Waterboarding....torture?

[dapoes]

You know its bad when the lefty liberal ACLU is now offended at hopey changey Obama

 

[Garfield1966]

What case are you talking about? Pedophiles?

Yes, exactly. Freedom of speech applies to all speech, not just the speech that you approve of. When/if NAMBLA, KKK or any other group breaks the law, then nail them. Until then, they are afforded the same rights that you and I enjoy. Doesn't freedom just suck?

Can you please cite an example of the ACLU interjecting where a law suit or threat of a law suit is not present?

 

[Garfield1966]

You know its bad when the lefty liberal ACLU is now offended at hopey changey Obama

No, all it means is that the ACLU is concerned with the USC, not peoples feelings. They defend the USC, that is their concern. Liberal, conservative and everythig in between.

 

[dapoes]

Can you please cite an example of the ACLU interjecting where a law suit or threat of a law suit is not present?

Why You already did yourself. http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=686199

In your examples, no lawsuits or threats of a lawsuit were present.

 

[dapoes]

Yes, exactly. Freedom of speech applies to all speech, not just the speech that you approve of. When/if NAMBLA, KKK or any other group breaks the law, then nail them. Until then, they are afforded the same rights that you and I enjoy. Doesn't freedom just suck?

Tell it to the boys parents.

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.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

That is a tough subject, because it is often a test of where do you draw the line. You can say the line is drawn where the message is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action in those that hear the message; but what people see as "inciting imminent lawless action" will often be very different. I don't know what those "NAMBLA materials" stated, but I would think that is a very important factor. It would be one thing if the materials simply stated that laws should be changed, and it would be an entirely different thing if the materials specifically suggested the reader to go out and do what those men did to Curely's son. Either way, I hate the message, but I see a big difference between the two scenarios.

As another example, some people could look at some posters' messages on these boards and get so worked up about it that they decide to shoot an individual from a middle east country. Do I think that those posters' messages were purposefully attempting to incite imminent lawless action? No I don't, but I suppose some could try to make that argument. It is a 'where to draw the line' scenario.

 

[dapoes]

In the spirit on this topic, heres some snapshots of Garf after some good old waterboarding.

 

[Garfield1966]

Why You already did yourself. http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=686199

In your examples, no lawsuits or threats of a lawsuit were present.

Unless I missed something they all involve someone who as involved in a lawsuit or threatened with some action. Which one specifically are you referring too?

 

[Garfield1966]

I don't know what those "NAMBLA materials" stated, but I would think that is a very important factor.

e talked about NAMBLA in a different thread a while back and I glanced at a few things on their cite. Hard to get through that crap but what little I read did not seem to cross and legal boundaries that I have heard about.

I suspect that far better legal minds than mine have read their crap and if there was a legal line that was crossed they would have been prosecuted already.

 

[Freedom4all]

Unless I missed something they all involve someone who as involved in a lawsuit or threatened with some action. Which one specifically are you referring too?

Looks to me like there were no lawsuits present prior to the ACLU getting involved. The ACLU took it upon themselves it appears by the examples you cited.

 

[dapoes]

Looks to me like there were no lawsuits present prior to the ACLU getting involved. The ACLU took it upon themselves it appears by the examples you cited.

Dont waste your breath, Garf has no understanding what the ACLU is nor what the terms like " friend-of-the-court brief" or "on behalf" even means. He just copied and pasted from a Wiki and thinks it must be factual or something...

 

[dapoes]

e talked about NAMBLA in a different thread a while back and I glanced at a few things on their cite. Hard to get through that crap but what little I read did not seem to cross and legal boundaries that I have heard about.

I suspect that far better legal minds than mine have read their crap and if there was a legal line that was crossed they would have been prosecuted already.

I know you have a hard time connecting dots or ignoring the obvious so heres more reading for you.

Link

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.

You obviously have no kids. If you did, you would take a different view on this and would be alarmed. To use your famous phrase, you wouldn't want them to "hope they were pretty"

 

[Garfield1966]

Looks to me like there were no lawsuits present prior to the ACLU getting involved. The ACLU took it upon themselves it appears by the examples you cited.

If someone is being prosecuted the ACLU is going to step in. That is their function. With Ms America, she was not being prosecuted, merely picked on. There were not civil or constitutional rights at stake for the ACLU to be concerned with.

 

[dapoes]

If someone is being prosecuted the ACLU is going to step in. That is their function. With Ms America, she was not being prosecuted, merely picked on. There were not civil or constitutional rights at stake for the ACLU to be concerned with.

Again on your examples you cited, there were no one being "prosecuted" for anything! Do you even know what you are talking about anymore?

 

[tech2101]

QUOTE (Freedom4all @ May 17 2009, 10:13 PM) *
Looks to me like there were no lawsuits present prior to the ACLU getting involved. The ACLU took it upon themselves it appears by the examples you cited.

Dont waste your breath, Garf has no understanding what the ACLU is nor what the terms like " friend-of-the-court brief" or "on behalf" even means. He just copied and pasted from a Wiki and thinks it must be factual or something...

You berated Garfield in reference to the ACLU acting when there were no lawsuits. Then you posted that statement above saying he has no understanding of the terms " friend-of-the-court brief" or "on behalf"...

Hey genius, a friend of the court brief is a legal document filed in support of an existing case.