Quote:
Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I think the NAMBLA argument is silly. The government restricts rights by starting with the most despicable people (the Klan, NAMBLA, child molestors, drug abusers, terrorists), then moves on from there. For example, property confiscation laws once meant for drug dealers are now abused for profit. The PATRIOT acts provisions, once meant for terrorists only, are being used for non-terrorism purposes.
So, I find the NAMBLA argument unconvincing. I don't want to re-hash that whole ACLU thread.
Peetster, you might want to check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
http://www.eff.org/
Although they are, obviously, a technical group, they have a more "pure" agenda of defending freedom and personal rights than a lot of groups out there.
|
Thats right, someone must defend the right of a full grown man to rape a child
Again, do any of you feel that Nambla needs to be defended? If I started an organisation dedicated to raping women would you defend my right for this? Would the ACLU?
How about my right to say Rape Muslims? Explain to me how NOT defending these organisations leads to a slippery slope of normal rights being eroded?