Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is the ACLU really supporting NAMBLA to lower the age of consent?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 04:53 PM
Original message
Is the ACLU really supporting NAMBLA to lower the age of consent?
I'm in an argument on "Craigslist Rant & Rave" with a RW shithead and he is contending that the ACLU is an evil organization that is working with NAMBLA to lower the age of consent to have sex with a child to nine.
Is he just spouting bullshit? Or is the ACLU working with these NAMBLA perverts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. ask him for a link....
Edited on Sun Jan-29-06 05:01 PM by mike_c
:rofl:

on edit-- I'm sure he's referring to the Curley lawsuit-- Google "ACLU NAMBLA Curley" for more info.

double edit-- OMG! I Googled a search term with NAMBLA in it! Oops-- pardon me, gotta run-- coupla guys in dark suits are banging on the door....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. I did and like a typical RW trog, he never produced one.
He just came back and said that there are no links but its still the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. there's an inherent problem that I run into all the time....
Edited on Sun Jan-29-06 05:15 PM by mike_c
The problem, against which you'll simply waste your breath, is that the guy you're arguing with will never believe any evidence to the contrary. He has already admitted that he either can't find evidence to support his contention or doesn't want to even try, BUT HE STILL INSISTS IT'S TRUE NONETHELESS. You have run into a brick wall. As I said, I'm sure he's talking about the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA against Robert Curley, whose son was killed by a couple of deranged creeps later found in possession of NAMBLA lit. The ACLU defended NAMBLA against the suit as a free-speech issue.

Problem is that you can point this out to the guy you're arguing with, you can show him info on the case, but since it is not about the ACLU working to lower the age of consent to nine, he's faced with two courses of action: 1) revise his beliefs, or 2) dismiss the evidence as irrelevant to his contention and stick to his belief in its veracity. The latter is easy to do, it's the path of least resistance, and he has already shown a preference for intellectual laziness. What do you think he'll do? Uh-huh. You're wasting your breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtanarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. No. that's bullshit.
ACLU represented NAMBLA in a 1st amendment suit to protect their right to have a public website.

I've had that argument.

No one supports NAMBLA, but that's no reason to bash the ACLU.

Don't forget that the ACLU represents Limbaugh in his right to privacy in his health records.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. Here ya go.
http://www.aclu.org/

See if you can find it and report back to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. r w talking points and lies..
go to the ACLU website and read what they are about. They are about protecting CIVIL LIBERTIES For All Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
But if you want more info about the ACLU, go here: http://www.aclu.org. The aforementioned RW shithead could be mixed up (they usually are) over some litigation on behalf of Lambda, a gay-rights organization. But not NAMBLA. Jeez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teach1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. The same reason why The ACLU is representing Rush Limbaugh
While we all loathe and deteste Limbaugh, we should be willing to defend his legal right to medical privacy in his confidential medical records.

You know, that Roe v Wade stuff.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donkeykick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. Here is what they say on it.
Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release


Go to http://www.aclu.org/info/18852res20040107.html#3_4
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libby2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. Oh for fucks sake.
Bunch of sick slimey repuke scum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. If you feel like smacking down some of these. Go here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libby2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Thanks, but I don't have the stomach for it.
I read a few posts and that was enough.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
14. Tell him he's full of it.
They just make shit up. thats their MO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
15. ACLU Asks Court Protect Confidentiality of Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records
Edited on Sun Jan-29-06 05:26 PM by IanDB1
ACLU Asks Court to Protect Confidentiality of Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records (1/12/2004)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PALM BEACH, FL - In a motion filed today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida said state law enforcement officers violated Rush Limbaugh's privacy rights by seizing the conservative radio talk show host's medical records as part of a criminal investigation involving alleged "doctor-shopping."

"While this case involves the right of Rush Limbaugh to maintain the privacy of his medical records, the precedent set in this case will impact the security of medical records and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship of every person in Florida," said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida.

The ACLU's request to submit a "friend-of-the-court" brief on behalf of Limbaugh was filed today with the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The ACLU said in its motion that the state infringed on Florida's constitutional right to privacy when it failed to follow well-established protocol, mandated by law, when confiscating Limbaugh's medical files. The organization stated that its interest in the case was "to vindicate every Floridian's fundamental right to privacy by ensuring that the state be required to comply" with the law.

Because of heightened concerns about medical privacy, the Florida Legislature mandated a process - outlined in Sections 456.057(5)(a) and 395.3025(4)(d) of the Florida Statutes - that requires law enforcement officers to notify the person whose medical records they seek to obtain and give that person the opportunity to object before the subpoena is issued and before the records are seized.

"The legislature has enacted procedures that carefully balance the interests of law enforcement against the right of every citizen to maintain the privacy of their communications with their physician," said Ft. Lauderdale attorney Jon May, who is serving as counsel for the ACLU. "In this case the State Attorney has circumvented this carefully crafted scheme. If the state can do this to Rush Limbaugh, then the privacy rights of every citizen in Florida are in jeopardy."

In October, Limbaugh checked himself into a rehabilitation clinic after telling listeners on his radio program that he is addicted to painkillers. The ACLU has long recognized the need for a viable public health approach for drug control. Criminal prosecutions are the government's primary weapons to stamp out illicit drugs in the "War on Drugs." However, the ACLU has maintained that the so-called "War on Drugs" has led to a dramatic increase in the nation's prison population, while doing little to curb the drug trade. The organization believes there are better ways, other than criminal prosecution and incarceration, to address drug abuse that will ultimately lead to a healthier, freer and less crime-ridden society.

"Limbaugh's case demonstrates that the 'War on Drugs' is not working," said Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "This case provides a stark example of how the government chooses to prosecute non-violent drug offenses, rather than provide treatment for drug users."

The ACLU of Florida's Simon added: "For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh. But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view."

"We have defended the rights of every group on the political spectrum from anti-war protesters and Oliver North to church-state separation activists and Jerry Falwell," Simon noted.

The case is Rush Limbaugh v. State of Florida, Case No. 4D03-4973. In addition to May, Randall Marshall, ACLU of Florida's Legal Director, is counsel of record.
To read the ACLU's motion to file an amicus on behalf of Limbaugh, visit: http://www.aclufl.org/limbaughmotiontofile.html

More:
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/14969prs20040112.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. They don't support NAMBLA. And they don't sue the shit out of
Christianity. Right wing talking points, all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-30-06 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Thank you. What a load of crock. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-30-06 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
18. don't flame me, but there's actually a case to be made . . .
Edited on Mon Jan-30-06 01:14 AM by OneBlueSky
for lowering the age of consent to, say, 16 . . . in recognition of the fact that most 16-year-olds are sexually active, and to prevent prosecutions, jail tems, and lifetime ostracism on "The List" for 18-year-old guys caught in the act with their 16-year-old girlfriends (or boyfriends) by shocked and irate parents . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-30-06 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
20. That is so absurd, even laughable.
There could never be an age of consent of 9, cause of the power and age differential that would be obliterating all rights and liberties and everything else of the 9 year old.

And ACLU supporting something like that?

Tell the moron if he has no link or citation to a book or legit news story then it ain't so.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guidod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-30-06 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
21. O'reilly started this
shit about a month ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC