Another reason why to dislike the ACLU.

[jamesrage]

The ACLU sticks up for one of the lowest scum on earth.
http://www.mergemag.org/2000/namblaaclu.html

BOSTON -- The ACLU, consistent to form, has decided to defend NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, as reported by both the Boston Globe and Associated Press last week. They will represent the group in a lawsuit that's been filed by the family of a slain 10-year-old boy.

The plaintiffs, the family of Jeffrey Curley, said that the NAMBLA website, which advocates sex between boys and adult men and the abolition of age-consent laws, incited the attempted molestation--and murder--of their boy in 1997. One of the two men convicted, Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the website shortly before the murder, and had also read many of NAMBLA's publications. The second man convicted was Salvatore Sicari, who is 24.

The ACLU claims this is a case of freedom of speech and association. "For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," said John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU. "It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."

Apparently, Mr Roberts doesn't know it is illegal to have sex with children. Once again, the ACLU is on the wrong side of justice.

The ACLU will act as a 'surrogate' in this case, which will allow the members of NAMBLA to defend themselves while remaining anonymous--thereby protecting these child molesters and adult/child sex advocates from any publicity, any suffering, at all. That's justice according to the ACLU.

THe story I imagine this event happened many years ago and perhaps forgotten in the eyes of the public.So I decided to shed some light on the issue.

Truely the ACLU are the biggest scumbags on earth for trying to protect these monsters.

But perhaps some of you can enlighten me a a little as to why NAMBLA has a right to promote their pedophiling behavior.

[Riddley]

James, have a look at this (http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=5673) editorial and let us know what you think of it.
Note the final section “It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message was 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.” .
It seems to be tied up to your traditions of freedom of speech.

[JoeR]

I don't get it...they are suing NAMBLA for causing the rape and murder? How do they even have a case?

[Churlant]

I don't get it...they are suing NAMBLA for causing the rape and murder? How do they even have a case?

Well... James has advocated fire-bombing Mecca. So when it happens, we can take James to court over it... by his own logic :)

-JC

[towski]

I don't get it...they are suing NAMBLA for causing the rape and murder? How do they even have a case?


They don't, not really. One of the men had perused NAMBLA materials prior to committing the rape/murder. Obiously, I haven't reviewed the materials, but it is my understanding the materials do no such thing. And even if they did, it's like saying reading the bible caused me to go out and sacrifice my newborn son.

Look, I support free speech. But it seems to me that this is quite possibly the most twisted, evil organization I have come across.

From Wikipedia - (and this is picked and chosen)

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a U.S.-based organization that advocates the abolition of age of consent laws.

NAMBLA is an unincorporated association based in New York and San Francisco, guided by a steering committee. There is an annual gathering in New York, and monthly meetings around the country. In the early 1980s, NAMBLA was reported to have had over 300 members, and was supported by celebrities such as Allen Ginsberg. Since then, the organization has kept membership data private, but an undercover FBI investigation in 1995 discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls.

Since 1995, public scorn and law enforcement infiltration has taken a toll on the group. Its national headquarters now consists of little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco, and inquiries are rarely responded to. NAMBLA is often accused of fronting an informal network that promotes the sexual exploitation of children. It denies this charge, and further, claims that not all sex between adults and minors is exploitative and thus deserving of criminalization.

NAMBLA advocates a comprehensive youth rights platform of which sexual freedom is only a portion. In addition to supporting the repeal of age of consent laws, NAMBLA has also opposed corporal punishment, rape, and kidnapping, and has declared that sexual exploitation is grounds for expulsion from the group.

Feel free to review the rest here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA


I'm truly torn on this one. I support the broader idea of the ACLU, but disturbed by some or the organizations it feels it is compelled to lend it's support to.

[Churlant]

I'm truly torn on this one. I support the broader idea of the ACLU, but disturbed by some or the organizations it feels it is compelled to lend it's support to.

I understand your reservations, but the issue goes beyond any single entity that the ACLU represents. This is not a question of whether NAMBLA is a good or bad organization, but one of precedent. The actual decision in such cases will be used in support of anti-free speech lawsuits targetting entities you might have a better opinion of.

-JC

[towski]

I understand your reservations, but the issue goes beyond any single entity that the ACLU represents. This is not a question of whether NAMBLA is a good or bad organization, but one of precedent. The actual decision in such cases will be used in support of anti-free speech lawsuits targetting entities you might have a better opinion of.

-JC


I know, I know. Doesn't mean I have to like it. ;)

[Churlant]

I know, I know. Doesn't mean I have to like it. ;)

Nope. But when you consider that nearly everyone feels as we do, it is a good thing SOMEONE is willing to defend NAMBLA in court.

-JC

[eugene40]

As a Card carrying ACLU member. I think it is one of the most important institutions in america (remember before you pre judge I am also a member of thhe NRA) It defends the rights of american citizens. The only detriment to this altrusitic cause is that the American citizenry is the most diverse group of individuals on the planet. You can not call your organization a defender of civil liberties and deny certain people despite their cause be it divine or disgusting. They will take the cause for anyone. Some causes I am sure they agree with and will fight tooth and nail for it. And Some causes I am sure they question why they are defending it everyday. If they didn't defend everyone and everything they would be no better then either political party pushing and pursueing their own agenda.

[towski]

Interestingly enough, I was reading an article on Newt Gingrich las night, in GQ. One of the things he regretted was helping George H. W. Bush paint Michael Dukakis as a "card carrying member of the ACLU". He talked about his tremendous respect for the organization and it's principals.

That's really where the demonization of the ACLU originated. It's also right around the same time that "Liberal" was turned into a dirty word as well.

[jamesrage]

As a Card carrying ACLU member. I think it is one of the most important institutions in america (remember before you pre judge I am also a member of thhe NRA) It defends the rights of american citizens. The only detriment to this altrusitic cause is that the American citizenry is the most diverse group of individuals on the planet. You can not call your organization a defender of civil liberties and deny certain people despite their cause be it divine or disgusting. They will take the cause for anyone. Some causes I am sure they agree with and will fight tooth and nail for it. And Some causes I am sure they question why they are defending it everyday. If they didn't defend everyone and everything they would be no better then either political party pushing and pursueing their own agenda

I am more disturbed by the fact that the ACLU chose to represent NAMBLA's right to free speech.They advocate pedophiling,that alone should be reason to shut NAMBLA down and arrest it's members.This http://216.220.97.17/ does not look like they advocate anything legal.Perhaps someone in your department can get a hold of hacker to find out where these people are.

[Churlant]

I am more disturbed by the fact that the ACLU chose to represent NAMBLA's right to free speech.

