The ACLU's Defense of NAMBLA

[Athena]

...because I don't want to derail Kathy's very interesting and worthy thread. :)

For those of you who know nothing past "the ACLU protected NAMBLA", please, read on.

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.

_____________

Obviously, I do not support NAMBLA. However, it is important to note that members of the organization were being held responsible for a murder they did not commit, nor did they specifically advocate. Last I checked, while they may have written a manual on how to molest, that's not the same as inciting murder.

In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that said speech advocating an illegal act is legally protected unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action."

This is the ruling that has protected all sorts of "How To" authors. Numerous books and websites are dedicated to how to make illegal bombs, for example, yet they are allowed to exist, because they aren't specifically provoking anything.

That being said, NAMBLA does not advocate forcible rape, torture and murder, which is what the lawsuit in question was attempting to hold them accountable for. Read a portion of the defense's case here.

The ACLU steps in wherever they feel that the Constitution is being threatened. They've defended everyone from major corporations to churches to individuals. They don't pick and choose...The more controversial the case, the greater the need to strong defense of freedom.

[carol13]

Thanks for starting this thread. I don't feel I know enough yet to open my mouth on the subject, but I'm glad you posted on it.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Good point. Its more about the constitution, obviously, than them protecting child molesters. However, I wish a criminal organization like this, would be put under the ground anyway, and for the record, I do advocate all murder of said members of NAMBLA.

[impqueen]

However, I wish a criminal organization like this, would be put under the ground anyway, and for the record, I do advocate all murder of said members of NAMBLA.

Best. Lieman. Quote. EVAH. :D

[Athena]

Yep. I some rogue biopharm company could create some biological agent that they could spread over cities with crop dusting planes that would wipe out anyone with the pedo variation in their genes, but no one else.

I don't think anyone is contesting the merit of the organisation.

My point is that, hating the ACLU for defending NAMBLA's right to free speech is a tragic position to take. If ACLU doesn't defend this most unpopular speech, who will and how far will it go?

I'll tell you how far. In '99, Paladin Press, publishers of a book Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors (written by an anonymous suburban housewife who had no dealings whatsoever with contract killings) were forced to settle out of court with the family of murder victims who were killed by a man who supposedly followed the instruction in the book. The book even included disclaimers like "for informational purposes only".

The case against the publisher was initially thrown out on First Amendment grounds. Those who were filing suit appealed, and the appellate court reinstated the suit. The publisher attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court, but the SC denied hearing the case. I mean, why should they? They made a clear ruling in '69. The Press couldn't justify spending further legal fees in a contest they could lose at the hands on an activist judge like the one who ruled on their case in appellate court, so they settled.

Is that what NAMBLA-haters advocate? That individuals who have no knowledge of or active hand in a crime be held legally liable for said crime, simply because they were involved in publishing informational material?

This book, much like NAMBLA's website, simply published informational material. Hell, in the NAMBLA case, the killer blatantly disregarded NAMBLA's instruction, as is outlined in the following:

The publication of information intended to facilitate abduction, forcible rape or murder would be entirely inconsistent with long-standing NAMBLA policies. Consistent with those policies, there is no information or advice contained in the article entitled “Staying Safe and
Happy as a Man/Boy Lover” which counsels abduction, torture, rape or murder. To the contrary, NAMBLA policy counsels relationships based on respect which are “mutual, caring and ethical”4 and that “because of the hysteria and the harsh penalties for man and boy alike, an argument can be made for not having sex with boys in the US at this time.” DSMF ¶ 34.

Moreover, to the extent that the article does contain information or advice concerning sexual relationships with persons under the age of consent, none of that advice appears to have been followed by Charles Jaynes.5 For example, the article states that “[t]he more people who know about your relationship, the more vulnerable you are. . . . Do not share specific information about your relationship, such as the identity of your lover.” Consistent with this approach, the article goes on to counsel other steps aimed at avoiding detection by others or by the police.6

Jaynes was anything but discreet about his attraction to Jeffrey Curley, as it appears that he told a number of people about his intentions. And indeed, he failed even to dispose of the most incriminating evidence of the murder. The article also suggested “develop[ing] a positive relationship with your partner’s family” and "being sensitive to the boy’s family and community,” advice which Jaynes plainly did not follow. And most significantly, it cautions the reader “never push the relationship further than is comfortable.” If this is step-by-step instruction for illegal activities, it was not followed by Jaynes. There is nothing in this article that is reflected in his unlawful behavior.7

It's still not respectable, but it clearly does not advocate the forcible rape, torture and murder for which the suit was attempting to hold them responsible for.

