To sum this up the ACLU is throwing its support behind NAMBLA…and fighting for their right to promote man/boy love and to abolish the age limitiation that makes such things illeagle now.
I am all for free speech, and freedom of expression, but at what point is the line crossed? Should it be okay for someone like NAMBLA to promote this kind of behaviour? Should an organization like the ACLU(which stands for AMERICAN Civil Liberities Union) be promoting something that is so un-American?
The ACLU isn’t promoting the agenda of their clients, they are merely protecting their right to voice that agenda.
Protecting civil liberties, no matter how much a particular organization’s agenda might make you squirm, is the opposite of un-American.
To this day I’ve never understood why the ACLU gets such grief from people. Our founding fathers would likely all have been proud card-carrying members, as there is little that is more American than the ACLU.
One day, you might see them defending blacks who have been discriminated against, while the next day they’ll be defending the KKK’s right to put on rallies.
I have a hard time thinking that when the founding fathers put pen to paper to protect free speech they thought it would include the advocacy of man/boy love! What do you think good 'ol Ben Franklin would have said to someone handing him a flyer asking him to support such stuff?
They never thought that free speech would include things like advocating equal rights for women and minorities, either, so just because speech focuses on subjects that the founding fathers would never have imagined doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be protected.
He probably would have quoted Voltaire:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Yep. By the definition of the word, free speech is not bounded by such things as decency and morality. The same rights that you have to oppose NAMBLA are the ones that they use to further it.
NAMBLA advocates that GROWN MEN have SEX with CHILDREN! Perhaps I labor under misapprehension, but is not advocating that grown men have sex with children promoting criminal behavior?
Or, as two artists have said it far better than I could:
KYLE: Dude… You have SEX with CHILDREN.
NAMBLA HEAD: We are HUMAN. Most of us didn’t even CHOOSE to be attracted to young boys, we were BORN that way. We can’t help the way we are, and if you all can’t understand that… well then… I guess you’ll have to just put us away.
KYLE: Dude. You HAVE SEX - WITH CHILDREN.
STAN: Yeah, you know, we believe in equality for everybody and tolerance and all that gay stuff – but dude, f-- you.
There comes a point wherein some things simply do not need to be “tolerated”. And don’t try to pull the whole “gay rights” smokescreen. NAMBLA does not advocate gay rights, and identifying them with “gay rights” is only another way to say that “homosexual” and “pederast” are identical.
I think there’s a distinction. NAMBLA is advocating the abolition of age-consent laws. How is it possible to petition for a change in the law without appearing to promote criminal behaviour?
For example, I advocate the abolition of the current drug laws. Does that make me a criminal? An advocate of criminal behaviour? Should I be held responsible for any violence that occurs that is somehow drug-related?
Completely irrelevant. Free speech is allowing that single lone voice, the one that no one else agrees with, to be heard.
As I stated prior to you bringing this up, it’s not about supporting their agenda. It’s about supporting their right to voice it. Ben Franklin might have been appalled by their message, but you can be damned sure he would have fought for their right share it.
If you wish to have a debate on the merits of free speech, this is a great place for it. If you simply wish to state your disdain for a particular organization, whether it be NAMBLA or the ACLU, that would be a rant, which would likely be better served in the Pit. It’s quite likely that many of the folks who are in this thread defending what the ACLU is doing in this case, would be on your side in the rant. That’s because they are completely separate issues.
understand that having free speech means hearing things you find offensive, or are just simply against. If having freedom of speech means knowing the KKK can have a web site, im okay with that. I dont support them or agree with their ideas, but I do defend the right to have them voiced.
However, the point of NAMBLA is not just removing age limitations…they want to remove those limitations so that grown men may have sex with young boys without fear of the law. How can it be protected speech when grown men are advocating the right to cruse the elementary schools and pick up young kids.
Pedophile websites are illegal…if someone on this board was to post about what great sex they had last night with a 10 year old, would that be defended? How can pedophiles be consider criminal, but not these people? Do intent and deed make the difference here?
by dmc
And my question is, should this voice be protected by free speech? The really strange thing is, I could get in more trouble making a web site advocating the destruction of America, than I would advocating sex with young boys…it just doesnt make sense.
Well, it does point out a sexist cleavage in our opinions. A 25 year old man having sex with a 14 year old boy is subject to lynching. But a 14 year old boy having sex with a 25 year old woman just got lucky.
The first instance is eminently prosecutable, no? And the second?
How is that “not just removing age limitations”? The law makes it illegal for adult men to have sex with boys; they want to change the law so it will become legal.
Unless you have evidence that they’re actually telling people to go out and have sex with boys while it’s still illegal, your rant is impotent. We all have the right to talk about changing the law, and we do it on the SDMB all the time: tax laws, abortion laws, even age of consent laws.
Are you suggesting it should be illegal to talk about changing the law, or only laws you happen to agree with?
This is absurd. Free speech is free spech is free speech. You cannot cut one way arbitrarily. I don’t agree with the positions of NAMBLA, however they have the right in this country to state their views. Where do we draw the line if we do not allow them to say their piece? How can we draw such an arbitrary distinction and not slip down the slippery slope towards fascism?
Of course. I mean, the point of trying to get any law changed is so that you could then legally do whatever said law restricts.
“We can’t have people advocating legalizing marijuana, because they just want to remove those limitations so that they can smoke dope!”
Because it is. Just because what someone has to say seems immoral to you doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to say it.
Of course. I mean, assassinating the president would get you in a lot of trouble. However, if you petitioned to have the law changed so that assassinating the president were legal, and acknowledged that you were doing to so that you could then assassinate the president, well that’s just fine.
You wouldn’t win, and you’d probably be closely watched as a possible threat, but I’m pretty sure it’s not illegal.
There’s quite a big difference, actually. When you say “advocating the destruction of America”, you probably mean inciting others to break the law. Compare that to NAMBLA, who want the law changed so that they wouldn’t be breaking the law. They’re not trying to incite people to do anything illegal.
I should add that I do not agree with NAMBLA’s position on man/boy love. However, I fully support their right to speak out on the subject.