:banghead:

It isn't about NAMBLA's right to free speech, it is about the consequences of a verdict against free speech. Future courtrooms won't care WHO was being represented - all they will care about is they managed to create a precedent allowing the removal of Constitutionally protected speech.

-JC

[jamesrage]

It isn't about NAMBLA's right to free speech, it is about the consequences of a verdict against free speech. Future courtrooms won't care WHO was being represented - all they will care about is they managed to create a precedent allowing the removal of Constitutionally protected speech.

Thye are advocating pedophling,they should be shut down and arrested immediatly.

[Churlant]

Thye are advocating pedophling,they should be shut down and arrested immediatly.

You've advocated the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people on these very forums. Should someone come arrest you?

-JC

[towski]

Thye are advocating pedophling,they should be shut down and arrested immediatly.


I can ADVOCATE people robbing banks. Until I do it, not illegal.

[jamesrage]

You've advocated the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people on these very forums. Should someone come arrest you?

I advocated the death of terrorist,murderers,rapist,pedophilers,traitors,de serters and certian other scum.As for my comments on Mecca,we can make them leave Mecca before we start bombing mecca.As for what the Israelis should do to the palastinians that is merely a war tactic on how they should subdue their enemy and make them do something to stop the palastinians who want to blow them selves up..
As for bombing the morners of a leader of a terrorist orginization(HAMAS),those people are terrorist supporters they are not innocent.

[Churlant]

I advocated the death of terrorist,murderers,rapist,pedophilers,traitors,de serters and certian other scum.As for my comments on Mecca,we can make them leave Mecca before we start bombing mecca.As for what the Israelis should do to the palastinians that is merely a war tactic on how they should subdue their enemy and make them do something to stop the palastinians who want to blow them selves up..
As for bombing the morners of a leader of a terrorist orginization(HAMAS),those people are terrorist supporters they are not innocent.

Oh, you want to evacuate first. Yeah, that always works. :rolleyes:

Look... James... I don't know what you have against free speech, I really don't, but you certainly have to understand that saying something is different from doing it. As Towski mentioned, talk about robbing banks all you like, but you don't get into trouble unless you DO it (or unless someone else does and it happened to be a bank you were talking about specifically :p)

NONE of this is really the point, however. The ACLU isn't defending NAMBLA because they think pedofilia is a good thing. They are making a defense because, according to the Constitution of the United States, speech - even disgusting speech - is a protected right of EVERY citizen - EVEN members of NAMBLA.

And you know what... if we could trust that a guilty verdict would remain on NAMBLA only, I might not care. But the fact is that a guilty verdict here would be used as a legal precedent for similar lawsuits against organizations YOU might SUPPORT.

-JC

[jamesrage]

Oh, you want to evacuate first. Yeah, that always works.

Look... James... I don't know what you have against free speech, I really don't, but you certainly have to understand that saying something is different from doing it. As Towski mentioned, talk about robbing banks all you like, but you don't get into trouble unless you DO it (or unless someone else does and it happened to be a bank you were talking about specifically )


I am all for free speech as long as they do not advocate pedophiling,treason,terrorism,and other criminal behavior.


NONE of this is really the point, however. The ACLU isn't defending NAMBLA because they think pedofilia is a good thing. They are making a defense because, according to the Constitution of the United States, speech - even disgusting speech - is a protected right of EVERY citizen - EVEN members of NAMBLA.

Somehow thanks to the scum in the ACLU Nambla will proably grow and we will be seeing NAMBLA and liberal judges trying to push their agenda on a larger scale and we will be debating with pedophliling supporters on how the only thing the constitution grants them is the right ot a prison sentence.

[towski]

I am all for free speech as long as they do not advocate pedophiling,treason,terrorism,and other criminal behavior.



I guess it's a good thing those silly founding fathers had a little more respect for the institution of free speech then.

Ahem.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not a lot of qualifiers on that list.

[jamesrage]

I guess it's a good thing those silly founding fathers had a little more respect for the institution of free speech then.


I get sick and tired of hearing this asinine rhetoric.If NAMBLA was around during the time of our forefathers,every member of NAMBLA would be shot.So do not give me that garbage that our forefathers would have supported the right of or even tolerate pedophiling scum,traitors,terrorist and so on.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not a lot of qualifiers on that list.

Something the scum at the ACLU like to interpret as a one way street and as freedom form religion.Last time I checked the NAMBLA was not a religion.

[Churlant]

I am all for free speech as long as they do not advocate pedophiling,treason,terrorism,and other criminal behavior.


:confused:

Then you don't support free speech.



Somehow thanks to the scum in the ACLU Nambla will proably grow and we will be seeing NAMBLA and liberal judges trying to push their agenda on a larger scale and we will be debating with pedophliling supporters on how the only thing the constitution grants them is the right ot a prison sentence.

Diversion from argument. We're talking about legal precedent and the first amendment. The ACLU's defense of NAMBLA's first amendment rights has nothing to do with the growth of that organization.

-JC

[towski]

I get sick and tired of hearing this asinine rhetoric.If NAMBLA was around during the time of our forefathers,every member of NAMBLA would be shot.So do not give me that garbage that our forefathers would have supported the right of or even tolerate pedophiling scum,traitors,terrorist and so on.


First of all, your opinion.

Agreed, things were a lot different then. They had slaves, for example.

[Churlant]

First of all, your opinion.

Agreed, things were a lot different then. They had slaves, for example.

Actually, if your target happened to be a 13 yr old black girl, I wonder very strongly whether anyone would have been shot at all..

-JC

[towski]

Actually, if your target happened to be a 13 yr old black girl, I wonder very strongly whether anyone would have been shot at all..

-JC


Excellent point.

[jamesrage]

Diversion from argument. We're talking about legal precedent and the first amendment. The ACLU's defense of NAMBLA's first amendment rights has nothing to do with the growth of that organization.

Thats a load of crap.The ACLU gave NAMLA The keys to expand.

[towski]

Thats a load of crap.The ACLU gave NAMLA The keys to expand.


No, you're missing it. The CONSTITUTION gave NAMBLA the keys to expand. It's up to thinking, informed americans like you and I to see that it doesn't.

[jamesrage]

No, you're missing it. The CONSTITUTION gave NAMBLA the keys to expand. It's up to thinking, informed americans like you and I to see that it doesn't

That made up specualtion as to what the constitution allows will only doom us.
The ACLU gave NAMBLA and every deginerate scum out there the keys to expand and to overtake society's moral fabric in years to come.
As long as the ACLU works pro bono for scum like this the degenerates will only keep rising,people like you and I who know that pedophiling is absolutly wrong will be seen as hate moungers,bigots and so on instead of being seen as normal people

NAMBLA members should be tracked down and arrested.

[towski]

That made up specualtion as to what the constitution allows will only doom us.

For someone who proclaims their patriotism so much, I'm suprised at your lack of appreciation for the laws that allow this country to be so great.


The ACLU gave NAMBLA and every deginerate scum out there the keys to expand and to overtake society's moral fabric in years to come.
As long as the ACLU works pro bono for scum like this the degenerates will only keep rising,people like you and I who know that pedophiling is absolutly wrong will be seen as hate moungers,bigots and so on instead of being seen as normal people

I have a hard time foreseeing a time in American History where pedophelia becomes an acceptable society norm.

NAMBLA members should be tracked down and arrested.

As they will be, when they violate the law, or conspire to violate the law.

Preventive law enforcement is pretty dangerous. You want them arrested before they commit a crime? I'm thinking about speeding on the way home from work today. Feel free to try and issue me a ticket. :lol:

[::Major_Baker::]

I am all for free speech as long as they do not advocate pedophiling,treason,terrorism,and other criminal behavior.



Somehow thanks to the scum in the ACLU Nambla will proably grow and we will be seeing NAMBLA and liberal judges trying to push their agenda on a larger scale and we will be debating with pedophliling supporters on how the only thing the constitution grants them is the right ot a prison sentence.

Now nambla is in line with liberal judges and they share an agenda??
ahh, this only gets better.,
I have to say I am a bit discouraged that you have 3 votes for 'member of the month' when you constantly post stupid bull**** like this. Oh wait, it is only for 'being consistent'

Not sure if that is reasonable criteria for a nomination--you are consistent alright, consistently FULL OF ****.

Reminds me of the 2004 election

[towski]

I have to say I am a bit discouraged that you have 3 votes for 'member of the month' when you constantly post stupid bull**** like this.


I thought he had 3 nominations. Then we vote.

If those are votes, I apologize.

[jamesrage]

For someone who proclaims their patriotism so much, I'm suprised at your lack of appreciation for the laws that allow this country to be so great

Pat of patriotism also means making sure the constitution is not used and abused like a piece of toilet paper by scum .

I have a hard time foreseeing a time in American History where pedophelia becomes an acceptable society norm.

Look at homosexuality,abortion,and unwed mothers.These absurd behaviors are almost society norms.

As they will be, when they violate the law, or conspire to violate the law.

Damn I didn't know pedophiling was legal,nor did I know that a orginization of child molesting scum was not consiracy to violate the law. :rolleyes:

[towski]

Pat of patriotism also means making sure the constitution is not used and abused like a piece of toilet paper by scum .

Or used and abused by those who abridge our freedoms.


Look at homosexuality,abortion,and unwed mothers.These absurd behaviors are almost society norms.

And have been since before America came into existence, and will be after as well.


Damn I didn't know pedophiling was legal,nor did I know that a orginization of child molesting scum was not consiracy to violate the law. :rolleyes:

Well, actually I don't think Pedophelia is illegal. Child Molestation is not. If I'm wrong, my mistake. And I don't know what pedophiling is.

The definition of a Pedophile:

Pedophilia (American English) or paedophilia / p dophilia (British English), from the Greek παιδοφιλια (paidophilia) < παις (pais) "boy, child" and φιλια (philia) "friendship", (ICD-10 F65.4) is the condition of people (either adult or adolescent) whose primary sexual attraction is toward prepubescent children.

It is sad, it is gross, and it is evil. But to have those thoughts is not illegal. To ACT on them is.

[::Major_Baker::]

I thought he had 3 nominations. Then we vote.

If those are votes, I apologize.

Ah whatever. My point being that I see alot of inflamatory generalizations, advocations of killing/rape/torture, and inaccurate assumptions from Jamesrage, yet people see these as worthly contribution to the forum.

Don't get me wrong, James has some good points, but then he'll create a thread that makes us all go W-T F-?
Maybe he could get a nomination for most shock value.....

but james the forum wouldn't be the same without you!

[towski]

Hey major - look at the bottom of my post above....am I right or wrong about that?

[Churlant]

Ah whatever. My point being that I see alot of inflamatory generalizations, advocations of killing/rape/torture, and inaccurate assumptions from Jamesrage, yet people see these as worthly contribution to the forum.

Don't get me wrong, James has some good points, but then he'll create a thread that makes us all go W-T F-?
Maybe he could get a nomination for most shock value.....

but james the forum wouldn't be the same without you!

Nomination doesn't mean he's gonna win :p Hell, *I* nominated him, but the only way I'll vote FOR him is if there's some sort of Affirmative Action program instituted...

Hmm...

-JC

[::Major_Baker::]

Hey major - look at the bottom of my post above....am I right or wrong about that?
You are completely right.
Thoughts are not a crime no matter how freakin sick they are.

[::Major_Baker::]

Nomination doesn't mean he's gonna win :p Hell, *I* nominated him, but the only way I'll vote FOR him is if there's some sort of Affirmative Action program instituted...

Hmm...

-JC

Why nominate him if you are not even going to think about voting for him?

[Churlant]

Why nominate him if you are not even going to think about voting for him?

:shrug:

Because, whatever you want to say about James, he IS consistent. That's why I nominated him.

Which isn't to say he doesn't contradict himself ;) He is the very essence of our first amendment rights, yet he continues to deride them.

-JC

[jamesrage]

Now nambla is in line with liberal judges and they share an agenda??
ahh, this only gets better.,
I have to say I am a bit discouraged that you have 3 votes for 'member of the month' when you constantly post stupid bull**** like this. Oh wait, it is only for 'being consistent'

Ruth Ginsburge,former head of ACLU now a scumbag liberal judge.As a scumbag she will side with the scumbags."So what these child molesting ****s are degenerates,we must defend their right for free to have their website up and promote pedophiling"


Reminds me of the 2004 election

Still sore over that?I am supprised that another bull **** thread acusing Bush of stealing votes has not popped up.

[::Major_Baker::]

:shrug:

Because, whatever you want to say about James, he IS consistent. That's why I nominated him.

Which isn't to say he doesn't contradict himself ;) He is the very essence of our first amendment rights, yet he continues to deride them.

-JC
consistent? I suppose.
I respect james alot, for having such an interest in politics and expressing that interest,, but I don't often come out of one of his threads saying, "wow, that made alot of sense--what a good point"

Instead I come out thinking about inmates being raped with jagged metal poles and innocent arabs burning to death while I mull over my lack of morals.
How refreshing.


