NAMBLA: How far can you stretch the first ammendment

[Starwind]

Now, for those of you not familiar with this group of perverted swine, let me introduce. The North American Man Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, is a group of grown men who believe they can help children as young as 3 years old come into there sexuality. Essentially it is a hide out group for pedophiles or would be pedophiles. And yet if you look for this group online and even in your own communites, you can find these people out there openly expressing these veiws that essential say that as soon as child can spit out a coherent sentence, their old enough to consent to sex. This is disgusting and completely reprehensible.

The main point I wanted to bring into focus here is "How far does the first ammendment extend?" These sickos publish everything from group information pamphlets to news letters and use the constitution as a shield essentially. I mean, if you read these damn pamphlets you'd see that this thing is pretty much the pedophiles how to guide. Going on about how you should hide your "Love" affair from everyone, to include your shrink. And, how to properly hide all their photos from their familes and police.

It's bad enough we have to extend this right to f***ing white supremesist groups, but do we really have to let these sickos just, essentially, train pedophiles.

And just to throw my two cents in, I think we should round up all these guys and just castrat them and turn it into the North American My Balls Lack Attachment Association. You wouldn't even have to change the letter head. I'm always thinking of the little guy, you know.

I know someone here has an opinion on this one. Come on people, let hear it.

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Starwind']And just to throw my two cents in, I think we should round up all these guys and just castrat them and turn it into the North American My Balls Lack Attachment Association. You wouldn't even have to change the letter head. [/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Yes they would. That second title adds an extra "A," making it NAMBLAA.

As for the topic...[/color]

[quote name='Founding Fathers']"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."[/quote]

[color=deeppink]That is the text of the First Amendment. There are restrictions, but all of thoses involve the infringment of other's rights: none of them would restrict NAMBLA's right to preach pedophillia.

Now, these pamphlets on how to commit crimes, on the other hand, are a different story, and I doubt they're protected.[/color]

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] It depends on how you interpret the Constitution. Personally, I think the First Amendment protects everything NAMBLA preaches and believes in, which comes out in the form of writing or whatever, but once anyone actually engages in the act of pedophilia, they have violated the law and are subject to conviction.[/font]

[Justin]

I can't understand how they're protected when the varying "anarchist cookbooks" out there are banned. Backwards damn politics.

-Justin

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I agree with Nerdsy: it's one thing to promote an idea that most people will find reprehensible, but it's another to actually work actively to help people get around the law.

I would highly doubt that the latter is protected by free speech provisions.[/font]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]To quote Ed McMahon “You are correct sir!”

The great thing about free speech is that one can retaliate to something they disapprove of with free speech. For example, it would be an easy thing to protest outside of a NAMBLA meeting.

Even better, one could locate all local members of a NAMBLA organization and print their names and beliefs in a flier, which you then distributed through said community. Because rational people find this stuff disgusting, communities would be quick to ostracize these sickos. [/color]

[XeEmO]

I in no way endorse the actions of pedophiles, but I doubt there would be a way to block their speech. It's as simple as they're evil, but I wouldn't ban the mention of them.

Censorship is always a step towards a fascist nation.

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='XeEmO']Censorship is always a step towards a fascist nation.[/QUOTE]

[color=crimson]Censorship is everywhere in Democratic countries. Do not be so naive.

Lunox is right. The law cannot be broken, but if they do not engage in pedophilia, then the law, as far as I know, is not being broken. Their spoken opinions are disagreeable, but still a component of free speech.[/color]

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]Ken is right, as long as they obey the law, then unfortunately as far as my understanding of American law goes, the First Amendment gives them the right to preach nearly anything they want. That said, as Nerdsy pointed out, I don't think that propaganda directed at how to circumvent the law is similarly protected.[/SIZE]

[XeEmO]

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]Censorship is everywhere in Democratic countries. Do not be so naive.[/color][/QUOTE]
To clarify;
All I'm trying to say is that free speech is important. If you start telling people they can't say something, you're essentially trying to control what they can say. Who's job will it be to decide if you're wrong?

[TheShinje]

And I thought that NAMBLA was just a sick South Park joke. When I heard they were for real, I couldn't believe it.

Groups like these make following my mantra of "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." hard, if not impossible. Surely there must be a way to shut dangerous groups like these down, with or without the confines of the law. :smirk:

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Well, when so much fuss is made about being able to say what one wants when one wants to, it [I]is[/I] rather hypocritical to try and keep others – like NAMBLA and Westboro Baptist – from jumping on the bandwagon.



What? I'm just being cynical.[/FONT]

[John]

What NAMBLA's doing is completely withing the limits of the first amendment. It's wrong, but it's not hurting anybody (I'm [I]only[/I] talking about the promotion of the organization there, not the actual activities it endorses or participates in, so don't try to nail me on that). Anyone who thinks they should be stopped from voicing their opinions just doesn't get how justice works.

[quote=Kam]I can't understand how they're protected when the varying "anarchist cookbooks" out there are banned. Backwards damn politics.

-Justin[/quote] Well, those are banned because they encourage (usually violent, if I'm not incorrect) overthrow of the government. So maybe they should be banned and maybe they shouldn't, but the fact that they are doesn't have too much to do with conventional free speech.

On that note, it's important to keep in mind that even by written law, American free speech isn't absolute. Hate speech, incitations to violence, and the release of information that is essential to national security (such as a newspaper printing the coordinates of an impending American air strike, or details of holes in a government computer system, or something) are all illegal.

[Korey]

[quote name='XeEmO']To clarify;
All I'm trying to say is that free speech is important. If you start telling people they can't say something, you're essentially trying to control what they can say. Who's job will it be to decide if you're wrong?[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I hate to break it to you, but there will be three speech restrictions all over the place. It's been pointed out in the "Clear and Present Danger" clause, like when you yell "FIRE!" in a theater or "BOMB" on an airplane (although Ben Stiller had no problem with it, because he's Ben F***ing Stiller). Those things are not protected under the first amendment.

I also hate to break it to you that the government has restricted free speech on many occasions. Ever wonder why there are only Bush supporters at his rallies? If so many people disapprove of him, then why are there only smiling faces at his functions? Because the Secret Service takes the protestors to free speech areas, where they aren't considered a threat to those attending the event. So the government will take away your Freedom of Speech in order to protect the public.

As far as NAMBLA goes, they are a sad group of individuals and it is my personal opinon that what they are doing is completely wrong and against all human standard. However, they aren't violating anyone's rights or committing illegal acts, they are merely suggesting them. Suggested acts are covered under free speech, in some cases. I believe they get protection here, because they are not committing the act they are portraying. I could say I'm gonna crash OB tomorrow, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna do it or that I should be arrested for it...because I didn't committ the crime. Only in situations of Clear and Present danger will your First Amendment rights be infringed upon.[/FONT]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Didn't want to pop in again so soon, but [COLOR="DarkRed"]John[/COLOR] reminded me of something rather relevant.

The legal precedent for the Freedom of the Press was established in 1925 by the Supreme Court in [I]Gitlow v. New York[/I]. The Plaintiff, Benjamin Gitlow, was appealing a conviction for attempting to inspire anarchy through distribution of anarchist pamphlets. His conviction was upheld, but there was also set a definition for exactly what the Freedom of the Press protected and what it did not.

I present excepts from the opinion of Justice Sanford:

[QUOTE][SIZE="1"]For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press—which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgement by Congress—are among the fundamental personal rights and "liberties" protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States....

It is a fundamental principal, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press ... does not confer the absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, [B]or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language[/B] and prevents the punishment of [B]those who abuse this freedom[/B]....[B]*[/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

(Bolding is mine.)

Earlier, Sanford noted the reason Gitlow's pamphlet's did not fall under the protected umbrella:
[QUOTE][SIZE="1"][The pamphlet] advocates and urges in fervent language mass action which shall progressively foment industrial disturbances and through political mass strikes and revolutionary mass action overthrow and destroy organized parliamentary government....*[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Basically, because Gitlow's material was an open attempt to incite mass uprising, instead of "...abstract doctrine ... [or] mere prediction that industrial disturbances and revolutionary mass strikes will result spontaneously...." (taken from the same court opinion), the State was allowed to censor and prohibit it without infringing on either the Freedom of Speech or that of the Press.

So until NAMBLA starts actively urging people to become pedophiles, they cannot be censored. They can print material on pedophile "theory" as much as they want. Doesn't mean I like it, just that the Law protects them as they now stand—as I understand the current situation, naturally.

[SIZE="1"]-------------

* Shafritz, Jay M., and Lee S. Weinberg. [U]Classics in American Government.[/U] 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson, 2006.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Starwind]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I agree with Nerdsy: it's one thing to promote an idea that most people will find reprehensible, but it's another to actually work actively to help people get around the law.

I would highly doubt that the latter is protected by free speech provisions.[/font][/QUOTE]

The truth is, techincally it is. As long as they don't actually tell people to go out and commit a crime, it is perfectly legal for them to tell someone how you can get away with one. As long as you don't actually tell someone to do it, your technically safe, which irritates me to no end.

[The Spectacular Professor]

Ugh, NAMBLA.

I'd like to form a coherent argument about how horrifically wrong these people are, but they sicken me to the extent that I'd probably end up making a fool out of myself from the raw, pulsating, nauseous anger running through my veins at the mention of such an organization. As such, I'll just say that I do not in any way condone the actions of pedophiles and find their self-justification arguments sickening and step down from this thread to enjoy Phoenix Wright and ignore child predators.

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Oh dear lord.

The first amendment is so nice. So sweet. And all of the demented honking about how censorship is EVIL and a paving stone on the road to FASCISM is hilarious. See, I like my porn. I like to watch it without wondering if what I'm doing is illegal.

Of course the laws that make pornography legal are stupid, but 'freedom of pleasure' was unfortunately not included in the Bill of Rights.

But seriously. What's to stop governments from censoring the public? The second amendment.

It's the reset button on the Constitution.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

And here I hadn't even been aware of this group. It's sad, but so long as they aren't actually doing what they preach then they have every right to express those beliefs. I don't see the law changing anytime soon to make having a relationship with a minor acceptable so they're just spitting out hot air really. I don't know anyone who would support making supposedly consensual relationships between and adult and a minor legal. And by consensual I mean their mistaken belief that a child is mature enough to actually consent.

If what I read is true they were established back in 1978 and yet no laws have been changed to accommodate their pathetic views. Personally I think they need to just get over it and go get a real relationship with an adult who can consent instead of focusing on the idea that children are mature enough to be in a sexual relationship.

[Starwind]

That's the scary part. Alot of these guys DO have families. They believe that they can help there children grow and adapt better by "helping" them experience their sexuality at a young age. What's worse is they think what they're doing is noble and a just cause. I'm all for public rights and everything, but the idea that these guys can spew their venom about like this makes me sick to my stomach.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Starwind;799718]That's the scary part. Alot of these guys DO have families. They believe that they can help there children grow and adapt better by "helping" them experience their sexuality at a young age.[/QUOTE]That doesn't change anything, if we start attempting to control others because our views differ, we're no better really. So long as they stay within the law, then they have that right.[quote name='Starwind'']What's worse is they think what they're doing is noble and a just cause. I'm all for public rights and everything, but the idea that these guys can spew their venom about like this makes me sick to my stomach.[/quote]Only in the eyes of others, and though I agree, as well as most of the USA since there are laws against relationships at such a young age. They are still doing the rest of us a favor by being so vocal. It makes it easy to spot them and I'm sure that law agencies keep a wary eye cast in their direction.

As much as I find the concept distasteful, until they are actually caught or are actually engaging in what they preach, I see no reason to get up in arms over it. If it bothers people so much then they need to keep an eye out for laws that would change things or better yet, educate their own children about how important it is to wait before becoming sexually active.

[Korey]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I'm worried that these guys prey on people online, especially since that stuff is commonplace nowadays. I'm worried that they would use their NAMBLA stuff to seduce these young guys who are vulnerable to their emotions and make them make a bad decision. But as Rach said, as long as they are staying within the confines of the law, they have every right to preach what they want. Consequence of living with our laws the way they are I'm afraid.[/FONT]

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="77656"]It's like the KKK. They are legally able to believe what they want, however they can't act out their beliefs or their in deep ****.

As for me, they are a bunch of sick bastards, so what if they have the right to believe what they want to believe? It's sick and these guys should be drivin into the gates of hell.[/COLOR]

[Korey]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="77656"]It's like the KKK. They are legally able to believe what they want, however they can't act out their beliefs or their in deep ****.

As for me, they are a bunch of sick bastards, so what if they have the right to believe what they want to believe? It's sick and these guys should be drivin into the gates of hell.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Yeah but the fact is, the KKK is pretty much a joke right now. No one except for a very select few acutally give two cents about what the KKK has to say anymore. Pedophilia is actually a bigger occurance now than prejudice, even though prejedice still exists today (sorry to you Bible Belters) in the South. But that's another thread in itself....maybe for later. [/FONT]