[celtic friend]

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdoc...0402270920.asp





February 27, 2004, 9:20 a.m.
No Boy Scouts
The ACLU defends NAMBLA.



An old friend of mine once said this about the American Civil Liberties Union: "They're a bunch of whale-saving, criminal-loving pinkos — and thank God for them."




This remark nicely summarizes the ambivalence with which many people regard the ACLU. Few organizations dance closer to the very edge of the loony-Left precipice than it does. There seems to be no thug too hardened nor any cause too exotic for the ACLU to champion. At the same time, if America ever were unlucky enough to face a president who decided to remain in the Oval Office past her expiration date, the ACLU would battle her and her junta with every sharp courtroom argument, pointed legal filing, and well-aimed briefcase it could muster.

That said, the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans. The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's ACLU.

The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.

Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.

So why blame NAMBLA? Is it any more responsible for this atrocity than is Vintage Books, the publisher of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita? Imagine that Jaynes and Sicari had read that 1955 novel about a middle-aged intellectual's affair with a 12-year-old girl. What if these two men found an equally young female who they abused and killed, just as they murdered Jeffrey Curley in real life? Putting aside the fact that Lolita is a work of fiction, would Vintage Books face civil justice?

Probably not, nor would NAMBLA if it limited its output to fictional depictions of "man-boy love." It is difficult to pin imaginary crimes on actual criminals who turn make-believe into mayhem.

Within the realm of nonfiction, as revolting as its ideas are, NAMBLA certainly has a First Amendment right to argue that America's laws should be changed to permit sexual relations between adult men and third-grade school boys. Most Americans would disagree vehemently, as well they should. That's called debate. It's the American way.

As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

However, as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly noted, there is more at play here than pamphleteering. "According to lawyers familiar with [NAMBLA's] website," O'Reilly explained, "it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught."

NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."

Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

"Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed."

"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."

The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.

Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.

The ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is energetically hostile to an organization that tries to turn boys into men, with sex alien to the process.

Since 1915, the Boy Scouts have managed land within San Diego's Balboa Park. It has built a swimming pool, a 600-seat amphitheater, and a camping facility that accommodates 300. Camp Balboa serves some 12,000 Boy Scouts annually through daylong events and weekend sleepovers. The Scouts' tie to this land is a 50-year lease offered by the San Diego City Council and signed in 1957. In exchange for their stewardship — including private investment for maintenance and development — the Scouts hand the city an annual lease payment of $1.00.

This arrangement is too much for the ACLU to swallow. It sued the City of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are a religious organization and thus should be dislodged from the facility. Never mind that the Scouts did not bar other groups from using the park. In fact, according to Hans Zeiger, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout who has written about this controversy, Balboa Park hosted last summer's San Diego Gay Pride Festival.

Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones deemed the Boy Scouts a religious organization last July and declared that their involvement with Balboa Park violated the separation of church and state. The ACLU used this ruling to secure a settlement wherein the City of San Diego cancelled the Scouts' lease on the park, even though it did not expire until 2007 and, in fact, was extended in 2001 for 25 years. The ACLU also scored $950,000 in attorneys fees and court costs, thus fleecing taxpayers and deepening its pockets.

San Diego's Boy Scouts are appealing Judge Jones' ruling. A federal judge someday may decide whether or not the Scouts' good deeds will go unpunished.

The ACLU's supporters should contemplate where this organization has placed itself vis-à-vis NAMBLA and the Boy Scouts. The ACLU seemingly believes that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how odious his case. Perhaps, although it would be nice to see NAMBLA siphon its own bank account rather than the ACLU's to justify its evil ways. The ACLU decides for itself where to devote its finite resources. Hence, its leaders freely chose to stand with cheerleaders for pederasty while torpedoing those who mentor rather than rape little boys.

Today's ACLU makes one wish it would find some whales to save.



This is just one quick opinion with facts piece, basically sums up how I feel about the ACLU. I will find more. No matter what ACLU is always on the wrong side of an issue. My kids will never be boy scouts, too many pervs but it can be a good org, but the ACLU just had to keep attacking them. I don't agree with that.

[celtic friend]

Ahh, so he didn't follow their rule or getting close with the child's family, so that he can molest him for years to come while having everyone's trust.

[celtic friend]

Good point. Its more about the constitution, obviously, than them protecting child molesters. However, I wish a criminal organization like this, would be put under the ground anyway, and for the record, I do advocate all murder of said members of NAMBLA.