I guess I have a different idea of what a memebr of the month award should be presented for.
However, I repsect everyone here and their nominations. :D

Still sore over that?I am supprised that another bull **** thread acusing Bush of stealing votes has not popped up.
Give it time. I am just sore over the fact that so many Americans voted against their best interests out of fear, that's all.

[Churlant]

consistent? I suppose.
I respect james alot, for having such an interest in politics and expressing that interest,, but I don't often come out of one of his threads saying, "wow, that made alot of sense--what a good point"

Instead I come out thinking about inmates being raped with jagged metal poles and innocent arabs burning to death while I mull over my lack of morals.
How refreshing.


I guess I have a different idea of what a memebr of the month award should be presented for.


You may not come out of a JR thread thinking "Wow, what a good point!"

But I bet you DO come out of a JR thread thinking "Wow... uhh... just wow..."

:D

-JC

[jamesrage]

I am just sore over the fact that so many Americans voted against their best interests out of fear, that's all.

I remember a statement that I heard played on the radio that Kerry made after Vietnam that that just infuriated hell out of me."The government is breading millions of monsters..." and I think why on earth would any sane person who had respect for the military and love for their country vote for someone like Kerry.

[towski]

I remember a statement that I heard played on the radio that Kerry made after Vietnam that that just infuriated hell out of me."The government is breading millions of monsters..." and I think why on earth would any sane person who had respect for the military and love for their country vote for someone like Kerry.


Awwww crap. I knew this would happen. Let me think of a subject change.

Hey james, somebody on another forum just said something positive about somebody from another country! He's a traitor! Sic' em!

I guess this topic has just about petered out, huh?

[Churlant]

I remember a statement that I heard played on the radio that Kerry made after Vietnam that that just infuriated hell out of me."The government is breading millions of monsters..." and I think why on earth would any sane person who had respect for the military and love for their country vote for someone like Kerry.

Care to find the actual quote? That isn't it and I'm not sure what it is, exactly. But I'd be interested to read it.

-JC

[::Major_Baker::]

I remember a statement that I heard played on the radio that Kerry made after Vietnam that that just infuriated hell out of me."The government is breading millions of monsters..." and I think why on earth would any sane person who had respect for the military and love for their country vote for someone like Kerry.

You know what, when I was 18, I stole a bike. In fact I stole a lot of other stuff. I also used to like to get in fights occasioanally. I also used sit around all winter and collect unemployment from seasonal work.
Not only that, I used to be slightly racist against asians, specifically hmongs.


Now I work for the police, own a house, and live in a multi-ethnic neighborhood in minneapolis.

Hmm, what does it all mean?

[Churlant]

You know what, when I was 18, I stole a bike. In fact I stole a lot of other stuff. I also used to like to get in fights occasioanally. I also used sit around all winter and collect unemployment from seasonal work.
Not only that, I used to be slightly racist against asians, specifically hmongs.


Now I work for the police, own a house, and live in a multi-ethnic neighborhood in minneapolis.

Hmm, what does it all mean?

It means you're only half a scumbag... :D

I'd call you rehabilitated, but that doesn't happen...

-JC

[jamesrage]

Care to find the actual quote? That isn't it and I'm not sure what it is, exactly. But I'd be interested to read it.


http://eroscoloredglasses.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_eroscoloredglasses_archive.html

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the
feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped…I understand 57 percent of all those entering the VA hospitals talk
about suicide. Some 27 percent have tried, and they try because they come back to this country and they have to face what they did in Vietnam, and then they come back and find the indifference of a country that doesn't really care, that doesn't really care.

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by ::Major_Baker::
You know what, when I was 18, I stole a bike. In fact I stole a lot of other stuff. I also used to like to get in fights occasioanally. I also used sit around all winter and collect unemployment from seasonal work.
Not only that, I used to be slightly racist against asians, specifically hmongs.


Now I work for the police, own a house, and live in a multi-ethnic neighborhood in minneapolis.

Hmm, what does it all mean?

Some people change others do not.

[Churlant]

http://eroscoloredglasses.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_eroscoloredglasses_archive.html

I can understand that you wouldn't understand the meaning and the gravity of those words. I'm not even sure it would be worth the time to try and explain them to you.

-JC

[jamesrage]

Awwww crap. I knew this would happen. Let me think of a subject change.

Hey james, somebody on another forum just said something positive about somebody from another country! He's a traitor! Sic' em!

I guess this topic has just about petered out, huh?

It is one thing to say something positive about another country that is our ally, it is another to say a something positive about our enimies.

Now back on subject.

The ACLU are scum for sticking up for the child mosting scum of America.These people only bastardize the constitution by stating things Oh it is their constitutional to endorse pedophiling.Our forefathers are turning over in their graves with the peversity that the ACLU has permited and brainwashed and infected the courts with.I am sure that if some how the forefathers could travel in time there would not be this nonsense that the constitution allows pedophilers,sexual deviants and terrorist to run websites or run around.People seem to forget that our forefathers were God fearing men and women.

Ruth Ginsberg the scumbag former head of the ACLU seems to think that our document is a piece of paper frozen in time and international law should be applied to our constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg


In response to Roper and other recent decisions, several Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a resolution declaring that the "meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States." A similar resolution was introduced in the U.S. Senate. In her speech, Ginsburg criticized these resolutions and the spirit in which they were written. "Although I doubt the resolutions will pass this Congress, it is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support," she said. "The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," Ginsburg said. "Even more so today, the United States is subject to the scrutiny of a candid world," she said. "What the United States does, for good or for ill, continues to be watched by the international community, in particular by organizations concerned with the advancement of the rule of law and respect for human dignity."

If the ACLU stands for our constitution then why is their judge advocating forign law into the interpretation?

So don't give me that crap that the ACLU defends the constitution and the american way.

They stand up for child molesting scum,that is not the American way and that has nothing to do with our constitution.

[jamesrage]

I can understand that you wouldn't understand the meaning and the gravity of those words. I'm not even sure it would be worth the time to try and explain them to you.

Don't give me that "I understand it and you don't" crap.I took reading comprehension in school.I perfectly understand his words and speach.His words and speach are nothing more than words a traitor in the sixities would speak.
Kerry is nothing more that a BF(buddy ****er)The speach the traitor John Kerry gave has a more of an impact when you hear those words straight from his mouth on radio.

[Churlant]

Don't give me that "I understand it and you don't" crap.I took reading comprehension in school.

:shrug:

You should be glad it was a free class, assuming public education. If someone actually paid money, they should get a refund.

-JC

[JoeR]

I expect the mods to close this one if you guys keep it up.

[eugene40]

I am more disturbed by the fact that the ACLU chose to represent NAMBLA's right to free speech.They advocate pedophiling,that alone should be reason to shut NAMBLA down and arrest it's members.This http://216.220.97.17/ does not look like they advocate anything legal.Perhaps someone in your department can get a hold of hacker to find out where these people are.


I understand where you are coming from. Pedophelia is disgusting don't get me wrong. But ACLU is a civil rights organization, Everyone's civil rights, from the right to the left. From the righteous to the repellent. NAMBLA is certainly repellent and disgusting. But many,, many people including the ACLU believe that if you start to curb one type of speech where does it end. First it is NAMBLA then as things go down and down further and speech is curbed left and right then the next thing you know Calling a judge an activist judge is a arrestable offense. Then you my friend are screwed. :)

[Churlant]

I understand where you are coming from. Pedophelia is disgusting don't get me wrong. But ACLU is a civil rights organization, Everyone's civil rights, from the right to the left. From the righteous to the repellent. NAMBLA is certainly repellent and disgusting. But many,, many people including the ACLU believe that if you start to curb one type of speech where does it end. First it is NAMBLA then as things go down and down further and speech is curbed left and right then the next thing you know Calling a judge an activist judge is a arrestable offense. Then you my friend are screwed. :)

That is precisely it.

Pop quiz all you comprehension hotshots...

"When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

Who said it and what does it mean?

-JC

[eugene40]

That is precisely it.

Pop quiz all you comprehension hotshots...

"When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

Who said it and what does it mean?

-JC


Ummm what is Fredriech Nietzsche- Beyond Good and Evil chapter 4 numero 146

It can be interpreted in several different ways. :D

[Churlant]

Ummm what is Fredriech Nietzsche- Beyond Good and Evil chapter 4 numero 146

It can be interpreted in several different ways. :D

Your interpretation first, then the general concensus please :p

-JC

[jamesrage]

I understand where you are coming from. Pedophelia is disgusting don't get me wrong. But ACLU is a civil rights organization, Everyone's civil rights, from the right to the left. From the righteous to the repellent. NAMBLA is certainly repellent and disgusting. But many,, many people including the ACLU believe that if you start to curb one type of speech where does it end. First it is NAMBLA then as things go down and down further and speech is curbed left and right then the next thing you know Calling a judge an activist judge is a arrestable offense. Then you my friend are screwed.
OFFLINE Reply With Quote

NAMBLA is endorsing something highly illegal,you mean to tell me that you guys can't track them down arrest them or perhaps interrogate them at least?


THe ACLU seems to be already trying to curb the rights of people when christian exericse their right to free speech by putting up crosses or ten commandments on government property.But yet some anti-american **** can put up anti-american artwork on display on government building.http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/DailyFile/antiamerican_art_display/

[Soc.Dem.]

Hey james, somebody on another forum just said something positive about somebody from another country! He's a traitor! Sic' em!

"Kill! Kill now! Scumbags!" :lol:

[Jarlaxle]

Well, James, you certainly made a difference today.

I mailed a $50 donation to the ACLU about an hour ago.

[Democritus]

NAMBLA is endorsing something highly illegal,you mean to tell me that you guys can't track them down arrest them or perhaps interrogate them at least?

I swore I wasn't going to get involved in this thread... but what the hell, caution to the wind.

From an official standpoint NAMBLA is not endorsing highly illegal behavior. They favor changing the laws so that the illegal behavior is no longer illegal. That nuance is probably going to be lost on you, but I felt obligated to say it anyway.

[patrickt]

Maybe I'm confused. The First Amendment says,"
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...."

As I read the original post, and recall articles concerning this case, it doesn't involve the government. It involves an individual suing an organization. Why is it a Constitutional issue and why is the ACLU involved?

[eugene40]

Your interpretation first, then the general concensus please :p

-JC


Well my interpretation comes from my own experiences. When you stare into dark things (metaphorical dark) they will stare back in to you. And you become them. But that is merely my interpretation of it.

As for the concensus,,,, I don't know it would depend on the brand of philosophy that one would particularly subscribe to. My guess would be more to the point of good and evil, and the whole "creation of values" argument underlined in beyond good and evil. That when you look at something and say it is wrong it is evil and so on and so forth, eventually when you look into it long enough and try to define it too much you are going to read things not there, making up things and losing your perspective and thus becoming evil in your own right. But that is just a guess.

What were you eluding too?

[jamesrage]

As I read the original post, and recall articles concerning this case, it doesn't involve the government. It involves an individual suing an organization. Why is it a Constitutional issue and why is the ACLU involved?

Why is the ACLU involved?As a said many times, the ACLU are scum.

[jamesrage]

From an official standpoint NAMBLA is not endorsing highly illegal behavior. They favor changing the laws so that the illegal behavior is no longer illegal. That nuance is probably going to be lost on you, but I felt obligated to say it anyway.

NAMBLA stand for pedophilia.,they don't stand for the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes or the National Association of Men Beleaving Life is Awsome.Therefore they are endorsing a highly illegal behavior.They should be shut down shut down before some idiot jude de-criminalizes thier behavior.

[Churlant]

Well my interpretation comes from my own experiences. When you stare into dark things (metaphorical dark) they will stare back in to you. And you become them. But that is merely my interpretation of it.

As for the concensus,,,, I don't know it would depend on the brand of philosophy that one would particularly subscribe to. My guess would be more to the point of good and evil, and the whole "creation of values" argument underlined in beyond good and evil. That when you look at something and say it is wrong it is evil and so on and so forth, eventually when you look into it long enough and try to define it too much you are going to read things not there, making up things and losing your perspective and thus becoming evil in your own right. But that is just a guess.

What were you eluding too?

This is the usually accepted interpretation, actually, and what I was looking for. It relates more to the spinoff on Kerry's comments and reading comprehension in general than the thread itself.

-JC

[Churlant]

I swore I wasn't going to get involved in this thread... but what the hell, caution to the wind.

From an official standpoint NAMBLA is not endorsing highly illegal behavior. They favor changing the laws so that the illegal behavior is no longer illegal. That nuance is probably going to be lost on you, but I felt obligated to say it anyway.

Heh... you know, I thought about bringing this up as well... but didn't, for the same reasons you hesitated ;)

-JC

[eugene40]

[QUOTE]NAMBLA is endorsing something highly illegal,you mean to tell me that you guys can't track them down arrest them or perhaps interrogate them at least?


