Tweet
No offense to anyone that is a part of the ACLU, but I honestly can not stand them. I have heard they are NAMBLA supporters. For those that don't know, NAMBLA is an organization that stands for North American Man Boy Love Association. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif[/img] This group NAMBLA advocates and tells about how one can have sex with a young child and get away with it. It's a pedophile group. Pedophilia has done so much damage to families and children. I am all for freedom of speech, but this is just ridiculous and wrong. Children are pecious, and I don't see why the ACLU feels the need to support and organization that damages children.
-
-
No offense to anyone that is a part of the ACLU, but I honestly can not stand them. I have heard they are NAMBLA supporters. For those that don't know, NAMBLA is an organization that stands for North American Man Boy Love Association. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif[/img] This group NAMBLA advocates and tells about how one can have sex with a young child and get away with it. It's a pedophile group. Pedophilia has done so much damage to families and children. I am all for freedom of speech, but this is just ridiculous and wrong. Children are pecious, and I don't see why the ACLU feels the need to support and organization that damages children. -
The ACLU does not support pedophilia and they don't support NAMBLA. They have one purpose and that is to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Harmful gossip like that hurts them and their causes. They have helped nudists and the topfree movement when it involved threats to the Constitution.
This involves all threats to the Constitution and sometimes keeping our rights includes going to court on issues that may involve groups that are not thought of in a positive way by the general public. However, just because certain Constitutional preservation attempts might include those groups does not in any way mean they support what those groups do.
I Googled ACLU and NAMBLA (something you should have done before posting) and this is what I found.
"BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union will represent a group that advocates sex between men and boys in a lawsuit brought by the family of a slain 10-year-old.
The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge said the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its website which is now offline incited the attempted molestation and murder of the boy on Oct. 1, 1997.
One of two men convicted in the killing, Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group's website shortly before the killing, and also had in his possession some of NAMBLA's publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari.
The ACLU said the case, filed in federal court in mid-May, involves issues of freedom of speech and association.
"For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever." "
So you see, NAMBLA was involved but it was a case involving the First Amendment. That does not mean anyone at the ACLU supports NAMBLA and pedophiles.
ACLU and NAMBLAComment
-
I agree with Cyndiann about the true purpose of the ACLU. That said, their choice of cases often baffles me. Just as certain individuals are too enamoured of the written word in their chosen holy book, so too, the ACLU is often too narrow in their view of the written word of the Constitution. As a counterweight to narrowminded groups seeking through means both fair and foul to impose their views of an ideal society on us, the ACLU is invaluable. They do, however, need to think just as hard about the groups or persons involved as they do about the legal precedents that are at stake.
'tis a pity that it takes two groups at polarizingly opposite extremes to mobilize those in the center to create compromise in this wierd society of ours.
Doug H.Comment
-
I've found that each ACLU office has their own "specialty" according to whom runs it in the area. There is one in south Florida for instance where nudists hold the major offices and they tend to handle a lot of nudist cases.
So, if you want to affect what kind of cases they take on, get involved! It's only $25 a year to join.Comment
-
I'm a firm supporter of the ACLU. Do they at times defend some groups I find offensive? Yes. But whether I, or anyone else, finds the views of a certain group offensive is irrelevant. Free speech, even repugnant speech, is vital to a free society.
Cyndiann, I didn't know about the south Florida office. Thanks!
I think that the ACLU in many ways embodies the words of Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."Comment
-
Even though the ACLU supports the free speech side of NAMBLA, that in itself, is an indirect way of saying "I support your ideas". When an organization supports free speech on "pedophile issues" and "child molestations", then they are in turn supporting the goals set forth by the organization, and that is, to get the word out. Not to get into a political debate, but a group who supports these agendas through the smoke and mirror tactic of using the free speech clause, is in itself, furthering the agendas set forth by that particular organization.
