Look at the case of Mary K Letournou (sp?). She was a teacher that had sex with a 13 year old boy. Her original punishment was probation and a suspended sentence (until she had a repeat offense)! A male teacher who had sexual relations with a student that age would never have gotten such a light sentence.
This is a very difficult standard to reach. Not only are they NOT inciting imminent lawless action, they aren’t even advocating that we break the law. They are advocating that the law be changed.
Here is an excerpt from the NAMBLA website about their purpose:
Are you honestly afraid that they will convince 51% of the voting public to abolish all age of consent laws? What does it hurt if they can speak their peace, as long as they aren’t breaking any laws?
Blalron:
I wasn’t disagreeing with your point - I hadn’t checked the NAMBLA site or read anything else about the suit. From what I’ve googled now, it appears the suit is also citing NAMBLA pamphlets that supposedly depict child pornography (not protected speech?).
In any case, I wasn’t able to find anything current about this suit (which was filed in May 2000). Is it still pending?
Back to your point: If it was that clear that they were not inciting lawless action, why wasn’t the suit dismissed (or was it)?
A: Why is NAMBLA any worse than the KKK, in re the ACLU supporting their right to speech?
B: Ben Franklin was a randy old dude. Hellfire Club member and all that.
C: As mentioned above, Voltaire. Free speech crosses the line when it inciting imminent lawless action. (A shouting of fire in a crowded theater incites a riot, as well as assault. Or it would not be a concern.)
Parents of children who have been murdered/murdered others/committed suicide have brought similar suits against Black Sabbath and Ozzy Osbourne for their music, Dungeons and Dragons, Beavis and Butthead cartoonist Mike Judge, and recently some suicide discussion website. Basically, it’s a reaction that says “person X wouldn’t have done what he did if not for those ideas.” The same argument drives the whole violence in video games/music/cartoons/movies censorship movement. I think these types of suits rarely if ever enjoy success in the courtroom unless the speech in question directly advocates committing an illegal act.
I can only imagine the crippling grief of a parent after the loss of a child, especially under those kinds of circumstances. I empathize with their desire to find and eradicate the cause of their tragedies, but in the end I still have to side with the First Amendment. I do not think a world where the expression of ideas, however controversial, is banned would be any kind of improvement.
I think you might call Ben Franklin the Bill Clinton of his day. He died of syphillis, you know. Let’s not make him the gold standard of morality. 
Sorry, but while what NAMBLA advocates disgusts me, they have the same right to free speech as anyone else. The fact that it’s abhorrent to you or I doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
Quite frankly, I’d rather hear what they have to say, so that we can keep an eye on them. It’s better to KNOW what they’re advocating. That way, we know to look out for them.
Does that make sense?
All I have to judge by is their website, I don’t subscribe to their newsletter.
I realise it’s difficult to accept people advocating changing the law to allow something reprehensible, but ask yourself this: If some things are too reprehensible for people to even speak about making them legal, who decides which things? Was there a time whan this would apply to black people voting?
If the website is advocating breaking existing consent laws, I retract what I say. Either way I think it’s reprehensible.
Since Voltaire is getting so overused these days, another relevant quote:
“The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because nobody ever tries to ban the other kind.”
– Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation
That’s not how laws are abolished in the U.S., though. It takes only a few judges to declare a law unconstitutional, and presumably such a contentious issue would be fought all the way to the Supreme Court, if NAMBLA managed to get that far. At that point, you only need five people, a majority, to abolish the law.
At that point, only a Consitutional Amendment can restore the prohibition, and the last time an Amendment restricting the rights of the people (as opposed to the powers of the government), it was completely useless and was eventually amended out of existence. Ratifying an Amendment is tricky, but you only need about 2000 people to do it; a two-thirds majority in three-fourths of the state legislatures, plus Congress.
