HarmlessRabbit

This discussion started in another thread, just thought I would break it out since it seemed like an interesting discussion.

The facts:

NAMBLA, http://www.nambla1.de/ , is the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Their position is laid out here http://www.nambla1.de/welcome.htm - here's a summary:

The contrary view to NAMBLA is that they are just a front group for a bunch of pedophiles, who hide their illegal desires in a wrapping of constitutional freedom and legal mumbo-jumbo.


My opinion:

I think NAMBLA needs to be defended, even though I think they are disgusting people and that they are really just a bunch of old crusty pedophiles looking for a good time.

A typical government tactic is to take the extreme cases and use those to place restrictions on everyone. For example, the PATRIOT act purported to help in the fight against terrorist, but there have been abuses and extensions of power that apply to non-terrorism uses as well:

http://abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_...st09-17-03.htm

In the same way, there have been attempts to use the RICO anti-racketeering law to cover anti-abortion groups http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_rico.htm

Although I don't support the actions of the anti-abortion groups, the extension of a law meant to prosecute organized crime to anti-abortion groups is a perfect example of how well-meaning laws get out-of-control.

So, the issue I see is that NAMBLA *is* a legal group, as far as I know. They are careful to toe the line and not actually advocate illegal activity. If laws were passed to regulate them, those same laws could be used to prosecute marijuana groups, for example, such as High Times magazine. After that, it becomes a slippery slope where anyone advocating anything that could be construed in any way as illegal could be shut down. I don't think it is conspiracy theory to see something like this as a possibility, look at Patriot and then Patriot II.

So, while I detest NAMBLA and everything they stand for, I believe they have a right to exist as long as they stay within the law. I think the real test of your belief in freedom of speech is how you feel about the people you dislike speaking out freely.

eple

Thank you for the good research HR, I think this is an interesting topic. There are many controversial groups out there, but there are few I dislike more than NAMBLA. Still, they should be allowed as long as they don't break any laws. Free speech is important. The fact that the US can harbour a generally hated group like NAMBLA, is a sign of a healthy democracy (though I wouldn't say it is a sign of a healthy society :/).

In Norway, we have a lawyer who takes on all the most controversial causes. We are a small country, so the most disturnig cases are always national news, and few lawyers will be aviable to defend the hated suspects. He has defended paedophile murderes, satanists, mass murderers etc., and is hated by many for his effort to prove these bastards innocent. Yet, he enjoys a lot of respect from many people, for his will to stand up for those most hated of individuals or groups. If we lost these people and laws protecting these most hated of groups and persons, it would be a great setback for democracy.

seretogis

Well, defending their right of free speech and association is fine and good, but it is an entirely different issue to defend their actions and ideals. NAMBLA, like the KKK, are groups which are harmful to society, but are good examples of just how our system works to protect the rights of everyone -- regardless of how twisted or sick their views may be.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Ustwo

People are always worried about this 'slippery slope' and use that as an excuse to defend the most reprehensible of activities. Laws can be written very specifically or generally. A very simple 'The advocating of sexual activity between a minor and adult is illegal' would cover this and yet leave "High Times" free and clear. If anything the 'slippery slope' has gone in the other direction, and more and more formerly illegal activities have become legal. Sooner or later, perhaps it is good to draw the line, and pedophile might be a good place to draw said line.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

BoCo

No, NAMBLA should not exsist.

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

HarmlessRabbit

Actually, it's more complex than that. As I understand it, NAMBLA advocates that the laws regarding sex with minors are wrong and should be changed. They, technically, don't advocate any directly illegal activity.

The link I put up about RICO laws being used against anti-abortion groups is probably the biggest example I can show of a well-meaning law being abused. Ultimately, the supreme court did the right thing and shot down the overextension of the law, so perhaps it isn't a perfect example.

Aesik

NAMBLA should not exist in my opinion. Its real name should be "Pedophile old men who EXPLOIT young boys". To me it's not a matter of protection free speech, it's a matter of protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

Mojo_PeiPei

I agree with Boco, absolutley not. It is a group for pervereted pedophiles who do horrible things. Enter the ACLU in the context of this thread. The whole Dennis Miller thing is that the ACLU is defending two members of NAMBLA who kidnapped, raped, and murdered a boy. They found NAMBLA propaganda on the two suspects. The ACLU is defending the two men and NAMBLA on behalf of their 1st amendment right which is a bunch of crap. Furthermore I don't care if my stance is unconstitutional, not everything should be allowed forum/protection.

*P.S. You guys should d/l the south park episode where Cartman joins NAMBLA, it's hilarious.*

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

HarmlessRabbit

I respect your position, but given the constitution how would you restrict NAMBLA from existing? As far as I know, no laws exist anywhere in the USA that ban a specific group from existing. It's a tricky problem.

For example, Dylan and Klebold were known to be big fans of the german industrial band KMFDM. Since they killed a bunch of people, should we outlaw KMFDM? I think the killers in your example should have their balls cut off, but using the actions of an individual to bring charges against a whole group is a really slippery slope.