Sure, the ACLU has done some things right, but overall, I am not a supporter of them or their agendas. The ACLU has constantly stood in the way of progress, while trying to further their goals, and that is to make the trial lawyers rich by re-writting the constitution. Card carrying members of the ACLU are also the largest contingent of liberals in any one organization, outside of the trial lawyers, many of which are liberal democrats.
In any case, I do not support the ACLU on this free speech subject concerning the NAMBLA organization. To me, free speech does not give an individual, or an organization, the right to promote hatred and molestations, as this is perceived to be. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif[/img]Comment
-
quote:
Nope, it isn't. Just saying so doesn't make it so.[qb]
Originally posted by nudeM:
[qb] Even though the ACLU supports the free speech side of NAMBLA, that in itself, is an indirect way of saying "I support your ideas".
[/qb]quote:
The ACLU does a lot on such a small budget. They definitely don't get rich because most times they take up causes already in the courts, causes they support without getting paid for defending whomever the case is about. How is that getting rich?
The ACLU has constantly stood in the way of progress, while trying to further their goals, and that is to make the trial lawyers rich by re-writting the constitution. [/qb]
The ACLU has also never been interested in rewriting the Constitution. Their entire purpose is to preserve it (just the opposite). Their objective is to keep others from misusing it and changing it.
If not for the ACLU we would not have equal rights for women, minorities, gays. They are the ones looking out for the little guy, that he doesn't get trampled. They have had a huge hand in the topfree movement in this country. They have defended nudists. Is this standing in the way of progress or causing it to happen?
Could you tell me where you got these ideas you've posted here? And Tenchi too.... it seems some want to twist facts to make the ACLU into something they are not.
Here are some quotes right from their website.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.
I'm still waiting for anyone to say anything negative about the ACLU that is factual......Comment
-
I recall in junior high school science class someone passing around, to nervous giggles, the newsletter of the "National Socialist White People's Party".
An offensive document, I'm sure you'll agree, but a revelation to a student who had had eight years of public education in which printed matter was presented as truth, when much of it was bilge.
It took a while for it to sink in that something that was really printed was clearly false, and that whoever wrote it knew he was writing lies.
Since then I've been a fan of letting fools divulge their foolishness. It's easier to recognize in its pure form.
Nearly every attack on free speech on the Internet uses "child pornography" as the justification. Even 9/11 hasn't changed the tune.
Nearly all child pornography distributed in the US is distributed by law enforcement in sting operations. Virtually none is produced domestically.
As to the imported stuff, well yes some children have nasty pictures taken of them. Perhaps a thousand times that number die of AIDS because the American government feels strongly that pharmaceuitical companies must receive royalties for AIDS drugs.
Which is the graver problem?
The ACLU doesn't defend child abuse; it defends free speech. The opponents of free speech, or of any other liberty, always start by attacking those whose are unpopular.
The invasive powers granted by the Patriot Act are already being used for investigations other than terrorism, an illustration of how quickly goverment acts when the safeguards of liberty are lowered.
Thus the importance of defence of freedom of speech whenever and wherever that liberty is attacked: even if those being attacked hold the most unpopular of views.Comment
-
Cyndiann,
I hope you dont take this as a personal attack because it is not meant to be such....However some of the statements that you have made I have noticed that you try to come off as having knowledge off. In the post about marriage counseling you gave your personal view as fact. In circumsition you did the same thing. Are you married? Are you circumsized? Now for the most part your OPINIONS have been harmless so it was no big deal, we all have them and in some cases we go to great lenghts to stand by them and even sway others. BUT I dont care what any of you say on this subject NudeM is correct. The ACLU was way out of line on this. It was in no way a matter of free speech. That case happened in my state AND less than a hundred miles from here. TO support NAMBLA or any other group that supports child abuse is lining yourself up with them. As is often the case ppl have only read what they want to hear about the case. WHY dont you read about the little boy who they(there were 2 MALES) raped and beat and stuck in drum that they then filled with cement so it would sink. So no one would find the body. IF they believe that sex with a child is so right why didnt they admit it. OR the fact that they had sex with the boy after he was dead as well as when he was alive. Or the fact that they stalked the boy for days before hand and he was picked because one of them had a crush on him (they admitted that in court).