Well james, They are merely endorsing it. They at this point in the conversation and topic are not acting upon their words. We have been over this before, you can not arrest a person on a thought or even words. (under most circumstances,, inciting a riot and yelling fire in a theater is excluded). So what would you be arresting them for speech? That would violate their 1st ammendment rights. And interrogate them? For what you can'tinterview unless you arrest them because they can just tell you to go to hell. Believe me and they can come up with several different colorful ways of saying it too. And you can't arrest them because at the point of what we are talking about no crime has been committed.

THe ACLU seems to be already trying to curb the rights of people when christian exericse their right to free speech by putting up crosses or ten commandments on government property.But yet some anti-american **** can put up anti-american artwork on display on government building.http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/DailyFile/antiamerican_art_display/


You misconstrue an defense as an attack. They are not attacking christians they are defending non christians that find certain christian acts and symbols offensive. And the "anti american" artwork is and extension of their rights. If you are offended by it... Sue,, if you can't afford it call the ACLU :D

The ACLU doesn't go out picking the fights the fights come to them. People have issue with certain things but no clout. They go to the ACLU for some semblance of clout.

[eugene40]

NAMBLA stand for pedophilia.,they don't stand for the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes or the National Association of Men Beleaving Life is Awsome.Therefore they are endorsing a highly illegal behavior.They should be shut down shut down before some idiot jude de-criminalizes thier behavior.


Good South Park reference.

But it is all a matter of time and perspective. If it was 2500 years ago this issue wouldn't even be brought up because it was a norm. It was made criminal later in history. Their perspective might be they want to get back to that.

Don't get me wrong it is still gross and makes my fist clench when I think of arseholes doing anything to kids. But it is me and I can think outside of the box and beyong my own hatred of things.

[Churlant]

ehehehe...


NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts. NAMBLA does not engage in any activities that violate the law, nor do we advocate that anyone else should do so.


...yep, you guessed it - www.nambla.org ;)

This site is still messed up :p Harry Potter is gay? They're like Pat Robertson... only, not...

-JC

[Democritus]

NAMBLA stand for pedophilia.,they don't stand for the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes or the National Association of Men Beleaving Life is Awsome.Therefore they are endorsing a highly illegal behavior.They should be shut down shut down before some idiot jude de-criminalizes thier behavior.

Yep... That would be the nuance I expected you to miss. NAMBLA is for the legalization of pedophelia. They have every right to lobby to change laws just like everyone else.

Patrickt:
As to why the ACLU is taking the case, I can't say for sure. I presume that it's because it concerns the content of their website. If they lose it would have to be taken down, which would be censorship, which is a question of First Ammendment rights. The government doesn't have to be directly involved for it to be a civil rights case.

[patrickt]

Democritus: The government doesn't have to be directly involved when there is a law protecting specific civil rights. The 1st Amendment does protect free speech from government interference but no more. Private citizens can interfere with your free speech as long as they don't violate a law in doing so. This case is a civil action between two private individuals so I don't understand the Constitutional issue.

[towski]

Patrickt:
As to why the ACLU is taking the case, I can't say for sure. I presume that it's because it concerns the content of their website. If they lose it would have to be taken down, which would be censorship, which is a question of First Ammendment rights. The government doesn't have to be directly involved for it to be a civil rights case.


The ACLU took the case because the parents are suing NAMBLA over the content of their literature.

[Democritus]

Democritus: The government doesn't have to be directly involved when there is a law protecting specific civil rights. The 1st Amendment does protect free speech from government interference but no more. Private citizens can interfere with your free speech as long as they don't violate a law in doing so. This case is a civil action between two private individuals so I don't understand the Constitutional issue.

Actually that's not true. Private citizens can restrict free speech on their own property. If someone is on a street corner saying something they have every right to do it, and no one else can take that away from them.

[patrickt]

Democritus: A man in Chicago offered a bounty for information leading to the conviction of the mayor. He was fired. While many of the commentators think it was a shame he was fired they all seem to agree that it was legal. His advertising a bounty was clearly speech. I can sue for libel or slander and interfere with free speech. And, if you're on a sidewalk speaking and I choose to stand next to you and speak louder, I can do so, and thereby interfere with your free speech.

The 1st Amendment protects us all from government interference with our free speech. It doesn't protect us from interference with our free speech from our boss, our neighbor, or anyone else.

If you'll notice, the ACLUs interest in the Boy Scouts is where the Boy Scouts and the government interact.

So, I don't see the ACLUs interest as a 1st Amendment issue because I don't see any government involvement. If NAMBLA were being prosecuted as accessories to a crime that would be a different matter.

[Churlant]

The 1st Amendment protects us all from government interference with our free speech. It doesn't protect us from interference with our free speech from our boss, our neighbor, or anyone else.


Curious... are you saying I personally SHOULD have the right to restrict your speech?

-JC

[patrickt]

No, I'm saying you do have the right. If you were my boss you could fire me. If you were my landlord you could evict me. If you own a mall, you can restrict my access. You can get a restraining order prohibiting me from speaking to you. In some states, if your speech is offensive enough, it's a defense to punching you in the nose. All of this is contingent upon no law being passed protecting you from those actions.

All I'm saying is that the 1st Amendment protects you from laws being written to restrict your free speech and nothing more. The government cannot tell NAMBLA, because of what they espouse, that they can't write or say the things they do. The government cannot remove their website because the content is offensive. If, on the other hand, an internet provider refused to host their website or a newspapers chooses not to run their ads or a radio station refuses to give them a forum for their views or a printer refuses to print their books or I choose to sue them it is not a Constitutional issue.

Since the ACLU normally enters a case concerning the Constitution, I'm curious as to how this is a Constitutional issue or, if it isn't, why the ACLU chose to get involved. They did not get involved in similar lawsuits against anti-abortion groups or white supremacist groups. What is it that makes this different?

[Churlant]

No, I'm saying you do have the right. If you were my boss you could fire me. If you were my landlord you could evict me. If you own a mall, you can restrict my access. You can get a restraining order prohibiting me from speaking to you. In some states, if your speech is offensive enough, it's a defense to punching you in the nose. All of this is contingent upon no law being passed protecting you from those actions.

I get what you're saying, but it seems to me the 1st amendment has been applied more broadly than your interpretation. Right or wrong is up for debate, of course...

Though I'm still fuzzy. If I were your boss, I could tell you to shut up... but I'm saying like now, right here. I tell you to stop posting. Or not to post certain things, period. I take you to COURT to keep you from posting on WS... do you suppose I could win?

By the way, I'd love to see a law actually allowing physical assault due to verbal transgression. :p

-JC

[Democritus]

Democritus: A man in Chicago offered a bounty for information leading to the conviction of the mayor. He was fired. While many of the commentators think it was a shame he was fired they all seem to agree that it was legal. His advertising a bounty was clearly speech. I can sue for libel or slander and interfere with free speech. And, if you're on a sidewalk speaking and I choose to stand next to you and speak louder, I can do so, and thereby interfere with your free speech.

