Its feasible in an imaginary, hypothetical fantasy world that you created purely for the purpose of debate, where the Supreme Court abolishes all age restrictions on sex and states are clamoring to do something about it!
Otherwise, they are free to do what they’ve been doing for the past 200 years, and use their individual discretion for age of consent laws, within reasonable limits I’m sure (I doubt a law raising the AoC to 50 years old would pass constitutional scrutiny)
I may be wrong, but I get the impression that some people consider free speech for “bad” organizations to be a sort of necessary evil that you must endure in order to preserve free speech overall. You must take the bad with the good, and all that.
I disagree with this. Even if there were an organization we can all agree is bad, and even if keeping them silent would benefit society overall, and even if we could do it without setting any precedents or limiting anyone else’s speech one iota, I would still believe in their right to free speech.
To me, saying “You must take the bad with the good” is missing the point. Do any free speech advocates agree with me?
The former – Impeachment – would be iffy. It is, after all, reserved specifically for treason, bribery, and “high” crimes-and-misdemeanors. AFAIK having insane decision-making processes is not a Federal Offense (yet).
However, the latter – “Court Packing” – is legally doable (though risky and undesirable). The Constitution does not fix a maximum number of members of SCotUS, so enough additional seats to ensure a majority could be created statutorily. This IMO would be the checks-and-balances equivalent of a nuclear first strike and all 3 branches will try to avoid it at all cost. When it was last seriously threatened, by FDR in the 1930s, the Supremes backed down and it did not have to happen.
As to the OP, allowing those lovely nuts at NAMBLA to speak their piece gives the rest of us the chance to shoot down and tear apart their arguments where we find fault with them. As to the charges that some of their materials contain CP, well, hell if I know since I’m not interested in looking at them, but then I remember about the, um, flexible, definitions of what is CP that have been included in legislation like CDA, CDA2, and the currently-in-effect PROTECT Act.
Impeachment is a political question, and is nonjusticiable. It is completely within the discretion of the Senate to determine what constitutes High Crimes and Misdemeanors. If they believe sneezing without saying “mother may I” is impeachable, their judgement is nonreviewable.
While it is true one would petition to change a law so that a currently illegal act become legal, what is unsaid is that in the mean time most likely the petitioners are committing the illegal acts.
Can anyone honestly say that the people petitioning to make marijuana legal don’t smoke it? Are they patiently waiting for the law to change?
Similarly these NAMBLA creeps are most likely NOT waiting for the law to be changed.
Maybe something like this has to go to the Supreme Court. Banner statements like “all speech is protected” are loaded with dynamite.
im not sure which “blockheads” you are referring to here…NAMBLA or SDMB? In any case, no I am not convinced. Sex with children, is well, sex with children. I cannot think of a more heinous crime. And the idea that some sicko who maybe has not crossed that line yet, but has had fantasies, might come across this NAMBLA website and think to himself “Oh well, im not alone, maybe nothing is wrong with ME, maybe society is at fault…I guess I will go have sex with a minor now…”
And yes, I understand my own hypocrisy in that I would support hate speech from the likes of the KKK or the NAACP, but I just cannot see sex with kids being afforded the same protections. This whole issue wouldnt bother me so much if the ACLU had not backed them…something about that just doesnt sit right!
Uh, a brief hijack: it’s a little bit crazy to equate the KKK and the NAACP when it comes to hate speech – it’s like equating Aryan Nation and the ADL.
to continue the hijack a bit…to me its not crazy, they both advocate one group of people over another based on race. Just because one does it in the courtroom and another in the backyard, doesnt make the message any less hatefilled.
TVAA makes a very good point, in a very brief post (assuming I correctly deciphered the point).
If I had to choose between absolutely no limits regarding free speech (i.e., yelling “fire” in a crowded movie house is even okay) and having some arbitrary line drawn based on what folks consider acceptable, I’d choose the former every time. I think the framers of the constitution would agree with me.
In other words, no line at all is better than the line you’re proposing.
Of course, like any written piece, everything is open to interpertation.
from dmc
I understand what your saying, truly. I am not saying I have the answer…that is why I posted…but advocating sex with kids just seems so wrong, I feel a line should be somewhere to stop this kind of thing.
Blalron have you viewed any of the NAMBLA material or website? I am just curious because you seem so sure that the Brandenburg incitement test has not been violated in this instance and to make this determination it is necessary to know what portion of Nambla information these two defendants viewed. Are you aware of the information these two defendants viewed and the content of this information? If not, then I would say tentatively you can assuredly say the Brandenburg incitement test has not been breached.
Dob, you have no concept of what “hate speech” means. Hint: hate speech does not mean calling your opponents names, and the KKK isn’t reviled because it compares political opponents to nasty people.
The NAMBLA site you can pull up today is not the same content as the site viewed in 1997 (the time period when the alleged incitement occurred). Also, the claim in the suit includes newsletters and other written materials mailed to dues paying members (found in the home of Curley’s killers). So we don’t have access to the evidence. In particular, there is supposedly a “manual” that teaches men how to lure young boys, avoid prosecution, escape to another country if need be, etc.
Update on the case:
The various motions to dismiss were all ruled on as of July 2003. The case is going on to trial (court date TBA shortly). Some additional info:
“NAMBLA” is not being sued as an entity, since it is an unincorporated association. Individuals shown to be involved on an administrative level, and under the jurisdiction of MASS state, are the defendants.
Basically, this is now a state case, but the district court has retained jurisdiction for expediency. Here’s the latest pretrial ruling avail able online:
