ACLU to defend NAMBLA
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): ACLU to defend NAMBLA
I find this completely disgusting.
http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=9850
I would say that the ACLU is one of the biggest threat to our morals and to society as a whole. This is not the first time they have disgusted me.
NAMBLA is despicable.
That said, the reason the ACLU is involved in this case is because the parents (for whom I feel tremendous sympathy) are suing NAMBLA as one of the causes of their son's death. The reason the lawyer is doing this is (a) the persons who actually committed this horrible act don't have any money so he is suing to try to find a "deep pocket" and (b) it gets publicity.
The ACLU is defending the First Amendment right to say whatever you want to say, no matter how unpopular. They defend KKK members who advocate shipping all African-Americans back to Africa, they defend the rights of American Nazi's to hold marches, and other exceeding appalling perspectives; they defend, for example, those who picket clinics which offer abortions; and defend clinics which offer abortion.
The ACLU, in short, becomes involved in cases where the Bill of Rights and those rights set forth in that amazing document are involved (Civil Rights). In this case, it is the First Amendment, which is probably the most precious and remarkable set of words any nation or government ever set into law. I cannot for one moment defend what NAMBLA says and promotes. But, if you take away NAMBLA's right to say ("say", not "do") what they want to say (not do), then you are on a slippery slope, and where is the line drawn?
As most here know, I am a pro-Choice person. And, as a pro-Choice person and as a supporter of the First Amendment, I abhore those laws which have made it possible to sue groups which organize and promote picketing of and demonstrations at places where abortions are performed. I don't approve of their message, and wish fervently that they would stop - but I believe their right to promote their beliefs is more important than my wishes. And I believe that the court decisions allowing clinics to obtain money judgments against anti-abortion groups are terribly wrong and terribly dangerous. This is exactly what the lawyer in this case is doing - attempting to obtain a money judgment against NAMBLA because of their message. And if he succeeds, it sets a precedent - and who's next?
I believe that any time you attempt to chip away at the First Amendment you are risking that slippery slope. This is why the ACLU is involved. Not because they approve of NAMBLA, but because the First Amendment is threatened.
You may be disgusted by the ACLU, Juli, but for me they exemplify the words of Pastor Neimoller, a Lutheran pastor in Hitler's Germany:
"First they came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant; then they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." (Martin Niemoller, 1945).
In this wonderful country, the ACLU will speak up for the unpopular, the despised, the outcast, the politically unpopular, and for me.
Is this serious?  Immediate reaction: talk about inappropriate bedmates.
I did read the article as to why they are defending them and it does make sense that they can't be found at fault for what the men did to the son. I do however think there should be lines that are now blurred. Although NAMBLA is promoting something illegal who is to say that one day it will legal. With the help of people like the ACLU it very well could be. At this point they are not helping legalize it but who is to say that they won't when they start stating things like "the right to privacy", "it is our beliefs and we are entitled to practice them" and so on. Like many other things this paticular case may be legit, but it is a step in a direction that makes me very nrevous and upset.
|
Members
