Any Free Speech advocates willing to speak up for NAMBLA?

Great Debates
1

For those of you unaware of them, they are the North American Man-Boy Love Association. I don’t believe posting this link violates any board rules, as they are, as far as I can see, a strictly political organization. Mods, I invite you to look at the site and disable the link if you feel it necessary.

I am probably as much of an extremist in favor of free speech as you will find. Nazis want to march in Skokie, fine by me. Klan want to march in DC, ok. I won’t go. Want to publish a book on how to be a hit man. I think you have a right to do it, and I don’t think the author should be held responsible someone your techniques to kill someone else. I could be wrong.

I really have great difficulty supporting these freakaziods, who have organized wholly and exclusinvely to lobby for the right of adult males to have sex with underage males, or vice versa from their POV, regardless of their ages. They post “scientific evidence” that boys are not harmed by “consensual intergenerational experiences”. Their Prisoner Program “seeks to provide moral support to incarcerated boy-lovers. These people experience a harsh and exceptionally hostile environment which undermines their self-concepts and self-respect.” They complain that parental control internet filters prevent their political message from reaching children.

Please don’t mistake my discomfort as being about homosexuality. I support gay rights, I’ve had gay friends, though I don’t know or care whether any folks in my current community are gay or not. I am just totally disgusted by NAMBLA’s insistance that children of any age (boy children at least, somewhere on their site they claim some difference for girl children – I haven’t bothered to read it) should be free to “choose” a “consensual” sexual relationship with an adult.

Still I am, by my own standards, emabarassingly put in the position of defending their right to state their claims. And it creeps me out.

Anyone else willing too stand up and say so. If not, where does free speech end?

2

When I worked at an ISP in Montreal, we discovered a “hidden” web page (no links to it from the root directory) about a more radical man-boy love association than NAMBLA. It was mainly links to other such hidden webpages. There was no pornographic content that I could see; it was largely discussion of the experience of being a “boy lover”, as they referred to themselves. No one discussed actual encounters or relationships.

What struck me about the content was that the participants had appropriated a lot of gay terminology about “coming out”, about community, about “taking back” labels like “pedophile”, and such. Assuming that the people on those web pages were sincere in their frank discussion of their experience, then they had already framed their discussion in terms mutual support and that of an oppressed minority still in hiding.

From a free speech perspective, the only thing loathsome about it was the subject matter; the tone and content of the discussion seemed to be exactly the sort of thing that should be protected, especially if it seemed like the topic was something that would be more socially acceptable thirty years from now.

That didn’t stop the president of the ISP from immediately nuking the account, though.

3

Well, if we were to oppose free speech for people who advocate viewpoints that are generally considered unscientific (as I believe NAMBLA’s position on the “scientific evidence” about “intergenerational experiences” is), we’d be muzzling a whole lot of people, including creationists and homeopathists.

If we were to oppose free speech for people who lobby for changing laws about sexual behavior, there goes much of the gay rights movement, as well as some conservative groups like the Christian Reconstructionists.

If we were to oppose free speech for people who deny certain widely held social values and beliefs, there go the Satanists, the Hellfire Club, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Amish.

If none of those options sits well with you as a civil libertarian, then I’m afraid you’re kind of stuck with NAMBLA. As long as their organization does not actually engage in currently illegal activities, including child molestation, I don’t see how you can justify restricting their freedom of speech on the grounds that they want to engage in currently illegal activities.

I also think that, like the creationists, they shouldn’t be encouraged to think of themselves as misunderstood martyrs by denying them their fundamental civil rights and refusing to acknowledge their fundamental humanity. They are people who want to sexually molest children (they don’t call it molestation because they think it can be “consensual”, but that is how the law sees it), they think it’s okay, and they think the law should permit it. I don’t agree with any of what they say, but I don’t think that changes their basic rights.