Quote:

*P.S. You guys should d/l the south park episode where Cartman joins NAMBLA, it's hilarious.*

OMG, I almost forgot about that one. Yes, that's one of the best south parks ever.

smooth

This kind of wording could ruin our porn industry. No more Barely Legal or any other derivative.

I understand that groups like NAMBLA offend the senses of some of the people in our society but there is no question in my mind that our popular culture advocates the sexuality of our nation's youth as well as profits from it.

I think our age of consent laws are nonsensical and the variability of them from state to state is an indication to me that there is no real boundary to be upheld other than the one a particular region's political party in control created. Surprise--the commonality between each state's (and federal) laws has been that the political parties with the most power have been comprised of white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants (historically they have been male and heterosexual).

I heard an author speak about her book at the LA Book Fair and she wrote about the European system regarding age of sexual consent laws that seemed quite fair, non-exploitative, and widely agreed upon. I can't remember her book but I do remeber her catching a certain amount of flak from some political and news pundits from some cable news stations.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

BigGov

I guess NAMBLA should be allowed to exist. Though, there should be a law that makes it legal to run over a NAMBLA member with a motor vehicle.

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

Food Eater Lad

Should NAMBLA be out lawed? Not as an organisation. Sure we can create any organisation we want. But to activly donate money and time to defend an organisation thats sole goal is to make it legal to have sex with children as low as 5 years old? Man, you must have something better to do with your time and money. ANd the ACLU should too.

There is no slipperly slope to defend here. We are talking about rape, and last I heard, rape was a unversal abomination.

So, I say, let them organise a group. But let them defend themselves. The ACLU must have something WORTHWHILE on their dockets than defending pediphiles.

james t kirk

EXACTLY

Nambla should NOT exist, nor should the KKK.

Laws could be written specifically outlawing these organisations.

Kids should have a chance to be kids and not sex toys for old men.

Sledge

Specifically these?

Who decides which organizations stay and which go? Besides you, I mean. We all have our personal opinions about which organizations we want wiped off the face of the earth, but law is fickle and will bite you in the ass if you don't treat it just so.

captain

I have a problem outlawing specific organizations because who decides? NAMBLA should not exist because I think it is a fraud--just a cover for pedofiles(Ihave no proof whatsoever just an opinion).

__________________
captain

Kurant

It's plain fucking disgusting. Anyone who can't see that has a serious problem, and you should have your head checked.

Nothing which promotes anything as disgusting as this should be allowed, anyone willing to defend it is just as disgusting as anyone involved in it.

eple

So we're all paedophiles now? Nice rethoric there Kurant.

Sledge

Yeah. I think you changed my mind.

filtherton

The problem here is that under the constitution nambla and the klan are protected. You can't blame the aclu for that. Write your congressperson. If you really want to shut down organizations that you don't agree with than do something about it. Don't just sit here and blame the aclu for doing what the aclu is supposed to do.

This isn't about nambla or the klan being "evil" organizations, this is about whether the constitution should apply to everyone behaving in a legal manner, across the board, regardless of whether society agrees with their goals.
I know many on the tfp are avid right to bear arms folks. How can you support the second amendment right to bear arms and not support nambla's right to free expression of their ideas? Surely the right to bear arms could be legislated away quite easily in many states. The message is that the constitution is the gospel when it comes to me and my guns, but when it comes to protecting the free speech of those who appall me the constitution is meaningless. You can't have it both ways.

The argument, "But, THEY"RE PEDOPHILES!!" isn't relevant, this is a constitutional issue and the constitution doesn't care about their cause as long as they are acting legally.

Mojo_PeiPei

I think the whole notion that they are pedophiles is relevant. The organisation might not violate any laws, but its members are a different story. Like FEL said any group that is trying to justify homosexual VIOLATION of MINORS should not be allowed.

Furthermore thanks to "Liberal Progression" I wouldn't be surprised that if in the future pedistry (I believe it is called) is legal. *Note that is not a political flame of liberals, just my opinion of the ultra-radical type that would seriously back something as deplorable as this*

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

eple

I think more people here have to realize the difference from allowing people to express themselves and allowing them to harm others. I want to let these people speak their mind, but as soon as they harm others, they get punished respectively.

Liquor Dealer

"The problem here is that under the constitution nambla and the klan are protected. You can't blame the aclu for that."

I think you'd really have to stretch the imagination of some judges to get this opinion. The Constituion protects the "Freedoms" - what those are have absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution but with whatever the Supreme Courts chooses to interpret them as today - subject to change tomorrow. The ACLU has chosen to push issues that go even beyond extreme liberalism and so long as their are courts willing to rule in their favor they will keep expanding the envelope. Somewhere in the past - perhaps at the time the Supreme Court gave themselves the sole right to interpret the Constitution - and that's how they got it - they gave it to themselves, common sense began tro go out the window. We are rapidly trasmorming ourselves into a society that stands for nothing - and you have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

eple

That is an interesting point. If the ACLU are allowed to defend the free speech of NAMBLA, they will keep on defending until they expand to more extreme groups, kind of turning the "slippery slope" effect the pother way around.

However, I guess the ACLU can't really be accused of fighting NAMBLA's cause, they simply defend their right to express themselves. Which groups exists that do not offend any laws but are still denied free speech (not just a rethorical question, I am curious)? Are there groups too extreme to be given free speech ewxistiting today?

filtherton

You're right, i probably should have said, "By the current standards of interpretation the klan and nambla are protected". Still not the fault of the aclu.

Neo nazi movements advocate the destruction of entire races, and i think your average neonazi is as likely to commit a hate crime as a nambla member is to molest children- that is the point of their respective organizations. Kill or otherwise eliminate nonwhites, molest children.
The message is irrelevant because free speech should be applied to everybody, regardless of the message. Since some people have a hard time seeing the difference between homosexuality and bestiality and incest, who is to say that we shouldn't also put PFLAG in the same catergory as nambla. Who decides what is unacceptable?
It is interesting to note your use of the adjective "homosexual". I know you probably weren't trying to imply that heterosexual violation of minors is acceptable, so why the modifier?

WhoaitsZ

i think members of nambla should be lined up and shot.

mml

I think that it is pretty clear that most of us do not care for what NAMBLA believes in. I would imagine that most of us are in fact disgusted by these individuals - I know I am. The question remains, do they have a right to exist as an organizaiton? The answer is clearly yes. The issue is if this organization actively pursues or assists in the committing of crimes. If the organization sponsors or assists in crimes, then they can and should be held accountable and prossecuted. If they are only speaking out and lobbying for their beliefs (however unpleasant you or I may find them) they have every right to do so.

A better solution is to shine a very bright light on this organization. Every attempt should be made to "out" the members and make it very uncomfortable for them to live their daily lives. Let's handle these types of issues ourselves, rather than giving up more of our rights and freedoms.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

Mojo_PeiPei

I used homosexual because thats what they are, a group of homosexual wannabe childmolesters.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Sledge

I'll up the ante and take the risky position of asserting that NO violation of minors should be allowed.

I think the real issue that some of you guys are touching on is whether or not freedom of speech should be removed for certain groups. Seretogis said it better than I did earlier in the thread: defending freedom of speech and defending the principles of a group are different things. No one in this thread seems to be a big fan of NAMBLA, but I do think that the necessity of protecting the First Amendment comes first.

seretogis

I would be careful to avoid misusing the term "homosexual" in this case -- homosexuality and pedophilia are not at all related. Older men who like to touch boys do not like to touch other older men -- to me, that seems to disqualify them as a homosexual.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Moskie

I'll throw my two cents in here.

For the most part, I'm a big advocate for abholishing laws that act against "victimless crimes". Drug use, any type of sex between consenting adults, etc etc. The mere forming of groups like the KKK and NAMBLA create no victims. No one is getting hurt by the sole fact that they exist. Therefore, I see no problem with them existing. As soon as individual members of these groups (or even the groups as a whole) commit crimes, then those individual members/groups should be dealt with. The act of discussing something illegal and the act of doing something illegal should be kept seperate. These loonies can sit around all day jerking off around each other, talking about how they wanna bang a four year old as much as they damn well please. As soon as they lay a hand on a kid, *that's* when action should be taken. People should be punished for crimes they commit, not ones they think.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

eple

I think you summed it up well Moskie. Arresting people for thought-crime is luckily still not common.

Mojo_PeiPei

Taken from http://www.nambla1.de/
....

Or what about this gem where a person on the website tries to argue that Harry Potter is Gay....

http://www.nambla1.de/potter.htm

Tell me these guys aren't homos.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

eple

What does that have to do with it? Did you just mention that to defend your earlier statement, or are you insinuating a gay/paedophile link? Do you mean that gays are likely to be paedopile, or that paedophiles are likely to be gay? The phrasing is quite important.

Mojo_PeiPei

I'm saying people in NAMBLA are likely to be gay pedophiles.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Moskie

Is that report-to-a-moderator-able?

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

Mojo_PeiPei

I don't see how it would be offense, they certainly are hetero's. I'd say you had a case if I called them fags or something offensive like.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Moskie

In a discussion about whether NAMBLA should exist, you try to prove they're homosexual. That says to me that you believe whether they are homosexual is relevant in determining whether they should be allowed to exist. You weren't very clear, but I sense your tone to be degrading, which says to me you are trying to argue that since they are "homos", they should not exist.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

Liquor Dealer

That's the way I see it too - If you don't just come right out and call them fags it's probably all right. Now if you were to come right out and call them fags some might take offense to it so don't call them fags.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

seretogis

Mojo, consider the source. NAMBLA wants to appear to be mainstream by associating itself with homosexuals who are not sick baby-fondlers. It is simply not true that mainstream homosexuality and pedophilia are related by any means.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Nad Adam

They actualy exist, damn I thought they where made up by the creators of South Park. This is a twisted world, my heart says that these people should be fed to the sharks but in the intrest of justice they should be allowed to exist as long as they don't actualy break any laws.

__________________
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9