing anti-anti-war leaflets to draft-age men. A turning point occurred a few months later in Abrams v. U.S. Although the defendant's conviction under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-war leaflets was upheld, two dissenting opinions formed the cornerstone of our modern First Amendment law. Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis argued speech could only be punished if it presented "a clear and present danger" of imminent harm. Mere political advocacy, they said, was protected by the First Amendment. Eventually, these justices were able to convince a majority of the Court to adopt the "clear and present danger test."

From then on, the right to freedom of expression grew more secure -- until the 1950s and McCarthyism. The Supreme Court fell prey to the witchhunt mentality of that period, seriously weakening the "clear and present danger" test by holding that speakers could be punished if they advocated overthrowing the government -- even if the danger of such an occurrence were both slight and remote. As a result, many political activists were prosecuted and jailed simply for advocating communist revolution. Loyalty oath requirements for government employees were upheld; thousands of Americans lost their jobs on the basis of flimsy evidence supplied by secret witnesses.

Finally, in 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today.

WHAT DOES "PROTECTED SPEECH" INCLUDE?

First Amendment protection is not limited to "pure speech" -- books, newspapers, leaflets, and rallies. It also protects "symbolic speech" -- nonverbal expression whose purpose is to communicate ideas. In its 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court recognized the right of public school students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and again in 1990 (U.S. v. Eichman), the Court struck down government bans on "flag desecration." Other examples of protected symbolic speech include works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances.

Government can limit some protected speech by imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. But a permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech. That would be what is called viewpoint discrimination -- and that is unconstitutional.

When a protest crosses the line from speech to action, the government can intervene more aggressively. Political protesters have the right to picket, to distribute literature, to chant and to engage passersby in debate. But they do not have the right to block building entrances or to physically harass people.

FREE SPEECH FOR HATEMONGERS?

The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."

At the same time, freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used. Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected.

SPEECH & NATIONAL SECURITY

The Supreme Court has recognized the government's interest in keeping some information secret, such as wartime troop deployments. But the Court has never actually upheld an injunction against speech on national security grounds. Two lessons can be learned from this historical fact. First, the amount of speech that can be curtailed in the interest of national security is very limited. And second, the government has historically overused the concept of "national security" to shield itself from criticism, and to discourage public discussion of controversial policies or decisions.

In 1971, the publication of the "Pentagon Papers" by the New York Times brought the conflicting claims of free speech and national security to a head. The Pentagon Papers, a voluminous secret history and analysis of the country's involvement in Vietnam, was leaked to the press. When the Times ignored the government's demand that it cease publication, the stage was set for a Supreme Court decision. In the landmark U.S. v. New York Times case, the Court ruled that the government could not, through "prior restraint," block publication of any material unless it could prove that it would "surely" result in "direct, immediate, and irreparable" harm to the nation. This the government failed to prove, and the public was given access to vital information about an issue of enormous importance.

The public's First Amendment "right to know" is essential to its ability to fully participate in democratic decision-making. As the Pentagon Papers case demonstrates, the government's claims of "national security" must always be closely scrutinized to make sure they are valid.

UNPROTECTED EXPRESSION

The Supreme Court has recognized several limited exceptions to First Amendment protection.

- In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that so-called "fighting words ... which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," are not protected. This decision was based on the fact that fighting words are of "slight social value as a step to truth."

- In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court held that defamatory falsehoods about public officials can be punished -- only if the offended official can prove the falsehoods were published with "actual malice," i.e.: "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Other kinds of "libelous statements" are also punishable.

- Legally "obscene" material has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection. Unfortunately, the relatively narrow obscenity exception, described below, has been abused by government authorities and private pressure groups. Sexual expression in art and entertainment is, and has historically been, the most frequent target of censorship crusades, from James Joyce's classic Ulysses to the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe.

In the 1973 Miller v. California decision, the Court established three conditions that must be present if a work is to be deemed "legally obscene." It must 1) appeal to the average person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Attempts to apply the "Miller test" have demonstrated the impossibility of formulating a precise definition of obscenity. Justice Potter Stewart once delivered a famous one-liner on the subject: "I know it when I see it." But the fact is, the obscenity exception to the First Amendment is highly subjective and practically invites government abuse.


THREE REASONS WHY FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS ESSENTIAL TO A FREE SOCIETY

It's the foundation of self-fulfillment. The right to express one's thoughts and to communicate freely with others affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society, and allows each individual to realize his or her full human potential. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself -- and as such, deserves society's greatest protection.

It's vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge, and the search for the truth. The eminent 19th-century writer and civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views. Therefore, all points of view -- even those that are "bad" or socially harmful -- should be represented in society's "marketplace of ideas."

It's necessary to our system of self-government and gives the American people a "checking function" against government excess and corruption. If the American people are to be the masters of their fate and of their elected government, they must be well-informed and have access to all information, ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for oppression and tyranny.


THE ACLU: ONGOING CHAMPION OF FREE EXPRESSION

The American Civil Liberties Union has been involved in virtually all of the landmark First Amendment cases to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and remains absolutely committed to the preservation of each and every individual's freedom of expression. During the 1980s, we defended the right of artists and entertainers to perform and produce works of art free of government and private censorship. During the 1990s, the organization fought to protect free speech in cyberspace when state and federal government attempted to impose content-based regulations on the Internet. In addition, the ACLU offers several books on the subject of freedom of expression.

Source: http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12405&c=42