Moreover, in practical terms, the subset of NAMBLA supporters who are willing to violate the law by illegally molesting children (even though their organization in theory doesn’t advocate that) are probably more dangerous to society when driven underground. After all, being officially suppressed, demonized, and attacked isn’t going to change their desire to be able to molest children; it’s just going to make them much more careful about hiding it, which makes it harder for society to guard children against it.

4

Well, if we were to oppose free speech for people who advocate viewpoints that are generally considered unscientific (as I believe NAMBLA’s position on the “scientific evidence” about “intergenerational experiences” is), we’d be muzzling a whole lot of people, including creationists and homeopathists.

If we were to oppose free speech for people who lobby for changing laws about sexual behavior, there goes much of the gay rights movement, as well as some conservative groups like the Christian Reconstructionists.

If we were to oppose free speech for people who deny certain widely held social values and beliefs, there go the Satanists, the Hellfire Club, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Amish.

If none of those options sits well with you as a civil libertarian, then I’m afraid you’re kind of stuck with NAMBLA. As long as their organization does not actually engage in currently illegal activities, including child molestation, I don’t see how you can justify restricting their freedom of speech on the grounds that they want to engage in currently illegal activities.

I also think that, like the creationists, they shouldn’t be encouraged to think of themselves as misunderstood martyrs by denying them their fundamental civil rights and refusing to acknowledge their fundamental humanity. They are people who want to sexually molest children (they don’t call it molestation because they think it can be “consensual”, but that is how the law sees it), they think it’s okay, and they think the law should permit it. I don’t agree with any of what they say, but I don’t think that changes their basic rights.

Moreover, in practical terms, the subset of NAMBLA supporters who are willing to violate the law by illegally molesting children (even though their organization in theory doesn’t advocate that) are probably more dangerous to society when driven underground. After all, being officially suppressed, demonized, and attacked isn’t going to change their desire to be able to molest children; it’s just going to make them much more careful about hiding it, which makes it harder for society to guard children against it.

5

For the record, I agree with your opinion:

In attempting to answer your question:

(Emphasis mine.)
Source: UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644 (1929)

(Emphasis mine.)
Source: ABRAMS v. U S , 250 U.S. 616 (1919)

6

I’ll respond to a few points:

I object to the use of the term “supporting”. Do you support Nazis, the KKK, and hit men? Obviously not. Choosing not to trample over a person’s civil rights does not mean you support their position.

I don’t think we can pick and choose and still call it ‘free speech’.

So far, though I obviously do not agree with their position, I can’t see why NAMBLA should be an exception. Trying to change a law – albeit for reasons that most people would find immoral and perverted – isn’t illegal, nor should it be. How will we distinguish between those who are challenging laws that are ‘bad’ (and thus be allowed to speak freely) and those who are challenging ‘good’ laws? I don’t think we can. Free speech must allow both.

Now, there are of course other problems with NAMBLA and other pedophile groups – namely when they cross the line into illegality and say that they violate the law, or even advise how to get away with it. But even that, when applied to other (less popular) laws would often be viewed as free speech – look at drug laws, for example.

Not relevant. As has been said, being unscientific doesn’t mean you don’t get to speak. Remember the fight against ignorance, and how it’s taking longer than we thought?

Again, I don’t see any particular reason why they shouldn’t be able to complain. Heck, it’s not even a threat; these sorts of statements are self-defeating.

**

And you feel less disgust for Nazis, hit men, and the KKK? I’m afraid I don’t have a real list of the hierarchy of badness for crimes. Does pedophelia rank above murder?

My point is that sure, lots of things disgust us; I know that the KKK and Fred Phelps are hard to lift up as examples for free speech, but I’m afraid I don’t see how allowing them to speak is more harmful than removing the right to speak freely would be.

**

Sure it does. Rightly so. It’s hard to look at the negatives in your own arguments. I’m pro-welfare and pro-social programs; do I like looking at welfare queens? Yet, you shouldn’t be embarassed. You should decide why you are in favor of free speech and why that trumps your disgust.

I’m afraid I don’t see NAMBLA as much of a threat (that is, by having free speech rather than being silenced; I do recognize that individuals are a threat if they are trying to seduce children). They creep most everybody out. That’s why free speech works – being able to speak doesn’t mean that people agree with you or that you get to remove laws you don’t like. Bad use of free speech tends to be self-defeating. It’s only when groups cross the line and do illegal things (and harm others) – something not prevented by ending free speech – do they really become a threat. Frankly, I’d rather NAMBLA be out in the open and lobbying rather than the alternative.

7

You are correct, I chose my words poorly. I support their right to speak their thoughts, rather than the content of those thoughts

We are essentially in agreement. Upon reconsideration, I should have retitled the thread to invite response from those who would have the site shut down. I’m also rather interested in the concept of literary obscenity, if such a thing actually exists. Personally, I don’t think society should have any restrictions on the airings of opinions, at least through a govermental enforcement mechanism.

But clearly there are vulnerable individuals who should not be exposed to some ideas. And the only alternative to preventing the speech, is preventing the hearing by those vulnerable persons, who cannot be objectively defined in a way thay makes both legal and common sense in all cases. Surely we all know some 21 year olds who are less emotionally mature than some 17 year olds.

And NAMBLA takes this underlying arbitrariness, that we are all aware of, and plays with it. If a 17 yr old can be mature enough, surely some 16 yr olds can be, and so on down the line, apparently to the point where a child is physically able to articulate the word “yes”. fluiddruid, you also asked, does pedophilia rank above murder? I would say, in some cases, yes, though I can’t claim an ability to logically defend this point. Let us just say that this group represents, to me, a purer more refined evil than than even Hitler and his Nazi pals.

As I noted in the OP, occasionally my belief struture leads me to conclusions I am uncomfortable with, and this is certainly one of them. At this level of discomfort, I prefer to get a reality check.

8

To clarify, are you suggesting that everyone who advocates a change in age-of-consent laws ought to be silenced?

I disagree with the implication that such opinions are evil, but even if they were, I don’t see why silencing opinions at the source is necessary for protecting “vulnerable individuals” who might somehow be damaged by reading them.

People that fragile shouldn’t be reading books or web sites, interacting with strangers, or crossing the street alone. They should be watching Teletubbies and snacking on goldfish crackers under the watchful eyes of their parents or guardians, until they’re able to decide for themselves whether to believe what they read.

9

Yojimboguy, I’m glad we (mostly) agree. One point, though:

I don’t see how this is at all clear. What vulnerable individuals do you mean, and what ideas? If you are an adult, I feel that you have the responsibility to shoulder the burden of what you can and cannot handle (within limits). For example, in my case, I am somewhat squeamish and I am disturbed by some of the gruesome content on the Web. In response, I do not visit certain sites. I do not open links from rotten.com and similar sites if I do not know what is on them and if I feel it may disturb me. In general, I have not been bothered. I do believe there should be limits and people shouldn’t be forced (by huge billboards, badly labeled media, and so on) to view offensive material. That means no dead bodies or women-getting-raped-by-demons-anime in Grand Central Station advertisements, IMHO. I also don’t approve of the nasty unauthorized spam messages (I’m sure you’ve heard about, or seen, the “rape sex” and bestiality web sites that send some of these), but then again, I think spam should be better regulated, period.

But NAMBLA? I don’t see how you could possibly be exposed to their material unless you went looking for it. They’re covered in the media, but reports of their actual beliefs and goals are sketchy at best.

Unless, of course, you simply mean minors, not adults. In that case, I believe it is the responsibility of the parent to decide what is and is not appropriate for them, just as it is the responsibility of the adult to decide that for themselves.

And, slightly OT:
**

Hmm. I’m afraid I don’t find the concept of evil a very good one. I tend to think that (most) pedophiles are (creepily) truly deluded, and do really think that kids can want sex and can truly consent. I do think it’s apologetics to cover up wanting to satisfy their own desires, and is ultimately selfish and wrong, but ‘refined evil’? At least they don’t say they’re trying to, or want to, hurt anyone. You can’t apply that to many others.

