AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
spastic bullet wrote:
I could be wrong, but is that really the ACLU position -- that NAMBLA should "have a right to a relationship with a young adolescent"? I'm skeptical
I don't know you tell me.
Here is a snippet
The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.
As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic … E_ID=18029
Well, despite considerable doubts as to the seriousness and reliability of the
source cited, I went ahead and read that article anyway. And it turns out I was right -- the ACLU's position is
not the same as NAMBLA's. Read it for yourself and see.
AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas."
HAHA maybe they are being
sued because the two members KILLED a boy.
No,
that would have been the focus of the $328 million dollar wrongful death case against the killers which, unless you have evidence to the contrary, the ACLU seem to have had no qualms about, and rightly so.
The problem with the follow-up class action suit against NAMBLA, from the ACLU perspective, would be the precedent it would set for
everybody else. Or maybe you think it's cool if the NRA gets sued every time one of its members kills somebody? Thought not.
There's no need to protect the kind of free speech most people already agree with -- like I said, the likes of NAMBLA are canaries in the mine shaft. If the constitution protects their (vile) free speech (that nobody in their right mind would agree with), it most likely will protect anybody's. As soon as we start bending our own rules, it's a slippery slope.
