# When does free speech cross the line? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2003, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238 "2003-09-12T17:14:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/1 "2003-09-12T17:14:47Z")
So I ran across this today: [http://www.mergemag.org/2000/namblaaclu.html](http://www.mergemag.org/2000/namblaaclu.html) 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? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/2 "2003-09-12T17:40:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/3 "2003-09-12T17:53:20Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/4 "2003-09-12T18:03:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dob \* > **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!** 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. > [@](#): > > \*\*What do you think good 'ol Ben Franklin would have said to someone handing him a flyer asking him to support such stuff? \*\* He probably would have quoted Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/5 "2003-09-12T18:25:29Z")
**Ben Franklin** , in his own words: “Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/6 "2003-09-12T18:43:39Z")
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. Ironic, no? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/7 "2003-09-12T18:54:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dob \* > \*\*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? \*\* As Justice Holmes so eloquently put it in Abrams vs United States: > [@](#): > > Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. > > But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/8 "2003-09-12T19:28:29Z")
Here is what the ACLU said: > [@](#): > > It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever. 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. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/9 "2003-09-12T19:48:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > **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?** 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? ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/10 "2003-09-12T19:56:30Z")
KYLE: Dude. You HAVE SEX - WITH CHILDREN. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/11 "2003-09-12T20:05:52Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? Even advocating criminal behavior is protected by the First Amendment, as long as you aren’t inciting imminent lawless action. Next question? ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/12 "2003-09-12T20:16:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Even advocating criminal behavior is protected by the First Amendment, as long as you aren’t inciting imminent lawless action. Next question? If I’m reading the OP correctly, that _is_ the question: Does (or did) the NAMBLA website _incite imminent lawless action_? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/13 "2003-09-12T20:19:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dob \* > **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!** Completely irrelevant. Free speech is allowing that single lone voice, the one that no one else agrees with, to be heard. > [@](#): > > \*\* What do you think good 'ol Ben Franklin would have said to someone handing him a flyer asking him to support such stuff? \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![cheddarsnax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cheddarsnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cheddarsnax)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/14 "2003-09-12T21:22:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dob \* > \*\*Should an organization like the ACLU(which stands for AMERICAN Civil Liberities Union) be promoting something that is so un-American? \*\* How is attempting to “abolish the age limitiation that makes such things illeagle now” un-American? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/15 "2003-09-12T22:02:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cheddarsnax \* > \*\*How is attempting to “abolish the age limitiation that makes such things illeagle now” un-American? \*\* Damn straight. I can’t find anything wrong with challenging _any_ law; questioning the need for it and calling for its repeal. I perrsonally hope the NAMBLA guys get shot down in court, but I’d never want to see them prevented from making the attempt. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/16 "2003-09-12T22:09:45Z")
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 > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/17 "2003-09-12T22:12:06Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/18 "2003-09-12T22:38:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dob \* > **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.** 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? ---
**Author:** ![Rayn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rayn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rayn)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/19 "2003-09-12T22:45:14Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238/20 "2003-09-12T22:49:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dob \* > **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.** 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!” > [@](#): > > **How can it be protected speech when grown men are advocating the right to cruse the elementary schools and pick up young kids.** 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. > [@](#): > > **How can pedophiles be consider criminal, but not these people? Do intent and deed make the difference here?** 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. > [@](#): > > \*\*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. \*\* 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-does-free-speech-cross-the-line/201238.md?page=2)