YES the aclu was WRONG to get involved in this case. They could pick thousands of nudist cases and that still wouldnt change the fact that they tried to help get these two individuals off on these charges.
And you can all tell me how wrong i am and even remove this post but that wont change the facts. THis kid was a little boy going about, doing what little boys do and he was murdered because of some sick twisted freaks who no matter what they get it will NEVER be enough.
WE have enough ppl who think that we as nudists are off our rockers we dont need them thinking that we are aligned with a group that helps a group that advocated what nambla does.
Just my 2 cents...
steveComment
-
Steven, to suggest a person can't have an opinion(well reasoned or not) because she doesn't have first hand credentials (is she married? is she circumcized? is she the first amendment?) is just about as close to a personal attack as you can get...
I've said before on these boards that the ACLU isn't doing its job if it doesn't regularly piss me off. But let's be very clear about what they are doing. The ACLU does not support, advocate or promote unpopular groups like NAMBLA or the KKK. They support and defend the First Amemndment and Civil Rights, period.
Many people find it acceptable to violate the Bill of Rights when it comes to groups we dislike. The ACLU sees this as as the camel's nose under the tent. Once we accept stripping freedom from the unpopular, we are all lost.
Don't forget that our present administration has adopted a policy of sacrificing 'some freedoms' to fight terrorism. It isn't just the rights of dispicable outcasts (like nudists?) at risk.
-MarkComment
-
quote:
I provided so many links to factual evidence in the circ thread I can't even believe you can attempt to say it was all my opinion. Not only studies but opinions given by national medical associations were posted. Obviously not just my opinions then huh? The marriage counseling thread you speak of I don't remember, you'd have to reference that for me. That aside, I always back up statements with facts whenever possible. I didn't see much of that on the other side of the circ thread, mostly because it isn't possible.[qb]
Originally posted by stevenf64:
[qb] Cyndiann,
I hope you dont take this as a personal attack because it is not meant to be such....However some of the statements that you have made I have noticed that you try to come off as having knowledge off. In the post about marriage counseling you gave your personal view as fact. In circumsition you did the same thing. Are you married? Are you circumsized? Now for the most part your OPINIONS have been harmless so it was no big deal, we all have them and in some cases we go to great lenghts to stand by them and even sway others.[/qb]quote:
Tell me how it wasn't. In this country all free speech is protected, even that from groups you don't like. You can always move to the UK where groups like NAMBLA don't have free speech. The Constitution says
BUT I dont care what any of you say on this subject NudeM is correct. The ACLU was way out of line on this. It was in no way a matter of free speech.[/qb]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And what they meant by that was all free speech, even that you may not like. Take up with the government if you have a problem with that. If we blocked speech that some people didn't like who would get to decide what speech was "good" and what was "bad"? You?
[qb]quote:
So since our government supports their rights to free speech that means our government supports NAMBLA if we use your thought process. Do you also think that?[qb]
That case happened in my state AND less than a hundred miles from here. TO support NAMBLA or any other group that supports child abuse is lining yourself up with them.[/qb]quote:
You didn't provide links to any documents backing up what you just stated so I can't say if they tried to get those two off on any charges at all. The ACLU doesn't normally get involved with murder charges, they stick with rights issues. I'd answer your points if you'd provide references. You even ask me to read about it... where?[qb]
As is often the case ppl have only read what they want to hear about the case. WHY dont you read about the little boy who they(there were 2 MALES) raped and beat and stuck in drum that they then filled with cement so it would sink. So no one would find the body. IF they believe that sex with a child is so right why didnt they admit it. OR the fact that they had sex with the boy after he was dead as well as when he was alive. Or the fact that they stalked the boy for days before hand and he was picked because one of them had a crush on him (they admitted that in court).