First of all you can't tell your boss to go **** himself because he can fire you. He can fire you because you signed a contract. It's not a crime, but the boss is under no obligation to keep you employed. You're still free to say whatever you want, it's just not a good idea. Libel and slander have specific statutes associated with them and this case involves neither. Finally your ability to speak louder than me doesn't interfere with my free speech at all.

This is a constitutional issue because it would be the court abridging their free speech. If the plaintiffs had gone to the ISP's and gotten them shut down that'd be fine. There's nothing unconstitutional about that. However they went to the courts, and the courts are REQUIRED to rule according to the constitution.

[patrickt]

Churlant: If you Google "provocation defense" you'll find references to defenses based on words that precipitate an assault and the related statutes. Colorado had one when I lived there and other states do as well.

Democritus: If one considers the laws allowing civil seizure of property by the government one learns quickly that civil proceedings are not bound by the Constitution, at least in some instances. The government can seize your property and you are required to go to court and try and get it back. The government does not have to prove the property was used in a crime, the proceeds of a crime, or anything else. The property does not even have to be the property of the person in question. When a court acts in a civil case, apparently some Constitutional protections are absent.

I went to some ACLU sites and found no explanation.

[Churlant]

Churlant: If you Google "provocation defense" you'll find references to defenses based on words that precipitate an assault and the related statutes. Colorado had one when I lived there and other states do as well.


I suppose it always depends on the situation.. if you get into somebody's face, or appear or act in a threatening manner, then those are mitigating circumstances anyway. Most of the references I just found on Google (in an admittedly short search) refer to things other than speech... such as a child messing with someone's dog, the dog biting them, and the resulting lawsuit using provocation as a context to dismiss the case. That kind of thing.

Even assuming you are correct, I find a hard time imagining a judge or jury buying such a defense on the grounds you lay out. If I call you a **** ** *** right now, and you track me down at my home and kick the crap out of me, I somehow don't think you'll get very far with such a legal tactic.

Either way... this still doesn't answer my basic question: do I have the personal right to prevent your speech? And not on some technicality like libel either... I mean in simple terms, if I tell you to stop posting, and sue to make it happen, what would be YOUR defense?

-JC

[chukster8614]

HEY SOUTH PARK FANS ever seen this one? ...

Cartman Joins NAMBLA
Cartman decides to seek the friendship of older men. Using the Internet, he makes a connection with men who love to hang out with little boys. An organization called NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) holds a meeting in South Park and Cartman becomes their poster child. The boys learn how much an adult can really love a child.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/show/display_episode.php?season=4&id1=406&id2=53

[patrickt]

Yes, under some conditions you have the right to stop my speech. Yes, you can sue me to stop me from posting but for the lawsuit to proceed you would have to show some sort of damages.

If you were out with associates for a night on the town and you're mooning the group and someone snaps a picture and then the picture starts appearing at your work place. Yes, I believe you could have that stopped and seek damages if appropriate.

If I were communicating with your 16-year old daughter and encouraging her to have sex with someone, yes, I believe as her legal guardian you could have a court stop me.

An anti-abortion group who posted the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions were ordered to stop and I believe the website was removed. I don't recall the ACLU being involved in that one.

Restraining orders routinely order someone not to communicate in any way with some else. I assume if my posts were in some way harming you, you could seek a restraining order--a civil procedure.

I've read of cases where an ex-boyfriend or ex-husband posted embarrassing pictures of their ex-girlfriend/wife and were ordered to cease and desist by a civil court.

I don't consider libel a technicality but at your request I'll skip that.

In criminal court it is the state versus whozit regardless of the victims. In a civil case it is me against you. There is a jury. The government's role is as referee. The government does not even collect for you.

The lawsuit in question is an individual versus NAMBLA. The government is not involved.

[Democritus]

Democritus: If one considers the laws allowing civil seizure of property by the government one learns quickly that civil proceedings are not bound by the Constitution, at least in some instances. The government can seize your property and you are required to go to court and try and get it back. The government does not have to prove the property was used in a crime, the proceeds of a crime, or anything else. The property does not even have to be the property of the person in question. When a court acts in a civil case, apparently some Constitutional protections are absent.

I'm going to take one more shot at this before I give up trying to reason with you.

First of all your arguments are all over the place. We're talking about the first ammendment. You're diving into the fourth and fifth ammendments.

ALL COURTS ARE BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION.

The constitution does NOT prevent the government from seizing property. They are required to give appropriate compensation but that's all. You can argue whether or not those principles are followed, but that would be rediculously off topic for this thread.

The first ammendment guarantees that the government cannot interfere with the freedom of speech. The only exceptions the courts have made are when the speech is deliberately and maliciously harmful.

[Churlant]

Yes, under some conditions you have the right to stop my speech. Yes, you can sue me to stop me from posting but for the lawsuit to proceed you would have to show some sort of damages.


No, like I said, this isn't some special "condition". I am simply telling you to stop posting. Point blank, no provocation, no nothing. All of the conditions you mentioned carry special circumstances addressed by existing laws.

Right now, right here I say "Patrickt - don't post anymore."

Do I have the right to do that and do you think it would hold in court?

-JC

[patrickt]

Churlant: First paragraph of my previous post. "Yes, under some conditions you have the right to stop my speech. Yes, you can sue me to stop me from posting but for the lawsuit to proceed you would have to show some sort of damages." So, yes, you can tell me not to post any more, and yes, you can take me to court, and no you would not be successful unless you could show that I was causing you some damage. If you did that then yes you could stop me.

Democritus: Okay, so the plethora of government rules, restrictions, and laws restricting speech are simply aberrations. And, the fact that this lawsuit does not involve the government restricting speech but is a civil action between two individuals is not significant.

[Churlant]

Churlant: First paragraph of my previous post. "Yes, under some conditions you have the right to stop my speech. Yes, you can sue me to stop me from posting but for the lawsuit to proceed you would have to show some sort of damages." So, yes, you can tell me not to post any more, and yes, you can take me to court, and no you would not be successful unless you could show that I was causing you some damage. If you did that then yes you could stop me.
.

Why wouldn't I be successful, even without damaging you? You don't have a right to free speech, so what would be your defense?

-JC

[Democritus]

Churlant: First paragraph of my previous post. "Yes, under some conditions you have the right to stop my speech. Yes, you can sue me to stop me from posting but for the lawsuit to proceed you would have to show some sort of damages." So, yes, you can tell me not to post any more, and yes, you can take me to court, and no you would not be successful unless you could show that I was causing you some damage. If you did that then yes you could stop me.