Exactly, and why didn't the ACLU let them spend their own money on lawyer? These are pedophiles/pederasts/and hebephiles let them go bankrupt defending themselves.

[Athena]

Okay, first off, I'm almost shocked that you would counter my statements on the merit of the legal defense with some random op-ed piece that actually sites Bill O'Reilly.

Almost. But I'm not. I understand that this is an issue especially prone to being judged by emotion, rather than fact or legal precedence.

But, really. While this op-ed piece is plenty alluring to the individual who can't see past the organizations involved to really study the mechanics behind the case, it is absolutely ridiculously written.

I especially love this line: "The ACLU also scored $950,000 in attorneys fees and court costs, thus fleecing taxpayers and deepening its pockets."

Nearly a million dollars? Oh, man! I bet they threw a party! Oh, wait...They had court fees to cover and lawyers to pay for their work. Money to pay for attorney's fees and court costs does not deepen pockets for anyone but they lawyers themselves, who do the work. This man is being intentionally misleading.

What I think you fail to understand, here, CF, is that, to the ACLU, the only "side" they see is that of constitutionality. "Does this issue violate the Constitution" is the only question they ask. What "this issue" is remains a non-issue, for the most part. Constitutionalism is NEVER the wrong side.

Of course we grit and bear our teeth at the issues that test the Constitution. Life would be so much simpler if an organization like the ACLU weren't needed. But, as long as this country utilizes a constitution, and as long as that constitution comes into question, the ACLU needs to exist. And, might I add, they win these cases because, legally, they're right.

I'm curious, CF...By your logic, you should hate defense attorneys, too. After all, they're always on the "wrong side", right?

[celtic friend]

I know what the ACLU sees, and I also know that they did not have to go pick up for NAMBLA. I am not an idiot I know what they are here for. I admit I can run away with emotion and I knew I was going to pay for the piece from the National Review. I am not left leaning in the least bit, so I suppose that you wouldn't like any op-ed pieces I pick out. I am not saying I know what you are, I am just mentioning this b/c of what you said about my source.
As for defense lawyers, not everyone is guilty just because you are accused. So they are not always on the wrong side. NAMBLA is guilty of advocating pedophilia, it's in their name. They chose to defend them I don't agree, nothing is going to change that.

[celtic friend]

Here is another opinion piece, what do you think about this one?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pedophilia good, religion, bad
Jewish World Review Sept. 15, 2000 / 14 Elul, 5760
Debbie Schlussel
http://www.jewishworldreview.com --

AND YOU thought it was impossible for the ACLU to sink any lower.

The self-anointed defender of the First Amendment is defending NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, a pedophilia advocacy group, in a lawsuit over its role in the 1997 sexual molestation and murder of 10-year-old Matthew Curley.

Curley was lured from his suburban Boston neighborhood by Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari. When he resisted their sexual advances, they smothered him to death. Then, they raped his dead body and stuffed it into a concrete-filled container, which they dumped into a river.

Jaynes viewed the NAMBLA website (which is no longer on-line) from a public library, right before the murder and also possessed NAMBLA publications. NAMBLA actively educates members and others on how to locate children for sex, how to gain their trust, and how to avoid law enforcement. In short, NAMBLA tells guys like this despicable rapist/murderer how to break the law and rape children. That's why the Curley family is suing NAMBLA. It incited the commission of this tragic crime.

There are limits on free speech. Some speech is unprotected by the First Amendment. You can't incite a riot, and you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. NAMBLA's actions – let alone its whole perverted raison d'etre – violate those limits. Its slogan, "Sex by eight or it's too late," refers to victims' age. And that's the tame stuff.

Under the landmark 1969 First Amendment ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, speech, like NAMBLA's, which incites imminent illegal activity or amounts to calls to action is not protected and can be restrained or punished. The 1999 $25 million verdict in Michigan's "Jenny Jones" case set a precedent. "Jenny Jones" producers were held liable for inciting the murder of Scott Amedure by Jonathan Schmitz, after the show ambushed the mentally unstable, heterosexual Schmitz with gay crush Amedure.

And in May 1999, Paladin Press settled Rice v. Paladin Enterprises with the family of Mildred Horn, after it published and sold the book "Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors" to the hit man (hired by Horn's husband) who murdered Horn and others. Unlike NAMBLA's materials, "Hit Man" featured disclaimers, such as, for "information purposes" and "academic study only," but Paladin settled, citing legal precedent against it already set in the case, including at the Supreme Court level, and the likelihood it would lose.

Likewise, the ACLU has no case here.

And the ACLU's involvement in the NAMBLA case is very telling. It claims it's defending NAMBLA because the group's ideas and web communications are protected under the First Amendment. Yet, the ACLU was clearly on the other side of free speech when it helped take away free speech rights of football fans to organize voluntary prayer.

And the ACLU was on the wrong side of free speech in May, when it filed suit against Richmond County, Georgia, because the county's official seal includes a small drawing of two stone tablets containing Roman numerals I through X, which might be the Ten Commandments, allegedly suggesting that Christians receive preferential treatment from government.

The ACLU's view that the Ten Commandments are exclusively identified with Christians is absurd. And it's news to me, a Jew -- one of the people of Moses, who brought the Commandments down from Mt. Sinai.

The ACLU opposed the Child Pornography Prevention Act and was part of a "Free Speech Coalition" that sued Janet Reno in Federal Court in Northern California over it. I'd love to know how a child being forced into pornography against his/her will is free speech. The ACLU recently lost its suit against Virginia for instituting a moment of silence in its public schools. Sorry, ACLU, but freedom not to speak is a legally recognized form of free speech, too.

Where was the ACLU's precious commitment to free speech, when Goldsboro, North Carolina's Chief of Police, Chester Hill, suspended police officer Ken Edwards and threatened to fire him, for teaching an off-duty class in gun instruction, required under that State's concealed weapons law, merely because Hill opposed the law and was upset it passed? It took a Second Amendment organization, the National Rifle Association (NRA), to fight for Edwards' First Amendment rights. And where was the ACLU when a Downsville, NY school superintendent refused to let Downsville Central High senior Jennifer Bono, a competitive sharpshooter, pose with an automatic weapon in her high school yearbook photo? Again, the NRA took the action that got this reversed.

Where was the ACLU, when an Oregon group lost millions of dollars and its right to post lists of abortion doctors on the "Nuremburg Files" website? Or when Operation Rescue's free speech to protest abortion was curtailed under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act? Or, in February, when the Senate passed legislation preventing only anti-abortion activists from filing for bankruptcy, another politically selective limitation on free speech? Or, last fall, when Washington State education officials pulled student Joshua Davey's state-funded college scholarship because he decided to major in religion?

The ACLU is no martyr for the First Amendment. That's a PR sham. It's merely a shill for the free speech of liberal and extremist causes. And the ACLU's lack of consistency in the free speech debate—in fact, its activism against the free speech of mainstream religion and morality—is the only thing consistent about it.

It's not just the ACLU's current message of "prayer and G-d bad, rape of children good." As House whip Tom Delay said in his Monday Night speech at the Toward Tradition Conference in Washington, the radical, minority ACLU is picking which type of speech will really be free for America. That deviant, offensive speech, like flag burning, nude dancing, and instructions on how to build bombs, will be free; But moral, laudable speech, like voluntary prayer, will not.

Remember that form of free speech known as silence?

[celtic friend]

This sits other cases the ACLU has been involved and the absurdity of them.

Has the ACLU lost its mind? (American Civil Liberties Union is becoming too unethical)
From: Washington Monthly | Date: 10/1/1994 | Author: Etzioni, Amitai
Print Digg del.icio.us
Foes of the American Civil Liberties Union believe it has veered off to the left; friends argue that friends should not criticize a beleaguered champion of the freedom of speech. But only those who keep close tabs realize that the ACLU has gone silly.

The ACLU used to play an important role in our nation, particularly in the protection and expansion of First Amendment rights. Many of the principles for which it fought are now taken for granted. Prior to 1920, the year the ACLU was founded, the Supreme Court had never upheld a free speech claim under the First Amendment. In its first year, the ACLU helped gain the release of hundreds of prisoners whose only crime had been that they spoke out against World War I. During World War II, the ACLU provided one of the few voices that condemned the relocation of Japanese-Americans to internment camps. In the fifties, the ACLU was a leader in the battle against the McCarthy era "loyalty oaths." Even these days, occasionally it still gets the job right. A case in point is the ACLU endeavor to protect the jobs of whistleblowers.

But even ACLU aficionados did a double take when they read that the organization had marshaled its legal big guns to protect the rights of lawyers to file misleading bills. The case involved none other than Senator Alfonse D'Amato's brother Armand, who was convicted of fraud in a plan to influence the senator. Armand collected money from a corporation by billing it for legal services that were never performed. In exchange, Armand promised the corporation access to Senator D'Amato. Several bar associations attacked the ruling on the flimsy grounds that such a billing practice is common among lawyers and that it is protected by client-lawyer privilege. When New York ACLU representative Arthur Eisenberg was asked what the hell possessed the ACLU to side with Armand, he explained: The ACLU is concerned that D'Amato would be convicted, not of influence peddling, but under a Federal mail fraud statute, and the ACLU believes the wording of these statutes is not sufficiently precise. Got it?

When the new mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, tried to get kids back into school by drawing on new community police officers to help locate truants, the ACLU protested. The executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, Norman Siegel, told a reporter that "the cops see these kids as criminals; educators see them as consumers of school services. You have two different views, [and] this is not the way to go." It is far from self-evident what is wrong if, indeed, it is the case that police and teachers see things differently; I bet that the fire department and sanitation officers look at the same kids in still different ways. Actually, the facts are that the police, far from arresting the truants, simply shepherd them to schools, where everyone agrees they belong.

Some recent ACLU peculiarities have explanations, but you will not find them in legal textbooks. The ACLU is fighting to preserve the right of the tobacco industry to advertise cigarettes. The ACLU argues that all it is doing is sticking to its traditional defense of commercial free speech, a fundamental part of the First Amendment. Legal scholars may well raise some questions about the standing of commercial speech as distinct from political and social speech. But all in the know will raise at least one eyebrow when they learn that the ACLU also fought a congressional bill that would have cut the tax deductibility of tobacco promotions. And they'll raise the other eyebrow--and much more--when they learn that the ACLU received more than $500,000 in contributions from the tobacco industry--and did not disclose this to the public or its members. If some other group, say, one that favors a ban on pornography, pocketed $500,000 on the q.t. from, say, the Christian Coalition, you can bet the ACLU would be in its face.

To be fair, the ACLU is at least consistent. While Common Cause, People for The American Way, Congress Watch, The Communitarian Network, and practically all other reform-minded groups strongly oppose the unlimited flow of private money into the coffers of elected officials in the form of campaign contributions to politicians, the ACLU maintains that the flow should go on uninhibited on the ground that "money is speech." In effect, it accepts and legitimizes the self-serving arguments of special interest groups that use PACs to sway legislators--that this money gives citizens opportunities to participate in democratic politics. The fact is that contributions are collected from individuals who are not allowed to designate which politician will receive the PAC money. Funds are granted to whomever is favored by the managers of PAC associations (such as the National Rifle Association, various banks, and several labor unions). As a rule, contributors to PACs are not told even after the fact who got their bucks. Some democratic participation.

But more importantly, the ACLU has never been able to explain satisfactorily how its position in support of unbounded money bags is compatible with a free give-and-take of ideas. Private money in politics is often compared to a person who brings a huge, expensive amplifier to a town meeting and drowns out everybody else. Money buys consultants, studies of the hidden crevices of the public's mind, and massive TV ads. Candidates without deep pockets do poorly in elections dominated by money, no matter what the content of their messages. Champions of free speech should seek to ensure that all are able to speak freely.

When it comes to metal detectors in schools, the ACLU is truly daffy. The detectors are a measure of the desperation of schools that face, on an average day, 135,000 children who come to school with loaded guns. While the detectors do not solve the problem, and clearly much more needs to be done to stem violence, screening reduces gun fatalities. The opposition to this measure is led by the Southern California chapter of the ACLU, which opposes not merely the gates but also the expulsion of students caught carrying guns. Expulsions, it argues, may consign students "to a life even more disadvantaged than it might have been otherwise." In other words, it's better for all students to learn in fear of being shot than to expel the ones carrying guns.

Even if the ACLU has a good case, you can rest assured that it will find a way to ride it ad absurdum. Its protection of the right of youngsters to wear T-shirts that display social and political slogans is a sound part of its protection of free speech. However, its active opposition to dress codes in schools and shopping malls is stretching matters too far. The ACLU's regional director in Texas questioned the constitutionality of dress codes imposed by malls that discourage certain clothing items favored by gang members, such as bandannas and baggy pants. The ACLU's argument, absurd as it sounds, is that baggy pants and bandannas are forms of political expression. Personally, I can't see much political content in any kind of pants.

President Clinton proudly waved in front of the nation the symbol of his universal health care plan--a national health security card. The card could facilitate compilation of national statistics on the uses of health care resources, vital if waste is to be curbed. It could also allow potential patients to carry in their pockets their medical histories and other relevant information on the cards' magnetic strips, to be "read" by whomever the cardholders choose.

Not so fast, says the ACLU. Jan Lori Goldman, head of the organization's project on privacy and technology, explains: "The problem is that the databases are enticing. People want to use them for other purposes." What are these other nefarious purposes? Seeking deadbeat dads, university graduates who welshed on their student loans, and illegal immigrants. But these people violated the law, and the public is clearly in need and fully entitled to find them and help ensure that they will make amends (pay up, ship out, etc.). It's far from evident why such applications of a database are troubling to the point that we should forgo the health care card. Moreover, would anybody be better off--other than maybe computer staffers--if we apprehended these offenders by drawing on a separate database for each subgroup instead of a single comprehensive database?

The ACLU recently honed its long-standing talent to find, in a world full of the downtrodden, the most bizarre cases. In New York City, a teacher is openly advocating having sex with young boys. He is a leader of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), a national association whose slogan is "sex after eight is too late." And the reference is not to eight in the evening. The teacher has been suspended until hearings are completed about his future assignment; the ACLU argues that his right to speak is being violated. However, even the ACLU acknowledges that one may not shout fire in a crowded theater (though it often adds, "unless there really is a fire"). Presumably the reason the ACLU is willing to tolerate an exception to the First Amendment is that the "proximity" of the cause (shouting) to public harm (being trampled) is closer than in the teacher's classroom.

But this is far from self-evident. Just as not every time one shouts fire do scared crowds overrun people, so not every time a teacher advocates molesting young children are they actually abused. However, the probability may well be just as high and the crime at least as hideous. Unless you believe that the only value we care about is free speech, we are entitled to wonder whether parents should be expected to leave their children with an advocate of pedophilia. It's like allowing those who advocate arson to be in charge of fire safety in schools. Meanwhile, if the ACLU tries, it may be able to find at least somewhat more worthy causes to assign to its lawyers.

The ACLU trivializes rights and adds to litigiousness when it pursues many of these cases. Our liberties would be better protected if the ACLU would focus its zeal where it matters, rather than on drummed up, far out, or indefensible cases.

COPYRIGHT 1994 Washington Monthly Company
This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group.
For permission to reuse this article, contact Copyright Clearance Center.








Browse our free encyclopedias by alphabet: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Browse by category: Earth and the Environment History Literature and the Arts Medicine People Philosophy and Religion Places Plants and Animals Science and Technology Social Sciences and the Law Sports and Everyday Life HighBeam™ Research, Inc. © Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.

About Us Contact Us Help Site Index Topic Index Categories Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions

[celtic friend]

Here is a case they didn't win, you said they win all cases...

Warrantless wiretap opponents lose brace of court casesNoise on the wire
By John Leyden → More by this author
Published Monday 9th July 2007 14:47 GMT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find out how to eradicate 99.7% of spam
Opponents of the Bush administration's controversial warrantless wiretapping program have suffered a pair of defeats in their efforts to rein in the scheme.

In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals last week dismissed a legal challenge to the warrantless surveillance program brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The action was filed by the ACLU on behalf of journalists, lawyers and academics who say the spectre of Big Brother peering over their shoulder is impeding their ability to do their jobs.

The plaintiffs said their concerns were well founded but the Wisconsin appeal court dismissed the case because none of the plaintiffs knew for sure whether or not their communications had been placed under surveillance.

The ACLU said it was disappointed by the ruling which "insulates the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance activities from judicial review and deprives Americans of any ability to challenge the illegal surveillance of their telephone calls and e-mails". The organisation said it was reviewing its legal options following the ruling, including the possibility of taking its challenge to the US Supreme Court.

In a separate ruling, also delivered on Friday, a California appeal court ruled federal agents are entitled to monitor the web sites a suspect visits or the email addresses he exchanges messages with. The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco compared surveillance of internet activities to "pen register" devices, which were used to track the phone numbers suspects called rather than monitor the content of a conversations. Such devices were ruled legal by the Supreme Court in 1979, which ruled that numbers transmitted electronically between a suspect and a phone company do not enjoy any expectations of privacy.

Searches on suspects' surfing activities are no more intrusive than obtaining a list of phone numbers dialed or examining the outside of a mailed package, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. The court made the ruling in considering a drug case referred to it by a lower court in the San Diego area. Dennis Alba was jailed for 30 years after he was convicted of running a lab manufacturing Ecstasy. Part of the evidence against him came from monitoring his activities on the net. He challenged the legality of this evidence gathering on appeal, an application the appeal judges rejected in confirming his earlier sentence, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The practice of so-called warrantless wiretapping came to light after the New York Times reported in December 2005 that the president had authorised the National Security Agency (NSA), the US government's signals intelligence agency, to intercept communications inside the US as part of the "War on Terror".