YES the aclu was WRONG to get involved in this case. They could pick thousands of nudist cases and that still wouldnt change the fact that they tried to help get these two individuals off on these charges. [/qb]quote:
How do I know they are facts when I don't know a thing about the case and you didn't give me a clue?[qb]
And you can all tell me how wrong i am and even remove this post but that wont change the facts. THis kid was a little boy going about, doing what little boys do and he was murdered because of some sick twisted freaks who no matter what they get it will NEVER be enough. [/qb]quote:
I'm sorry you don't understand the purpose of the ALCU. I obviously can't force you to read about them and I can't force you to understand how our Bill of Rights was set up and why it was done that way. If you don't understand the ACLU then you don't understand the principles this country was built on because the ACLU mirrors those principles. All I can do is be sure of my own views on this because I really did my homework.
WE have enough ppl who think that we as nudists are off our rockers we dont need them thinking that we are aligned with a group that helps a group that advocated what nambla does.
Just my 2 cents...
steve [/qb]Comment
-
I feel that weighing what was done to the boy against the two NAMBLA guys rights that did this evil thing against the boy, they should not get off. I am not against what the ACLU stands for. I support them but that does not mean that I believe in every choice they make. If these guys get off because their Free Speech rights were abused, what message do you think it will send, not only to these two men, to other paedophilles?
I strongly feel that every case should be judged individually. When it is so obious that someone is guilty of a crime, IMHO they must be accountable and punished. I am not saying that peoples rights should be ignored but in a case like this, the judge must weigh both sides fairly. I believe it would be a great injustice, not only to the boy and his family but to our nation and the world as a whole, to allow these two guys freedom.Comment
-
quote:
Your teacher must be so proud! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
Originally posted by cyndiann:
I provided so many links to factual evidence in the circ thread I can't even believe you can attempt to say it was all my opinion. Not only studies but opinions given by national medical associations were posted. Obviously not just my opinions then huh? That aside, I always back up statements with facts whenever possible. I didn't see much of that on the other side of the circ thread, mostly because it isn't possible.[qb]quote:
You didn't provide links to any documents backing up what you just.... I'd answer your points if you'd provide references. You even ask me to read about it... where?[qb]
cyndiann do you always believe everything you read from so called experts? Much of what is printed as scientific evidence and studies is merely a spin on what they want you to believe.
I stopped believing everything that was written when back in the 70's a medical study stated that breast feeding caused cancer. Gee, do you think that study was funded by a formula company?
(I have read your post on the circ. thread, and again some of the points are just opinions... IMHO.)
[/qb]quote:
How do I know they are facts when I don't know a thing about the case and you didn't give me a clue?[qb]
Not everyone has time for references.
[/qb]quote:
I obviously can't force you to read about them All I can do is be sure of my own views on this because I really did my homework. [/QB]
Here's a clue for you: how do you know anything you read is fact?
[/qb]Comment
-
Stevenf64,
First,
Somehow this has become the let's all dog pile on cyndiann topic, which isn't OK in my opinion.
quote:
So should all of us men not make any statements about, let's say, topfreedom because we don't have breasts?
However some of the statements that you have made I have noticed that you try to come off as having knowledge off. In the post about marriage counseling you gave your personal view as fact. In circumsition you did the same thing. Are you married? Are you circumsized?
quote:
While I can't speak for cyndiann I think it did cross the line and felt to me as a personal attack. Especially when you went on to say her previous "opinions" (which you put in all caps) was harmless. Not cool, buckaroo.
I hope you dont take this as a personal attack because it is not meant to be such....
quote:
Also not cool.
Your teacher must be so proud!
The issue isn't what evil sick acts these guys did. And the ACLU isn't defending the scum that murdered that child. (I really have to censor myself here. It just makes me sick at my stomach thinking about what they did.)The issue here is whether the NAMBLA web site has a right to exist and should the ACLU defend that right. I find the views of NAMBLA just as perverted as those of the American Nazi's. But that being said both groups have the right to post their views on the Internet. And that is what the ACLU is defending.
To censor speech is to censor thought and that?s the slippery slope to Big Brother.
NuTexComment
Comment