Free speach is about exactly that, its for everyone.
Free speach isnt just for you opinions its for others and there diffferentiating points of view. Just because someone doesnt agree with you doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to express their point of view.
Thats what this is about not the fact that they defended the pedifile group NAMBLA.
i was just waiting for that one, the old reliable fire in a crowded theater
did you get that from the sean hannity cons utional arguement handbook?
that arguements lame
the fact is you cant sue people for saying this has happenned time and time again
marilyn manson and columbine
rappers with cop-killing lyrics
websites with bomb instructions
you cant pick and choose whats free speech because you dont like it
otherwise its not free speech
I have nothing against free speech. everyone is en led to free speech, I just dont think the aclu should be defending nambla.
What about the rights of the innocent kids that should be protected. Im not against free speech, I just dont think a group like nambla should be defended by the aclu.
Anyone can say anything they want. But not everyone deserves to be defended by a "civil rights" (or whatever they consider themselves) group!
do you support a pedophiles right to publish a how to book on it? why not let him keep pictures on his home computer about the subject if he didn't distribute them?
like i said, theyre not "defending" them for having sex with kids
and like i said they take these stupid cases so when an important one comes up people cant say (when newspapers are censored for scoffing bush) "oh well nambla cant publish books about molesting kids because thats dangerous"
"and journalist being critical of bush is dangerous to americas security"
well the first is his cons utional right
the latter is illegal
why is the second illegal if he didn't make the kids have sex.. he is just in possession of pictures?
why should pictures of making homemade bombs be legal.. blowing up is not legal unless you are part of a bomb squad
Well, this is where I disagree. They may not be defending them for having sex with kids, but they are defending a group that believes it should be legal for adults and children to have sex!!!!
The aclu should not be trying protect the rights of a group that wants to have sex with young children!! Period!!
I believe the rights of innocent children should come before the rights of pedofiles!
well isnt possesion of child porn illegal nomatter where you got them
i dont really get your 2nd question
writing a book with drawings and bomb instructions is and should be legal
look im not gonna make anyfriends defending nambla, like i said theyre a f'ed up group
but i guess i'll say it one more time
ITS FREE SPPECH
sigh
i dont know what else to say
you must have free speech for everyone, about everything
otherwise its not free speech
get it?
the aclu doesnt like these guys but knows that protecting the right of free speech is all about cases like these, is where FREE SPEECH is going to be challenged, no ones gonna sue home and living magazine
you're a member of nambla...aren't you?
If there were to be some kind of lawsuit regarding the kkk and free speech, does anyone think the aclu should defend the kkk ???
good one
what if you had a son and some nambla members were checking him out reading their latest edition of their "how-to-get-into-mookie's-son's-drawers"? would you say, it is fine, free speech?
I sense your sarcism, you talkin to me or Clandestino
probably both! haha
clandestino
naw but i wouldnt sue them
yes, i mean namblas pretty much the worst group you can think of
first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Cons ution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to pe ion the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared cons utional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the cons utional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the based on an individuals current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.
ok
that has nothing to do with them publishing a book or manual, then getting sued for it
besides too bad we cant go by the OVERVIEWS
Well, this is where I disagree with you. I doint think it is right for a group like the aclu to defend a group like nambla. Its not right morally IMO. Thats the main reason I dont support the aclu. That was why I orginally posted in this forum. So if you disagree with me, oh well. I still think it is wrong.
"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
-Matthew 18:5-6
A book or manual teaching people how to get away w/ having sex w/ a child.
wait wait wait... are you saying killing sooners is wrong?
Mookie, what if a terrorist is caught with a detailed set of plans to blowup the SBC Center during a Spurs game? Should he be punished, or should those plans be protected under his freedom of speech rights?
First, let me quote you my first response to this situation back when we discussed it the first time.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...highlight=ACLU
Child Porn is illegal because it is the direct exploitation of children. If you write a book (or film a movie, or put on a play) which contains an accurate depiction of a man building a bomb, are you then liable for someone going out and making a bomb?
This is exactly why I support the ACLU. It views the law very clearly, and does not deviate from that view at all. They do not defend people or organizations based on values or appearences. They take on cases based on the legal stance of the case itself, not the actual parties to the case.
In the first example, the case against NAMBLA, it is very important to see what they are defending the organization from and why.
This is not a case against NAMBLA in regards to whether or not the information on their website is legal. It is a case arguing that they have criminal fault in the Curley's case. This is similar to:
Suing McDonalds for making people fat.
Suting Gun makers for murders commited with their guns.
Regardless of the outlandishness of NAMBLA, they are not responsible for the acts of the Curleys.
In the second case, with the Boy Scouts. It's much of the same. The ACLU has a view on seperation of church and state, and the situation with the Boy Scouts violated it. They aren't saying that the Boy Scouts were in anyway doing a diservice, but seperation of church and state does not come with a gray area.
I can see where people construct these situations into attacks they are not. Bill "Sexual Harrasment" O'reilly does people a disservice by mudding the waters instead of explaining the justification for these cases.
It's not about the organizations, it's about the law.
The ACLU (and myself) think not.
That is directly illegal. There are several laws being broken, but most noteably it is criminal intent. However, writing a book where someone blows up the SBC center, regardless of how accurate it is, would be completely legal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