The ACLU's action is only one of several lawsuits launched in the wake of reports that AT&T and other telcos turned phone records over to the NSA without judicial authorisation. The NSA's "massive and illegal program" to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications remains the subject of an ongoing lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and numerous others.®

[celtic friend]

More on their loss, I am not saying this has anything to do with NAMBLA, this does have to do with the fact that the ACLU does not always win and is not always right. You said yourself, they win "these cases because legally they are right", not all of their cases I am afraid.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.

"It's very disturbing that the president's actions will go unremarked upon by the court," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project. "In our view, it shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits."

The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.

The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.

A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.

The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.

ACLU officials described the situation as a "Catch-22" because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program.

A lawsuit filed by an Islamic charity met a similar fate. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled against the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.

In that case, the charity alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log it received mistakenly from the Treasury Department.

A separate lawsuit against telecommunications companies that have cooperated with the government is pending in the San Francisco-based appeals court. A U.S. district court also is examining whether the warrantless surveillance of people in the United States violates the law that regulates the wiretapping of suspected terrorists and requires the approval of a secret court.

The administration announced in January 2007 that it would put intercepts of communications on U.S. soil under the oversight of that court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The ACLU, in urging the justices to consider its case, said that because the administration voluntarily ended the warrantless wiretapping, it could easily restart it.

The administration acknowledged the existence of the program in late after the New York Times published an article about it.

The White House said the monitoring was necessary because the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act left dangerous gaps in the government's eavesdropping authority.

Last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts.

Those changes expired over the weekend, amid disagreements between congressional Democrats and President Bush over the immunity issue.

Existing wiretaps can continue and any new surveillance the government wants to institute has to follow the FISA rules, which could require court warrants.

The case is ACLU v. NSA, 07-468.

[Athena]

I know what the ACLU sees, and I also know that they did not have to go pick up for NAMBLA. I am not an idiot I know what they are here for. I admit I can run away with emotion and I knew I was going to pay for the piece from the National Review. I am not left leaning in the least bit, so I suppose that you wouldn't like any op-ed pieces I pick out. I am not saying I know what you are, I am just mentioning this b/c of what you said about my source.
As for defense lawyers, not everyone is guilty just because you are accused. So they are not always on the wrong side. NAMBLA is guilty of advocating pedophilia, it's in their name. They chose to defend them I don't agree, nothing is going to change that.

I'm a libertarian. Economically conservative, socially liberal. I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-smoking ban, anti-spanking ban, anti-eminent domain, etc. I'm probably one of the more traditionally conservative posters here in Three Things. Just so we're on the same page.

Speaking of political allegiance, however...Was the ACLU on the wrong side when they took up Rush Limbaugh's case, when law-enforcement officers illegally seized his medical records?

From the ACLU's page:

""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.""

I wasn't attempting to insinuate that you were an idiot. All I was intending to illustrate was that your judgment was illogical, not stupid.

If a thief is wrongfully charged with murder, does he not deserve representation simply because he is guilty of something else? Your defense of defense attorneys is based on the fact that their clients are not always guilty of what they are accused. Based on that logic, the ACLU should qualify for your defense. After all, NAMBLA was not guilty of what they were being accused of, even though they are guilty of something else.

If that doesn't change your mind, that's fine. You're certainly allowed to feel however you like. But I am going to use you to expose the flaws in this brand of reasoning. ;)

[Athena]

Here is a case they didn't win, you said they win all cases...

No, I said they win "these" cases. No one wins every case, unless they cheat.

As for all the op-ed pieces you're posting...You can't make everybody happy all the time. Of COURSE people are going to disagree on a personal level with some of the ACLU's endeavors. That being said, the ACLU has a number of brilliant legal minds working for them, determining the legal merit of the cases they take up.

Edit: Also, note the difference between a loss (i.e., the court actively ruling against them) and the court simply failing to hear their case. In the wiretapping case, the Supreme Court failed to hear the case. Because they wouldn't hear the case, they couldn't rule against them. Because they weren't ruled against, it is not a technical loss.

[swivel]

I think the Supreme Court got it wrong. I do not think How-To-Commit-Heinous-Crimes literature should be protected by the right to free speech. We do not protect the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded room, nor do we protect the right to incite a riot, or use language designed to rouse another to murderous rage (as decided in race-specific cases).

The guarantee of free speech was never intended to allow all people to say all things. It was designed to prevent the federal government from dictating what the States, and its members could and could not say. It was based on a history of control by dominant, central governments that did not allow any manner of criticism nor complaint.

Most of what NAMBLA does should be found illegal, and a nice precedent set for the limitations of the first amendment.