Frankly, I’d be skittish about any law that could be established or abolished by a simple majority vote. I’d hate to think what kinds of legal changes could have gone through after Sept. 11, 2001. Of course, the President just grabbed additional powers, anyway, but you can always get rid of him at next election.
This hypothetical situation is almost too ridiculous to address. The Supreme Court isn’t going to legalize man/boy love just because NAMBLA is allowed to hand out pamphlets. There aren’t enough rolleyes in the world for me to adequetly express how much my eyes are rolling right now.
If that happened, it would be the quickest passing Constitutional Amendment ever. The Amendment would probably be ratified by all 50 states within a day.
You don’t even need to do that. If the Supreme Court released such an absurd and radical decision, Congress could either impeach the justices or expand the number of justices on the Court. In the meantime, they could also block all funding to enforce the decision.
So we must prevent NAMBLA from speaking, or else the Supreme Court is going to give Man/Boy love free reign? Do you give our learned Justices any moral or intellectual credit at all?
Are our age of consent laws such fragile butterflies that they couldn’t stand up to any criticism or argument?
Careful you don’t trip over your tongue, pal. I’m not discussing the likelihood of NAMBLA getting its way, only the mechanics of abolishing the current age-of-consent laws. That decision (in the exceedingly unlikely event it ever gets that far) will be made by the courts, not by a 51% voting majority.
Well, presumably such an amendment would fix the age of consent for all citizens, i.e. “The age of sexual consent for all persons in the Unites States is hereby fixed at X years of age,” with X likely being somewhere between 14 and 18. I predict it would be a contentious issue, since some states would find any given X to be too low, while others would think it was too high. The easist number to pass would be 16, I guess, since at least 30 states already use that standard.
Possibly, but it sounds like a recipe for a major crisis. In any event, I’m only pointing out the method by which laws are abolished (i.e. through the courts). NAMBLA, or any other organization, could try the simple legislative route and try to influence a state house and senate to change existing law, but in any event it will never be a simple matter of getting a 51% vote of the electorate.
Am I writing in code or something? I’m not suggesting that NAMBLA be prevented from speaking (I actually think their right to speak should be protected), I’m just challenging your assertion that for NAMBLA to get what they want, they need to “convince 51% of the voting public to abolish all age of consent laws?” As far as I know, a 51% referendum has never been a common tool for abolishing laws, though it wouldn’t surprise me if it had been tried here and there over the 227-year history of the United States.
I’d like a cite for both of these please, as I’ve never heard of any such thing.
If you think it’s impossible for such an emotionally charged issue to come to a popular vote, and rights must be mandated by the courts, look at my state’s “Death With Dignity” Act which granted the terminally ill the right to take their own lives. It passed by a popular vote of the people. 51% in fact.
Although the age does vary state by state, by the age of 18 all states recognize the ability to consent. All you’d have to do is have the amendment say
“The several states shall have the power to set the age of consent for sexual activities, so long as the age does not exceed 18”
I don’t think it’s impossible (duh, since I earlier admitted the possibility). I just think it’s a highly unusual way to effect a change in legislation. And I used the phrase “it will never be a simple matter of getting a 51% vote” (emphyasis added). John Ashcroft challenged Oregon’s “Death With Dignity Act” and the matter had to be settled in Federal District Court. Just getting 51% of the voters to agree to something isn’t enough to create legislation, at least not legislation that is sure to go unnoticed and unchallenged by the Feds, or even by opponents within the state itself. Hardly a simple “we got 51%, we win, you lose, now get lost” matter.
Is that even feasible, under the terms of the 10th Amendment? If the Feds aren’t willing to specify an age of consent, then by default the choice is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” As it stands, the several states already have the power to set the age of consent, simply because the Feds haven’t reserved that right for themselves.
It’s hard to imagine an Amendment that essentially says “We’ve decided we officially don’t care, you deal with it.”
I love a good constitutional dustup, by the way. It lets me display all the knowledge I gleaned from episodes of Schoolhouse Rock.