(Let it be known that I am not trying to defend pedophiles, as I’m sure some will think. I simply think that trying to understand other people’s mindsets, however morally abhorrent they may be, is more useful than labelling them ‘evil’. Understanding pedophelia, as a society, may lead to better solutions that will protect children. I do not find an evil label to be helpful or constructive, or even very meaningful.)

10

Talk your ass off all day long. I will kill for your right to do it. Touch my son. I will kill you

11

Thank you for sharing your obviously well thought opinion on the matter. It added a needed touch of class to the SDMB.

Marc

12

I’m not sure I see what the big deal is. I don’t have to agree with an idea to support the right of individuals to express the idea. I don’t think we should prevent communist, the anti-gun lobby, or WTO protestors from exercising their right to freedom of assembly, press, and the right to protest whatever they wish to protest.

Marc

13

Am I willing to support free-speech rights for NAMBLA? Yes.

Furthermore, I am willing to not only support but actively illustrate free-speech rights for MYSELF–by participating regularly in the SD boards, and by being one of the few who actually posts under his own name. (No big whoop, but do we ever reflect upon why we choose to use aliases?)

And I’m not going to cover my ass by hastily inserting what I personally think of NAMBLA and what it advocates. It’s not relevant. Nor is it relevant whether what they advocate is either moral or legal. In this country–increasingly in other countries–it is conduct, not communication, that is subject to restraint: particularly conduct insofar as it aggresses upon the individual’s zone of privacy and personal sovereignty. All ideas, as ideas, are on the table.

For better or worse, we are at a point in human history wherein any idea, bar none, can be widely disseminated and discussed, thereby gaining at least the patina of legitimacy. This is irreversible. We had better get to teaching our children how to live in such a world.

14

Yes, I’m willing to support free-speech rights for NAMBLA along with everyone else. Free speech means free speech, period. Content is beside the point.

15

Yes, in fact, and at great length.

Re the OP, the folks in NAMBLA are perfectly free to advocate a change in the laws that prevent them from raping children – uh, I mean, entering into consensual maturizing interactions or whatever the hell they call it – and they’re free to offer whatever “scientific” evidence they think supports their position. They just aren’t free to act on any of these positions. I find their views icky in the extreme, but I think trying to silence them is far, far more dangerous.

16

Thanks for directing to the earlier discussion, Cervaise.

I said “no big whoop” to indicate that I was in no way putting down those who choose their right to make anonymous submissions. God knows I’ve been anonymous (and invisible) most of my life!

17

And what an unfortunate name it is for posting in a thread about NAMBLA.

18

I don’t think your smug condescension contributes anything to this discussion, Marc. Sezyou’s post is not ill thought out because it is direct and short. His first sentence recognizes the right to speak freely, if in a somewhat more direct fashion than the rest in this thread. But I completely agree with his sentiment regarding action.

I am not a psychologist, but it seems to me that men who invest as much effort in apologizing for if not promoting illegal (I won’t even say immoral, as that is understood by most people) actions against (not “with”) children as NAMBLA members do probably have already broken the law and are trying to justify themselves. As a Constitutional issue, I have to agree that they have the right to express their thoughts openly. But as a practical matter, I think they should all be under surveillance just as anyone else would who was known to be considering the commission of a crime. I wouldn’t jail them for speech, but I’d keep an eye on them to be sure that’s all it was.

I have a nine-year-old nephew, and I wouldn’t hesitate to kill anyone who assaulted him, even though I’m sure his father, my brother, would beat me to it. My approach, with that of sezyou, may be more visceral than yours, but it’s not less reasonable.

19

**
Perhaps this is not needed and universally understood, but y’all know that freedom of speech is not absolute, right?

“Fire” in a crowded theater; telling U.S. national security secrets to your good buddy from Iraq; etc.

20

The right of free speech allows them to lobby for the law to be changed.

The right of free speech also allows you and I to do everything in our power to educate people as to why they are wrong.