Yup. You are aware that I think the SC’s test is patently absurd?
But then, there’s very little that I consider “obscene”. I guess that would put me in the minority. Isn’t the Constitution supposed to protect minorities from a potentially oppressive majority? Really, how can speech be “free” if it comes with qualifiers?
Clearly, the ACLU disputes the content of those materials. You have described them as detailed guides to how to seduce children. The ACLU describes them as materials advocating legislative changes to age of consent laws, and an exhortation to avoid illegal or coercive activities. Whatever your position on age of consent laws, debate about them is fundamentally protectable speech under the Constitution, as is debate about abortion, gay rights, legalized drugs, gun control, or any other topic. If the materials are as the ACLU describes, NAMBLA has the right to distribute them, the ACLU is right to support them.
Given that the cite above denies that NAMBLA’s Web site contains any material advocating illegal activity, I’ll have to ask you for a cite that the ACLU doesn’t deny the existence of such content.
So, I guess you’d advocate prosecuting anyone who ever read, discussed, or sold a copy of Nabokov’s Lolita as well? :rolleyes:
The fallacy here is that you assume that talking/writing/reading about an act equals the act itself. Talking/writing/reading about anything is protected by the First Amendment, and it should be. There is nothing illegal about discussing something, whatever that something is. It is a clear distinction, but one which you (and so many others, including our Atty. General) cannot seem to comprehend.
It’s very simple… talking about sex with children is not illegal. Probably deplorable, depending on context, but not illegal.
Having sex with children is illegal (and deplorable), and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
There is a difference.
For your convenience, from the ACLU’s Web site link above:
Daniel
In other words, exactly what the opponents of the ACLU’s actions said they were - kiddie porn.
Incidentally, I mis-typed the two cases in my post. The ACLU was in favor of forcing the minor to move to the Soviet Union, but not to Chile. Cite.
Sorry for the mistake.
Regards,
Shodan
This is not what you originally alleged. You asserted that the site contained instructions on how to “seduce and sexually exploit children.” Now you are revising your position to say that it contained “eroticized descriptions of young boys.” (not illegal)
So the ACLU is doing nothing but defending free and legal speech. Bill O’Reilly is an insufferable hypocrite and demagogue with very little idea of what the constitution is really about Witness his constant, utterly uninformed and unsupported assertions that the constitution was somehow founded on “Christian” principles. This moronic position, in and of itself, offers definitive proof that the guy is a buffoon and deserves absolutely no attention or respect.
You, Conti, are seriously lacking in the facts of the case. The students in a Salt Lake City high school wanted to start a “Gay-Straight Alliance”, that would work in the community to promote tolerance and act as a support system for youth who were questioning their sexuality at a volatile time in their lives. Gay-Straight Alliances are open to people of all orientations. The point of them is to create an enviroment where people commit to supporting one another despite their differences.
After complaints from parents, the school made a move to shut down the Alliance. The students fought back using a Supreme Court ruling that stated that publicly funded school boards had to provide space for ALL non-academic student-supported clubs, or have none at all (this fact proves that there ARE existing clubs that are NOT devoted to academia in schools, despite what you say). The school board chose to not have any non-academic clubs at all. It had nothing to do with the ACLU, only in the sense that it was involved in the legla battle. But the bottom line is that the school board refused to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance, not that they were going; “Oh no, the ACLU is after us, quick, vote! Vote!”
Well, eroticized depictions (as opposed to descriptions) of actual young boys (i.e. those under the age of 18) may be illegal if they fall within the legal definition of child pornography. So if that’s what the ACLU is defending, their hands may be less clean, since I don’t think they’ve ever taken the position that the laws against child pornography involving actual children violate the First Amendment.
If the “boys” are of legal age, but happen to be very young in appearance, well, we may think of it as gross, but we can’t do any more about it than we can about publications showing eroticized depictions of young-looking women. Plus, the category of “eroticized” pictures of young people could sweep in a lot of stuff. Britney Spears’ video for “Hit Me Baby One More Time” showed a young Britney dirty-dancing in a Catholic school girl outfit and a cheerleader’s outfit, if memory serves. Film depictions of “Lolita” show an older man having sexual congress with a girl whose age is represented as 14 (though the actress in question is of legal age.) Both could be considered “eroticized” portrayals of girls.
and don’t forget Brooke Shields performance in Pretty Baby which included a nude scene in which she was being paraded around for bidding purposes. I believe she was 11 or 12 at the time (but significantly under 16)
So would this be strike two?
You do, of course, have two more chances to correct the link above – I’m a nice guy, I’ll play softball with you :).
Daniel
(Strike three, incidentally, could be a link to a geocities page instead of a link to something even remotely credible – but I’ll wait to see.)
Daniel
I hate to belabor this point, but purely textual descriptions of children, even eroticized descriptions, and even graphic descriptions of sexual acts with children are not illegal. Child porn is not illegal because it is sick and reprehensible, but it because it is an actual record of an illegal sexual assault. The SCOTUS recently ruled that even computer generated images of 'virtual" child porn is protected if it does not involve real children.
I don’t think I said otherwise. By “depiction”, I meant an actual pictorial representation, not a text “description.” If NAMBLA literature shows eroticized depictions of real (as opposed to simulated) children, they are distributing child porn. (Whether this makes them liable for anyone’s death is a separate issue.) If the children aren’t real, or the representations aren’t pictorial, then it is not child porn, and the literature (though perhaps not to everyone’s taste) is entitled to Constitutional protection.
Ok I broke down and went to the NAMBLA site.
It’s kind of creepy, because of what they advocate, but I couldn’t find any photos of anything except some book covers. Certainly there was nothing there that I found to be “eroticized” as far as pictorials go, and I tried to click on all of the links. The site is easily >99% text. Of course I didn’t actually bother reading all of it, but it did look like they tried very hard to keep it clean, or at least as clean as a site advocating man/boy love can be.
Personally I would find it VERY difficult to believe that the NAMBLA site could incite murder.
Me, I just find O’Reilly’s smug schtick and his frequent self-righteous “how can you possibly hold any other opinion that mine” stance on a myriad issues tedious by now. I do think he was an exceeding prick when he replied to a viewer who wrote him supporting the ACLU that “NAMBLA will be glad to hear from you”
IF the NAMBLA site/publication limit themselves to advocating eliminating the sex laws, waxing poetic on the wonders of boy-boffing and publishing pencil drawings of twinkish prettyboys, they’re just, well, highly disturbing – which is understandable considering the highly disturbed individuals who’d join such an organization – but legal, and ACLU does no wrong (though is likely wasting their time in a lost cause) in defending them.
OTOH IF it does include materials that are clearly incitations to commit the acts, instructions as to how to get away with it, and/or nekkid minors – well, that’s stuff which you do not have a right to, and we’d be justified in asking ACLU if they should not be looking for some real civil-rights battle.
jeevemon,
I don’t think we disagree on anything, then. I think we just got our wires crossed a little. It was my impression that the NAMBLA site did not contain pictures, and now that seems to be more or less confirmed by light strand who was kind enough to fall on the sword and actuallly go look at the site (which I don’t have the stomach to do).
Does anybody know specifically what the alleged kiddie-rape “instructions” actually consisted of (maybe a transcript of the complaint)?
I gave my wife an ACLU membership for Christmas.
I’m considering giving them an additional donation now purely for the pleasure of hacking off Brutus and the other ignorant fools who have absolutely no idea what the flag they so fervently wave actually stands for.