TheAgitator.com
Common Sense, It Ain’t
Wednesday, March 3rd, 2004I’ve always been of the opinion that, like Hitler, any invocation of NAMBLA in a discussion of public policy is a call for an end to debate.
Yes, it’s a despicable organization. Yeah, I’d probably turn my head and whistle were one of its members jumped and beaten senseless by a vigilante gang of fathers of kids who were victims of sexual abuse.
But the proportion of NAMBLA’s actual influence and clout to the number of times it’s invoked by family-values types in the course of debate is seriously out of whack. It’s tiresome how often they’re brought up, and almost always out of context, and without attention to proportion or propriety.
All of that said, Deroy Murdock’s piece criticizing the ACLU’s defense of NAMBLA is very well-done. It’s pretty tough for me to see any First Amendment value whatsoever in a pamphlet that teaches grown men how to molest young boys, and evade capture after the act. Yes, I know that the ACLU exists to protect the most objectionable of speech, and I think the ACLU’s on the right side when it defends the likes of Nazis, Black Panthers, militias, or anti-abortion militants (though the same organization regretably then turns around and defends speech codes and anti-harassment law).
But there’s nothing remotely political about the NAMBLA pamphlet. It’s a how-to guide to rape. Even if the ACLU were privy to unlimited resources, it ought to have let this one go. And of course it isn’t. There’s only so much money to go around, only so many cases its lawyers have time to litigate. And that makes the ACLU’s decision to take this particular case all the more shameful.
It’s not well-written at all, and misses the most important elements of the case.
1. Jaynes and Sicari raped and killed a boy. He had briefly been a member of NAMBLA. Usually, one has to prove causation between the person you’re suing and the thing you’re suing about. NAMBLA didn’t commit a crime; Jaynes did. The lawyer, Frisoli, says Jaynes was “encouraged” by joining NAMBLA. Murdock doesn’t mention “personal responsibility”; hmmm, why not?
2. He quotes Bill O’Reilly (!) quoting “lawyers familiar with NAMBLA’s website”. I ask you, is that kind of double hearsay what you would want to bring into court? Also, there is this thing called the web. Mr. Murdock could have, you know, looked for screenshots of the offending pages himself. Just a suggestion.
3. Murdock glosses over the link between the “rape and escape” manual and the rape/murder. Why? Almost certainly because there is no link.
4. Then there is this:
Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.
No, no, no! If I write a step-by-step manual on how to commit a crime, and publish it, and you buy it and commit a crime, I am not “aiding and abetting” anything and we have NOT entered into a “conspiracy,” since we have not agreed on anything. I am a writer protected by the first amendment; YOU are a criminal. Otherwise, Tom Clancy would be liable to the families of the 9/11 victims for writing “Executive Decisions.”
Finally, just as a side note, it’s the Massachusetts ACLU affiliate that is defending NAMBLA, not ACLU National. Many people believe the ACLU is a monolithic organization. Let me tell you from first-hand experience, it’s exactly the opposite.
In #1, I meant to say “Jaynes had briefly been a member of NAMBLA.”
I give Mithras comment two thumbs up…. err… uh… 4 stars rather.
There are some things that are not worth defending. NAMBLA is one of them. Save your diatribe for the Boy Scouts whom are certainly worth the effort over these lascivious perverts. Any boy fucker or their supporters who get around me are going to wish they hadn’t.
I completely agree with Mithras. Perhaps we should start suing Christian churches for every unlawful act committed by Christian anti-abortionists.
Perhaps we should allow Smith & Wesson to be sued for every death caused by a S&W handgun. Perhaps I can sue Stephen King for giving me the idea to kidnap my favorite author and break his ankles to keep him from escaping.
The point, as Mithras made clear earlier, is not the content of the speech but the frightening attempt to prove a causal link between published material and those who actually carry it out. As disgusting as NAMBLA may be, to link their publications with a person’s choice to carry out a crime is opening door that will knock you on your ass when it’s your speech, or speech that you support, that’s under attack.
There’s more at stake than just the disgusting publications of NAMBLA.
Some exceptions have to be made, sorry. They provide these assholes with explicit instruction on how to fuck children, how to evade law enforcement after they accomplish their evil deeds and they are not complicit? Horseshit. If you can’t see why it’s wrong to allow these scum bags to publish specific instructions on this disgusting practice then there is no help for you.