[celtic friend]

Ok here goes my line of thinking as best as I can explain it,
ACLU are not public defenders, they are not employed by the government to defend people, therefore they can and will pick and choose who they would like to defend. They like to be in the spotlight, so they do "daring" cases.
Everyone is entitled to a defense, the ACLU goes out of its' way to be on the "wrong" side.
I hope this sums up how I feel.

BTW, I figured you were socially liberal, I knew you were not a full fledged Demo or anything, by the other articles. I am Conservative Republican, I am not religious and I am not for abortion, but I am not against it either, it makes me not what people would like to think of as the typical Repub, oh well.

As I was doing dishes I realized that you might have meant just the cases mentioned, about winning, sorry if you did. I also did not think you thought I was an idiot.

[Athena]

Most of what NAMBLA does should be found illegal, and a nice precedent set for the limitations of the first amendment.

What, exactly, should that precedent establish? Specifically, that explaining how a criminal act can or should be accomplished in a general sense is now criminalized? Despite the '69 ruling, there's definitely still plenty of gray area, here, that would allow such a precedent to be set.

[Athena]

Ok here goes my line of thinking as best as I can explain it,
ACLU are not public defenders, they are not employed by the government to defend people, therefore they can and will pick and choose who they would like to defend. They like to be in the spotlight, so they do "daring" cases.
Everyone is entitled to a defense, the ACLU goes out of its' way to be on the "wrong" side.
I hope this sums up how I feel.

Oh, okay. So, you just hate private defense attorneys, but not public ones. Gotcha. ;)

[swivel]

What, exactly, should that precedent establish? Specifically, that explaining how a criminal act can or should be accomplished in a general sense is now criminalized? Despite the '69 ruling, there's definitely still plenty of gray area, here, that would allow such a precedent to be set.

Precisely. Giving instructions on how to do harm, in an instructional and not an entertainment sense, should be illegal.

I don't care if they disguise what they are doing by writing fictionalized accounts of their actions. Make movies and write books. But, when they pass out pamphlets at meetings, which serve to normalize the worst sorts of behavior... no civilized society should stand by and allow this to take place, much less condone it.

[Athena]

Precisely. Giving instructions on how to do harm, in an instructional and not an entertainment sense, should be illegal.

I don't care if they disguise what they are doing by writing fictionalized accounts of their actions. Make movies and write books. But, when they pass out pamphlets at meetings, which serve to normalize the worst sorts of behavior... no civilized society should stand by and allow this to take place, much less condone it.

I'm not sure that I disagree with that. I thought about it for some time last night, trying to come up with a circumstance that a ruling like this would complicate, but, if it's specifically and unambiguously worded, I don't think we'd encounter one.

[Pete Bondurant]

I would organise a summer camp wherein the children of ACLU attorneys would be placed under the care of NAMBLA members.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I would organise a summer camp wherein the children of ACLU attorneys would be placed under the care of NAMBLA members.

POST OF THE MONTH WINNER.


Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

[Valasca]

Ugh, I am just finding this case. I'm going to puke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v._NAMBLA

Jeffrey Curley, was the victim of a 1997 murder by two men, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes. The men took Jeffrey to the Boston Public Library and accessed NAMBLA's website. At least one of the men, Jaynes, later attempted to sexually assault Curley. When the boy fought back, Jaynes gagged him with a gasoline-soaked rag and eventually killed him. Jaynes then sexually assaulted his corpse.

Can't tell if this is their FBs: http://www.facebook.com/people/Salva...ari/1038543133

http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Jaynes/515324954

Yeah, this topic is 2 years old, but... I agree with Lieman's statement so long ago. Murder them all.

[MC30]

its all just so fucked up.

nambla can say what they want, and the aclu wouldn't be doing what it is paid to do if it didn't support this.
its all just so fucked up.

free speech is what it is. all for one and one for all.

[sodom]

"Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors"

I don't know if anyone here has read this book.It's like the author just watched too many damn Stallone flicks.Paladin should have never had to drop a dime over that pile of shit.Head on over to Paladin press,pick up some reading material,find your local NAMBLA chapter and show them what you think!

http://www.paladin-press.com/

[Waldowas]

I'm a libertarian. Economically conservative, socially liberal. I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-smoking ban, anti-spanking ban, ...

[Athena]

I'm still all those things... I've just chosen to no longer identify myself as a libertarian... for the record.

[Waldowas]

I'm still all those things... I've just chosen to no longer identify myself as a libertarian... for the record.

Ok, so nowadays a librarian instead...??