22-09-2003 04:50									#31
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by skywalker How?

Didn't I cite the case of the Klan chapter sued for advocating the eradication of black people from American society? Their defense was of course that they never specifically suggested that members ought to act upon the rantings of the leadership, but the jury saw through that and awarded an amount that has crippled the Klan in the US.

You can say that you think this is wrong, but it is a legal reality. If you advocate criminal behavior and someone acts upon your suggestions there is a possibility that you may be held liable in part for their actions.

	22-09-2003 04:53									#32
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Stefu Worst use of a Che quote ever.

Unfortunately not even close.

	22-09-2003 04:54									#33
	Put an end to popups!

No, from the case you cited, you said that they were INCITED by the leadership. DIFFERENT from ADVOCATING something.

	22-09-2003 05:14									#34
	Inflate your Upload Space

Picky, picky, picky...

	22-09-2003 06:19									#35
	Inflate your Upload Space

I can't believe some of you guys are actually defending this garbage.

Terrible.

You people make me sick

	22-09-2003 06:25									#36
	Increase the size of your Attachments

We aren't defending NAMBLA, we're defending NAMBLA's right to speak. Hopefully, someday, someone will defend your right to speak also.

	22-09-2003 06:32									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Your defense of an absolute right to speak ANYTHING is a load of sh1t.

These ****heads advocate raping little boys.

Children are the most sacred of all and here you *******s are defending an organization that advocates raping them.

THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK

Of course you are the same guy that defended Saddam Hussein as a victim so it doesn't surprise me.

Pathetic

	22-09-2003 06:34									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

We are defending a right to political expression. We are not defending a right to INCITE violations of the law. However, ADVOCATING A CHANGE IN THE LAW is NECESSARY not only for the right to political expression, but simply for the ABILITY TO CHANGE A LAW!

	22-09-2003 06:34									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Bullsh1t

Why don't you scream "fire!" in a crowded theatre next.

Come on...

	22-09-2003 06:35									#40
	Got spare money?

Ok, if you can't advocate a change in law, how are you GOING to change a law?! That's the STUPIDEST idea I've EVER heard.

	22-09-2003 06:37									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Your whole problem is this idea that the law has to be changed in the first place.

WRONG

Look at the example I just used


There are precedents set about people screaming false fire alarms...

You can get in trouble for joking about bombs at the airport...

etc etc etc

	22-09-2003 07:52									#42
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by skywalker No, from the case you cited, you said that they were INCITED by the leadership. DIFFERENT from ADVOCATING something.

hairsplitting can be redundant

	22-09-2003 08:17									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker We are defending a right to political expression. We are not defending a right to INCITE violations of the law. However, ADVOCATING A CHANGE IN THE LAW is NECESSARY not only for the right to political expression, but simply for the ABILITY TO CHANGE A LAW!

Yeah, but as it has been pointed out time and time again, NAMBLA does not stop at the level of advocating a change in the laws. They give advice to would-be child molesters on such topics as how to seduce children. JEEEZZZZZ. What more do you want?

Would you defend the right of someone to post formulas for making nerve gas on the internet?

Would you permit someone to post your picture and address on a webpage along with detail instructions on how to hurt you along with some nicely contrived reason as to why the viewers ought to do so? That's essentially what these guys are doing: "This is little Jimmy Doolittle. Here's how you can have some fun with him. It's good for him. Don't let the way he screams and carries on when you ram your 40 cm wide **** up his 10 cm butt fool you. What you're doing to him is good for him."

Besides, advocating the usurpation of other people's rights is not a legitimate political goal. Children are people, they have the right to a measure of security of their persons. On the other hand they are incapable of giving consent to an adult engaging in a sexual act with their bodies. The idea of changing the law against sexually exploiting children is absurd and doesn't deserve the right to be expressed.

	22-09-2003 08:19									#44
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Ok, if you can't advocate a change in law, how are you GOING to change a law?! That's the STUPIDEST idea I've EVER heard.

Can you actually in the remotest recesses of your mind imagine changing the law to allow permit sexual relations between a child and an adult? Can you?

	22-09-2003 08:36									#45
	Remove this text

quote: Can you actually in the remotest recesses of your mind imagine changing the law to allow permit sexual relations between a child and an adult? Can you?

That's not his point, and you know it.

	22-09-2003 08:50									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Let me get this straight.

These folks are publishing their experiences with little boys? They ought to be charged!

Skywalker:

Your distinction does not protect the people you want to protect. First off, the easiest argument to make against people bringing up inconvenient points is that they are inciting violence.

Now, if NAMBLA wants to change the law, they will have to suffer under the law. Anyone who breaks the law in the pursuit of changing the law must still face the consequences of the law.

The change has to come from two sources, either the people or the justice will refuse to try the person. But still, they must face the punishment of the law.

Secondly, you have a false dilemma. Look at Dr. King. He got arrested, yet he managed to change the law. It is only through the application of an unjust law that the law will ever be changed.

So what about these NAMBLA folks. I say lock'em up and see if the people rally behind their cause.

	22-09-2003 09:01									#47
	Put an end to popups!

Ben Kenobi:

The problem with your argument is that you have overlooked the main thrust of Skywalker's argument. Martin Luther King was not arrested for merely advocating a change in the law, he was arrested for violating it. Nobody here ever said that these people should not be prosecuted if they are in violation of the law. The problem is that, if they simply say that pedophilia should be legal, they are, and should be, protected.

Don't get me wrong, I find the idea utterly offensive and disgusting, but the First Amendment doesn't allow for picking and choosing who it protects.

	22-09-2003 09:01									#48
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Bullsh1t Why don't you scream "fire!" in a crowded theatre next. Come on...

What you don't get is they are advocating for the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater. The advocacy is legal. So is telling people how to scream fire in a crowded theater and not get caught. What you can't do is actually scream "fire" nor can you tell someone to go do it. There's the difference.

BTW, is it against the law to scream "fire" in a crowded theater if there's a fire?

	22-09-2003 09:05									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker There are precedents set about people screaming false fire alarms...

Actually no. The "precident" was being set was SCOTUS upholding a clearly unconstitutional law which forbade criticism of the government. IIRC, it was the Sedition Act of 1917, and the people being jailed were anti-war activists.

And that's really the whole point. If you don't have the right to advocate policy change, a change in the laws, etc., you really have no rights at all.

	22-09-2003 09:05									#50
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: The problem is that, if they simply say that pedophilia should be legal, they are, and should be, protected.

Then the question becomes simple, have they or have they not broken the law?

If they have indulged their desires in little children, then they have broken the law.

	22-09-2003 09:12									#51
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kirnwaffen Don't get me wrong, I find the idea utterly offensive and disgusting, but the First Amendment doesn't allow for picking and choosing who it protects.

In the THEORY of YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Reality is a different story.

	22-09-2003 09:13									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Then the question becomes simple, have they or have they not broken the law? If they have indulged their desires in little children, then they have broken the law.

Which has nothing to do with what were are talking about.

	22-09-2003 09:14									#53
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker In the THEORY of YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

So far, SCOTUS' as well.

	22-09-2003 09:14									#54
	Increase the size of your Attachments

All members of the man boy love association should be rounded up and shot. Seriously, this organization just helps to insure children are sodomized and abused by sexual preditors.

	22-09-2003 09:19									#55
	Another example of 1st Amendment Not Being Absolute Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Not so, says U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, also a same-day New York Times editorial: The First Amendment is not absolute, it does not protect "a message of racial intimidation and a clear threat of violence," and concludes that the Virginia law banning cross-burning should be upheld.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/12/22/P...__intimid.shtml

	22-09-2003 09:20									#56
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara So far, SCOTUS' as well.

Check again.

	22-09-2003 09:21									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: BTW, is it against the law to scream "fire" in a crowded theater if there's a fire?

No.

quote: What you can't do is actually scream "fire" nor can you tell someone to go do it. There's the difference.

Yes, there is. However, in this case, providing the justification for the illegal behavior, as well as the how to, probably constitutes incitement.

quote: If they have indulged their desires in little children, then they have broken the law.

Yes, if that is the case, then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; however, this has little to do with the publishing of a magazine. This is a civil case, so criminal law really doesn't matter at this point.

	22-09-2003 09:21									#58
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin All members of the man boy love association should be rounded up and shot. Seriously, this organization just helps to insure children are sodomized and abused by sexual preditors.

That's another question entirely. I'm inclined to agree with you.

	22-09-2003 09:22									#59
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Check again.

An entirely different issue, threatening speach vs political advocacy.

	22-09-2003 09:23									#60
	Get a bigger avatar today!

"political advocacy"

jesus christ

It's about as threatening as you can get.