• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The ACLU will kill us all yet.

Missouri Mule said:
Oh, I would say an organization so far out of the bounds of human propriety that they shouldn't be allowed on the planet. That may not have yet been codified in law but they ought to be.
Sounds like you're completely against free speech if it disagrees with you.
 
shuamort said:
Sounds like you're completely against free speech if it disagrees with you.

Sounds that way to me too. I detest groups like the KKK, Arayan nation, etc... but unless they cross the line and commit a crime, what they say is just that.. words. I'm glad groups like that are protected under free speech. I get a good laugh every now and again when the cowards of the KKK have rallies from under their sheets. All I can say is "Somewhere there is a poor bed naked because of these fools." ;)
 
Missouri Mule said:
Your posts are getting absurd. Get back with me when you research our actions in the Civil War, WWI and WWII and then we can talk again.

Well maybee I'm just a ignorant Swed. But hasn't the terrorist won if the threath from a non govermant organisation or a couple of non govermental organisations with limit resources can be compared with the threath from at that time superpowers like Germany and a civil war that split the USA?
 
Everyone here seems to be missing the point, and all seem to be avoiding the question. How old do these people(NAMBLA) want boys to be before they are considered ready to make a serious decision like this? The whole issue has been very vauge, and so is their future goals, and or what they hope to accomplish. I worry about about what their intentions are, and how this endangers young boys everywhere this group may thrive. I am concerned about these childrens rights, and the rights of the parents of these young boys in question. I seem to be the only one here the least bit worried about those important rights, it's obvious which side the ACLU has taken, what say you?

It's o.k to disagree with the ACLU, and they can be wrong, and I think they are wrong in this instance, and for the reasons I have listed. I guess in the end, freedom of speech is what is at stake, but it's not what I am trying to take from them, but want them to do more of it. Tell us exactly just what are you suggesting here? I would have thought a group like the ACLU would demand those answers before defending them, either they have not, or they have, and they are not sharing it with the rest of us. Either way, it is not I, or anyone who is angry about this, or confused, who should be questioned, it's those who wish to change our laws.
 
Deegan said:
Everyone here seems to be missing the point, and all seem to be avoiding the question.
The point is about free speech. Not NAMBLA. Substitute any group that has (and in this case DESERVES) disdain. The Nazis, the KKK, et al. None of these groups, in my opinion, have legitimate ideas, positions, and have in the past done major atrocities and if they could get away with it, they'd still probably be doing them now.

Should the ACLU question the motives of the KKK if they were censored for speech? Should the GOP or DNC have their motives questioned if they were told to shut down their websites for asking for laws to change as well? The problem isn't what NAMBLA does, the problem is that someone is trying to draw a line in the sand as to where free speech can and can't be.

Right now, NAMBLA is advocating something atrocious (in my opinion). Let's say the ACLU doesn't defend them and their right to speech is denied. What next? What becomes illegal to discuss after that? What happens if someone suggests lowering the age of consent laws to 16 nationwide? Should that be illegal? Once a line that's drawn in the sand of where freedom of speech ends based on a notion like the NAMBLA case, the line could then be drawn anywhere.

The ACLU is not defending NAMBLA as much as they are actually defending the Americans' right to free speech.
 
Again, the speech is what I am interested in, they have been vauge about what they want to accomplish. I assume you know nothing more then I about what that is?:confused:
 
Deegan said:
Again, the speech is what I am interested in, they have been vauge about what they want to accomplish. I assume you know nothing more then I about what that is?:confused:
I'd assume that they want to lower the age of consent laws (but at the same time I don't wanna click on a webpage of theirs to find out for sure).
 
shuamort said:
I'd assume that they want to lower the age of consent laws (but at the same time I don't wanna click on a webpage of theirs to find out for sure).

I did, and was very alarmed!

I saw pictures of boys as young as 8, and while they didn't say these are the boys we want to be free to be with, or this is the age we would like to see the laws changed to reflect, it is quite frightening that the message is so very vauge. If this is the case, and they do want to interact with boys that young, should they be allowed to speak freely about breaking the law? Right now I seem them hiding behind the guise of getting laws changed, while their actual goals are to get together and share stories of how they have gotten around existing laws.
 
Deegan said:
I did, and was very alarmed!

I saw pictures of boys as young as 8, and while they didn't say these are the boys we want to be free to be with, or this is the age we would like to see the laws changed to reflect, it is quite frightening that the message is so very vauge. If this is the case, and they do want to interact with boys that young, should they be allowed to speak freely about breaking the law? Right now I seem them hiding behind the guise of getting laws changed, while their actual goals are to get together and share stories of how they have gotten around existing laws.
Yeeesh, but at the same time. That's the albatross of free speech. I don't agree with their message, but it's still their right to say it. Just as it's the right of the marijuana party to show big pics of cannabis leaves and say "legalize it". As for NAMBLA, part of it is a "better the devil you know...".
 
I guess I am just disappointed in the judgement of the ACLU, I think it's a bad call to defend these people. They could have easily hired their own lawyer, but no, the ACLU thought it sooo important to defend these people for free. I am certainly angry at them for taking on this of all cases, and I can understand the anger of many others as well. I guess I will focus my energy on getting someone to watch/monitor these groups more carefully. I seriously am very disturbed by their message, and fear that they are preying on the most innocent, and defenseless among us.
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
I share your disturbence with NAMBLA, I really do. But the fact is that our rights purtain to everyone, and the ACLU stepped forward namely to show that they stand for the rights of everyone, including the truly dispicable.

You bring up a good point, I guess I don't trust their motivation any longer, and that's the part that really disappoints me. Until recently, I have not ever questioned their motives, now with this infiltration of the far left, their reputation has been hurt. I guess it's up to them to decide if they are truly impartial, and that their motives are to honestly defend all liberties, even those that may sicken us all. I just hope that they have not made it much easier for these men to prey on our youth, but in the end, I believe that is exactly what they did.
 
Here's the statement that the ACLU made on this case:

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations

August 31, 2000


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
 
IValueFreedom said:
Here's the statement that the ACLU made on this case:

What they won't tell you is that virtually all of their cases are left-wing cases. They throw in a couple of right-wing cases to make the claim they are impartial. It is wolf in sheep's clothing. Don't believe it for a second. They are a clear and present danger to our way of life. I believe in "robust free speech" too and therefore I am "robustly" condemning this organization under my "robust free speech rights."
 
Missouri Mule said:
...virtually all of their cases are left-wing cases.
What percentage are you describing with the phrase "virtually all?"
 
IValueFreedom said:
Here's the statement that the ACLU made on this case:


I just don't agree with that statement, not in the slightest. To suggest that this is a slippery slope argument, that this would seriously hurt the importance of, and or damage and endanger freedom of speech in this country, is just not believable. I guess in cases like these I wonder how common sense has eluded us, and why we can't see a problem when one so obviously exists, and then confront that problem. I guess at the end of the day, and as someone else mentioned, at least these people have put themselves in the spotlight, and we now know who they are, and hopefully where they are. I still don't agree with the ACLU, and I am sure they know, as I do, that this group could have hired their own defense, but they chose to represent them for nothing. Now they have more money in which to plan for their next attacks on our innocent youth, bravo ACLU, bravo.:roll:
 
Deegan said:
To suggest that this is a slippery slope argument, that this would seriously hurt the importance of, and or damage and endanger freedom of speech in this country, is just not believable.
Perhaps instead of a slippery slope argument, they're making a stare decisis argument.
 
galenrox said:
Right, THAT'S what the ACLU is around for. They just sit in a dank dark room and hatch plots to undermine our national security, that's EXACTLY what they do.

And I am beginging to think that you may be in there with them. You a memeber of the ACLU galen? Seems like your kind of organization. They seem to dispise this country also
 
I tell you what... i'll change my stance on letting muslims in the country on the other thread if we can get rid of the ACLU. I think they are a much larger threat to this country then any terorrist group not named the ACLU. Founded by communist to weaken this country. Seems like a nice group to hold up as a beacon....:shock:
 
IValueFreedom said:
Here's the statement that the ACLU made on this case:

Its noce to see the ACLU fighting for your right to rape a little boy. Course the little boys rights might be getting a little wrinkled but what the hell. As long as scum bags have more rights then decent people the ACLU has done it's job
 
Calm2Chaos said:
I tell you what... i'll change my stance on letting muslims in the country on the other thread if we can get rid of the ACLU. I think they are a much larger threat to this country then any terorrist group not named the ACLU. Founded by communist to weaken this country. Seems like a nice group to hold up as a beacon....:shock:

Yes. A group created to uphold the rights of our citizens is a HUGE threat to the country.:roll: In fact, making sure that people have their rights is more dangerous than terrorist groups. Sounds like some totalitarian country to me.
 
Kelzie said:
Yes. A group created to uphold the rights of our citizens is a HUGE threat to the country.:roll: In fact, making sure that people have their rights is more dangerous than terrorist groups. Sounds like some totalitarian country to me.

You would like a group that depends pedaphiles and terrorist. That was started by communist to undermine our country.. I can see you being a fan.
 
galenrox said:
Dude, do you really not see this as a first ammendment issue? I mean, christ, they were getting sued because of a crime that they didn't commit, and the connection is that one of the murderers read their website. Like I think you and I are on the same page as NAMBLA, but what if you had a website that promoted violent revolution, and someone read it, and went out and killed a bunch of people trying to start a revolution, do you believe that you should be held responsible, or should the guy who went out and killed them be held responsible? What about Marilyn Manson, the kids listened to his songs condoning violence before going into Columbine, was that Marilyn Manson's fault or the kids? What if someone had a website saying "Abortion is murder, and we are seeking to make it illegal", even though they're obviously a group that wants to block off abortion clinics, be it legal or not, and some dude checks the website and then goes and blows up an abortion clinic, killing everyone inside? Who's responsible, the group or the bomber?

If this line is drawn, which of these would fall under it?

The more I have researched it, the more I do see it as a 1st amendment issue. I just think they(NAMBLA) could have defended themselves by hiring their own attorney, not have a once trusted and respected org. like the ACLU do it for them for free. I mean they can afford a web site, and a hall in which to discuss little boys, why not let them hire their own defense? I only question the motives of those in the ACLU that thought this was important enough to warrent them stepping in, and defending these people for nothing. What are they trying to prove, that they can defend anyone, even the worst among us, or are they waving their power in our face, by defending the worst among us? I don't know the answers to those questions, but it makes one wonder, and I hope this does not come back to bite them. Not because I care about them, but because it may be another dead child that does that very thing.:(
 
Calm2Chaos said:
You would like a group that depends pedaphiles and terrorist. That was started by communist to undermine our country.. I can see you being a fan.

And you have drawn this conclusion because I think the 1st amendment is important? Not really sure I am following your logic. Or lack thereof...
 
Calm2Chaos said:
You would like a group that depends pedaphiles and terrorist. That was started by communist to undermine our country.. I can see you being a fan.
Let's keep the debate on topic and not attack other people.
 
Deegan said:
The more I have researched it, the more I do see it as a 1st amendment issue. I just think they(NAMBLA) could have defended themselves by hiring their own attorney, not have a once trusted and respected org. like the ACLU do it for them for free. I mean they can afford a web site, and a hall in which to discuss little boys, why not let them hire their own defense? I only question the motives of those in the ACLU that thought this was important enough to warrent them stepping in, and defending these people for nothing. What are they trying to prove, that they can defend anyone, even the worst among us, or are they waving their power in our face, by defending the worst among us? I don't know the answers to those questions, but it makes one wonder, and I hope this does not come back to bite them. Not because I care about them, but because it may be another dead child that does that very thing.:(

I think they are trying to show that the 1st amendment protects all of us. Even the people we don't agree with. Who knows, maybe someday you'll be the one people disagree with and the ACLU will defend your rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom