ACLU brings suit for NAMBLA

[Viva_La_Revolution]

well, way back in 2000 they did

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/08/nambla.suit.crim/

We had a discussion about the ACLU at work today.

question posed to me "What do you thing about the ACLU defending people like NAMBLA?"

"Well, I think those people are sick perverts, but the ACLU is there to defend people's rights, and they've done a lot of good work. So even if they defend people like Limbaugh, I support them in general."

"but they're defending the free speech rights of these sickos..."

"For every one of these kinds of cases they take, I can site you 100 cases of good people whose rights have really been trampled on. And Lawyers defend guilty people all the time, how is this different?"

"but people shouldn't be allowed to push those ideas..."

"Then they will go in front of a judge and make their case. My opinion is that they will lose, but they do have the right to try to defend themselves, just like everybody does."


Then the conversation got sidetracked.


I can't find anything on Google that says the case has been decided. Does anything know anything about this case specifically, or have a good arguement I can use to defend the ALCU next time it comes up?

[Xipe Totec]

1. Man for All Seasons - Robert Bolt

Margaret: “Father, the man is bad.”

More: “There’s no law against that.”

Roper: “There is a law against it. God’s law.”

More: “Then God can arrest him.”

Roper: “Sophistication upon sophistication!”

More: “No. Sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what’s legal, but I don't always know what’s right. And I'm sticking with what’s legal.

Roper: “Then you set man’s law against God’s?”

More: “No. Far below. But let me draw your attention to a fact. I am not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, there I am a forester. I doubt if there’s a man alive who could follow me there, thank God.”

Alice: “While you talk, he is gone.”

More: “And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law.”

Roper: “So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law!”

More: “Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get to the Devil?”

Roper: “I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat. This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man’s laws, not God’s -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.”

[karlrschneider]

3. The DU lynch mob needs to read that.

...

[TahitiNut]

16. gmta

:thumbsup: As I said days ago, I'd give Satan himself the presumption of innocence.

[madmusic]

4. Excellent.

The Devil = ____________________.

Most everyone has someone in mind to fill in the blank. For BushCo, for now, it's the terrorists.

[mcscajun]

5. One of my very favorite exchanges in film ever.

Bolt was one helluva writer.

"I'd give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake."

[madmusic]

8. Tough case.

First I've heard of it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/08/nambla.suit.crim/

The murderer could say most anything else a no one would believe him, but when it offers a target it must be true.

Terrible case, but life for those who did it is not enough.

[TahitiNut]

15. One of the better dialogs on Law in the movies..

I stand with Sir Thomas More ... I can find no better place to stand. Not in this life.

[eyesroll]

2. I looked up Curley v. NAMBLA on Westlaw

It appears that it's still going on...the last thing I could find about it was from 2003, when the defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them. It appears to have been dismissed in part, but allowed in part...and then, nothing about the parts that were allowed.

[madmusic]

6. ACLU Statement

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

[eyesroll]

7. Oh, and as for ACLU's involvement:

And, on edit: ACLU's involvement was basically because they say it's a violation of the 1st Amendment to hold an organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read the materials, even if those materials are horrible.

We learned about actual and proximate cause in crim law this week. The example the prof gave was: Let's say the administration denied the prof a raise, so he got a shotgun and killed the dean. Yes, the lack of a raise was what set the chain of events in motion that led to the death, but there was an independent (in this case, deliberate) intervening cause of death (the prof pulling the trigger).

So...even if reading the NAMBLA stuff gave the guys the bright idea to kill a boy and sodomize his corpse, and thus set that in motion, there was an independent intervening cause of death (i.e. just reading the NAMBLA stuff didn't kill the boy) and thus NAMBLA wouldn't be criminally liable.

Wrongful death is a tort claim, not a criminal claim, but similar rules apply -- it can't be so far removed as to be unjust. You can't blame the guy who hit a tree, causing a gaper's block that made you late for work, if you get fired (or, if because you were late, you were hit by another car you wouldn't have encountered had you been on time).

And, civilly, to hold NAMBLA liable would open a can of worms (and courts don't like cans of worms)--the library offering "The Amy Fischer Story" could be held liable for the wrongful death of someone's wife, if that someone's lover checks out the video and then decides to shoot.

[Solo_in_MD]

17. I believe the suit against some white power sickos was also based on

that point...and they lost.

[Just Me]

9. The ACLU is an impactful and relevant overseer of abuse by,...

,...governing bodies. If you are willing to face the fact that we are all merely human, none of us holding the trademark on "truth" or ever hitting the exact "target" on perfection, yet reaching for social and equal justice for all, you have to support the ACLU. Otherwise, you must be either arrogant, hyper-critical or hypocritical.

The ACLU has pursued cases where it's defended free speech offensive to people. It has NEVER defended violent/hate speech (e.g. speech advancing violence against others) to my knowledge. If anyone can give me proof the ACLU has done so, I'll personally contact them about my objections concerning the particular case(s) and inform them of why I continue to support them, as an impactful and relevant overseer of governmental abuse.

[yurbud]

10. I thought they were defending them from republicans who wanted to join

[Viva_La_Revolution]

13. *giggle*

:spray:

[yurbud]

14. even those guys don't want to be tarred with the Republican brush.

[VTMechEngr]

11. The Lawsuit was over a Website.

Can NAMBLA have a website like anyone else? First Amendment says yes. If they act on their beliefs, Jaily Jail - But spouting them off is not a crime.


The ACLU merely defended the right of NAMBLA to have a website. Hardly an endorsement of their views. It only concerned their right to speak out.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

12. Thank you!!!!

You summed up almost everyone else's info into one perfect 'soundbite', something that will be understood by Amerikans. :)