Democritus: Okay, so the plethora of government rules, restrictions, and laws restricting speech are simply aberrations. And, the fact that this lawsuit does not involve the government restricting speech but is a civil action between two individuals is not significant.

Which laws, restrictions, and rules would those be? Are those the same ones that only protect Churlant from speech that causes him some damage? If they are, then yes, they are aberrations; exceptions made for the greater good.

The government is always an interested party in civil cases. It's not a simple arbitration. The government ENFORCES the rulings made, even in a civil court. Most of the cases that involved constitutional issues before the Supreme Court have been civil cases.

If the court held NAMBLA responsible, they'd be forced to close their website and other publications. They would be forced by the government, not by the plaintiff. That would mean the government was interfering with their freedom of speech.

[patrickt]

Churlant: I don't have to have a defense because absent damages you have no lawsuit.

Democritus: I am aware of no instances where the government assists in collecting on civil matters except, and it's an exception with specific laws to permit it, child support. If Churlant sues me, shows damages, and wins it is then up to him to try and collect.

The first seven cases I found relating to free speech heard by the Supreme Court were:
Attorney General John Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
United States v. American Library Association
Good News Club v. Milford Central School
Reno v. ACLU (the Reno in this case was Janet Reno as Attorney General)
Roth v. United States
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas
Cuffley v. Mickes (Cuffley was the administer of the highway cleanup program in Missouri and Mickes represented the KKK.)

Notice a pattern here. Individuals versus govenrment entities. For some cases, such as Cuffley v. Mickes and Rowe v. Wade you have to look for the government connection. The reason for this is because the Constitution protects your free speech from government restriction, not private.

If you want to consider laws restricting your free speech now we can start with threatening the President and go down to university speech codes.

The family in this case is suing NAMBLA. Should they win, they would be faced with collecting. The organization has no visible assests and one of the reasons the ACLU has entered this case is to allow the members of NAMBLA to stay anonymous so the family, should they win, would be unable to collect. That has nothing to do with free speech but is really nice of the ACLU.

[Democritus]

Quite simply you're wrong about the enforcment of civil litigation.

When there finally is a final judgment, the plaintiff will likely be barred under res judicata from trying to bring the same or similar claim again against that defendant, or from relitigating any of the issues, even under different legal claims or theories. This prevents a new trial of the same case with a different result, or if the plaintiff won, a repeat trial that merely multiplies the judgment against the defendant.

If the judgment is for the plaintiff, then the defendant must comply under penalty of law with the judgment, which will usually be a monetary award. If the defendant fails to pay, the court has various powers to seize any of the defendant's assets located within its jurisdiction. If all assets are located elsewhere, the plaintiff must file another suit in the appropriate court to seek enforcement of the other court's previous judgment. This can be a difficult task when crossing from a court in one state or nation to another, though courts tend to grant each other respect when there is not a clear legal rule to the contrary. A defendant who has no assets in any jurisdiction is said to be "judgment-proof." In most cases, nothing can be done to collect an award from a moneyless defendant.

Unfortunately for plaintiffs, imprisonment of an indigent judgment-proof defendant is simply not available as an alternative remedy; debtor's prisons have been outlawed by statute, constitutional amendment or international human rights treaties in the vast majority of common law jurisdictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit

[patrickt]

Democritus: "If the judgment is for the plaintiff, then the defendant must comply under penalty of law with the judgment, which will usually be a monetary award. If the defendant fails to pay, the court has various powers to seize any of the defendant's assets located within its jurisdiction. If all assets are located elsewhere, the plaintiff must file another suit in the appropriate court to seek enforcement of the other court's previous judgment. This can be a difficult task when crossing from a court in one state or nation to another, though courts tend to grant each other respect when there is not a clear legal rule to the contrary. A defendant who has no assets in any jurisdiction is said to be "judgment-proof." In most cases, nothing can be done to collect an award from a moneyless defendant."

By golly, you're right. You win and the court just gets your money for you. Amazing. Did you actually read the entry? The court orders him to pay. If he doesn't, the court "may" issue an order for real property to be seized, providing it's in the jurisdiction of the court. Then that order has to be served and the property seized and the court doesn't do that. You have to either hire it done on try and get the local Sheriff's Office to follow through. Of course, that's only if the defendant has assets and you know where they are. And, if the assests are in another jurisdiction you have to go to court again. As your article pointed out, if the defendant has moved his assets to his wife or his children, darn. I should point out that none of the strategies that will "judgement proof" a person from you will work when you owe the government money. You are out of luck but the IRS isn't.

One of the benefits to NAMBLA of the ACLU participation is it will help them hide personal assets.

All of this is beside the point. The Constitution protects us from the government, period. It does not protect us from each other. Under, I think, the 14th Amendment we were all guaranteed equal protection under the law. That meant the government could not discriminate based on race, creed, and so forth. That did not prevent discrimination by individuals so we have the Age Discrimination Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the law to provide handicapped persons with equal access. Notice, those are laws and not Constitutional Amendments. We also have laws restricting free speech but there is no law recognizing a right to free speech safe from restrictions by individuals.

We are obviously not going to reach a meeting of the minds so I'll keep looking for a justification for the ACLU being involved. It will be interesting to see how this case comes out if it ever goes to trial.

[Churlant]

We are obviously not going to reach a meeting of the minds so I'll keep looking for a justification for the ACLU being involved.

I really think you'd just be spinning your wheels. You don't agree with the ACLU's interpretation of the first amendment, but that doesn't mean they have another justification. They view the amendment as a right of free speech and they view this lawsuit as an infringement of that right. Seems pretty obvious to me. It may not justify the representation to you personally... but that does sound like a personal problem. ;)

-JC

[patrickt]

I found this and perhaps it clarifies better than I did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Libel.2C_slander.2C_and_private_ac tion

"Amendment I (the First Amendment) of the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the U.S. Congress from infringing on six rights…."


"The First Amendment only explicitly disallows any of the rights from being abridged by Congress. Over time, however, the courts held that this extends to the executive and judicial branches. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the limitations of the First Amendment to actions by the states."

There was also this.
"Ordinarily, the First Amendment only applies to prohibit direct government censorship. The protection from libel suits recognizes that the power of the state is needed to enforce a libel judgment between private persons. The Supreme Court's scrutiny of defamation suits is thus sometimes considered part of a broader trend in U.S. jurisprudence away from the strict state action requirement, and into the application of First Amendment principles when private actors invoke state power."


I don't understand the libel and defamation comments but the cases given are limited to those two areas.