Defending NAMBLA pro bono in the Jeffrey Curley case.

Jeff was a 10 year old boy who was raped and murdered by two perverts from the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
The Curley family is taking legal action against NAMBLA in order to dissolve the organization which give advice on how to lure a boy into your car, etc.

The ACLU has sided with this group and will represent them for FREE.
But additionally, they tried to put a gag order on the Curley prosecution.

The group that touts "freedom of speech" as their mainstay tried to put a gag order on the victims family.

Can you believe this?

The far liberal left has gone over the edge. It's a freak show.
And it's one of the main reasons for the decline in American Values.

The ACLU is not a 'liberal' group. They are a libertarian group, dedicated to the defense of the first amendment, whatever the consequences. They have done countless defenses of causes non-liberal, many that conservatives would like. So don't make them into a con vs. lib party.

How could this defense be construed as liberal? I could just as easily construe it as conservative:

nearly all sexual abusers of children are straight white men;

most straight white men are republicans;

the ACLU is defending sexual abusers of children;

Therefore, in defending a group dominated by straight white men, the ACLU is defending republicans.

Simple logic.

John

why do people allways make it a political issue?
It never ceases to amaze me!! Where do we draw the line?

A free USA needs the ACLU. But I hope they lose this one.

What Chris and Xrun said. X

X - what did I say?? 🙂

But I agree, it's not a political issue, it's a values issue. The ACLU is wrong on this, people are free to have their fantasies and such, but they can't act on them if it's harmful to others or obviously illegal.

The ACLU is not needed in America.

Any group that supports NAMBLA needs to be disolved.
And anybody that supports the groups who support NAMBLA should reconsider their priorities.

If it were someone you knew who was molested, would you want the ACLU to continue?
They have overstepped their bounds.

Chripes, people want Rush Limbaugh fired for saying one comment. Those same folks think NAMBLA should continue because they once fought the brave fight.

As for the Liberal comment, I'd like to have that stricken. Upon further review, I guess it's not a left vs right issue.
My thought process revolved around the fact that so many bogus lawyers support liberal agendas.

Funny how the liberals were so jolted by my (uninformed) assertation that this was a left wing fiasco that they don't comment on the ACLU's decision to support child molestors.
Common sense is not a strong suit on the left.

Can't say I have ever seen a reason for the ACLU to exist. Show me.

Anyone who thinks it is necessary, in order to protect an American's right to free speech, to defend the right of perverts to instruct other perverts on how to seduce and rape little children, has serious mental problems.

Evidently the ACLU is full of mentally disordered people. When will they get around to defending our right to yell "FIRE!" in crowded theaters?

"Put the crack pipe down", If you don't understand that the ACLU is step with the liberal wing of the DNC and does thier bidding, you are on something.

I would like some examples where the ACLU has come to the defense of a conservatives rights to "free speech"
GT

Chris,it was Jdrabinksi. Either I'm drunk,old or both,LOL. X

Conservative case: defending the rights of the KKK to march in Skokie, IL.

John

Simply put, the ACLU is DEAD wrong on this! I may think it a bit premature to disolve them, but their support of NAMBLA definitely raises questions.

F***in' Bastards!

God save the US from the ACLU and the "left" . This will give you a good picture of how they would like to shape our country by the use of the court systems and go around the voters with thier agenda.

Lets see here are some of the issues the ACLU has jumped in on in the past:

Support of legalized child pornography
Support of Legalized drugs
Support of Tax-exempt status for Satanists,
Support of Legalized prostitution
Support of Abortion on demand
Support of Mandatory sex education in schools
Support of Forced busing
Support of Legalized polygamy
Support of special rights and privileges for homosexuals.
Support of NAMBLA members “rights” to have sex with children
Oppose voluntary school prayer
Oppose tax exemptions for churches
Oppose religious displays in public places (such as a manger scene at Christmas),
Oppose parental-consent laws involving minors seeking abortion,
Oppose education vouchers
Oppose home schooling
Oppose public-demonstrations against abortion

It's not a pretty picture
GT

Skokie, hey that's where a competing site resides.

So the ACLU is for radical left and radical right.

jdrabinski:

So in your mind the KKK = Conservative? With that logic you must agree that Liberal = Communist

Wow! You need to get out of the house more often and experience the "real world"

I have never played in the Misc area. This is fun!
GT

It can be GT. Just don't let it get personal.

Sketcha,

I didn’t think I was making it personal. Not my intent.
I just wish there was more common sense in this Country when comes to a simple issue like this one. Everyone should be able to agree the ACLU is WRONG in this case. IMHO they are also wrong in a majority of the other cases they take up.
GT

I guess when you replace rhetoric with facts there is no response just silence on this issue.
GT

jdrabinski, nice try on the "logic" that in this case the ACLU is defending conservatives, but no cigar. There are plenty of middle and upper class white males that are not conservatives. Statistics that show that a majority of white males are conservatives (if such statistics exist) can not prove that these particular white males are conservative.

Others, I think that a number of so called "liberals" stated in this thread that the ACLU is wrong to defend this case. I also disagree with ACLU in this case. This tye of speach can be compared to yelling fire in a crowded theatre - it incites behavior that is directed to and harmful to a segment of our population that can not protect itself. Therefor this type of speach should be (and could be legally) limited.

Sorry GT,

I didn't intend to imply that you had. Just a friendly reminder to a new Misc. poster from a voice of experience. Funny how I just accidently proved, yet again how easy it is to be misunderstood when you're not talking face to face.

Go on and have fun. I'll be right along with you.

Take care,
sketch