Don’t even try to equate churches, Christian or otherwise with these wastes of skin. Or any other legitimate institution. It does not work at all. Hell, don’t even associate them with crack dealers. Different animal altogether.
What happened to the libertarian credo of allowing anything as long is it doesn’t harm any one else? I guess it’s subjective, eh?
I understand free speech.. I get it. But, I gotta go with danno49 on this. There has to be a limit.
That poor kid.
Radley: “There’s only so much money to go around, only so many cases its lawyers have time to litigate. And that makes the ACLU’s decision to take this particular case all the more shameful.”
Well, the ACLU may be reasoning that the precedent set by winning an extreme case like this makes it more important. Less extreme cases can often be decided on narrow grounds that don’t extend very far. The ACLU then ends up essentially fighting the same battle over and over.
A victory in an extreme case will likely create a broad precedent that covers numerous less extreme situations. This might provide some justification for the ACLU choosing to take the case — if, that is, they honestly believe that the pamphlet should be protected.
No libertarian in their right mind can defend this pamphlet. Any libertarian who does is putting back the cause by years. What the ACLU is doing defending it is beyond, besides convicing everyone they are bunch of extremist nutcases.
Wonder if this will come into play in the Presidential Election, since they are from Kerry’s patch.
So . . .
If I publish an explicit guide describing how to bomb offices of molestation-oriented organizations, emphasizing times and methods that would cause maximum death and injury to the occupants therein, I’m still safe in that I never actually TOLD anybody when and where to do it, nor did I actually take part in the planning and/or completion of any alleged bombing of such locations of perversion.
Right?
corquando: Got a link?
= ;)
The First Amendment claim does seem rather weak now that I’ve read more about the case. This isn’t the government moving in on NAMBLA, it’s a civil case.
However, there is another issue of making Jaynes and Sicari out to be victims of NAMBLA. Because, as the Curleys claim, had it not been for NAMBLA’s pamphlets and website, Jaynes and Sicari would not have committed a similar crime. I find it hard to believe that Jaynes and Sicari were involuntary muscles walking around waiting for whatever instruction they happened across whether it be molesting children or quillting.
If you find NAMBLA’s message disgusting then how can you not find the effort to equate the advocacy of a crime with the decision to ACTUALLY commit the crime similarly disgusting?
I think the emotional anger towards NAMBLA’s message is clouding the overall issue.
Immoral speech is, well, immoral. Disgusting, repugnant and dispicable even – but it is ONLY speech. No matter what I say to a person their free will is not negated. Think about it. If I harrangue a crowd to start a riot, does that mean they have no choice but to riot? If I tell everyone precisely how to murder another person, is THAT murder? It cannot be because it isn’t the act itself.
Speech that reveals private information is a different matter. That is a breach of contract, and if it leads to a criminal being more easily able to commit their crime against you, I think that should make the revealer liable for some criminal responsibility.
Take corquando’s example of bombing the NAMBLA offices. To the degree that he’s revealing information that is priveleged and private, then I think such is criminal.
I’m a libertarian and in my right mind I defend this pamphlet’s existence. I fail to see how merely exhorting or explaining to someone to do whatever evil thing is actually doing the thing itself. If that principle were applied consistently we’d have to prosecute KKK members JUST for speaking to people. Not to mention collectivists, et al.
Speech on one’s own property or on the property of a consenting other is perfectly legitimate. Revealing information about another person or their property that they keep private is an invasion of property. Murder and rape is murder and rape.
I’d say that NAMBLA did not break any laws. However I’d say it is perfectly legitimate for everyone to dogpile the ACLU for defending the organization in any way.
It’s not like it is the Congress passing a law disallowing speech in certain circumstances by certain groups at certain times.
Oh wait… they already did that.
Fucking McCain.
I think the emotional anger towards NAMBLA’s message is clouding the overall issue.
To some degree, possibly. However, one cannot defend these folks right to publish what they publish, free speech or no free speech. There are just some things that are just plain wrong and those who take the opposite side are doing it merely to play devil’s advocate or so used to paying that role that they forget why they are arguing in the first place. This is a no-brainer. Adults who fuck children and/or provide information on how to accomplish these acts with impunity are criminals. End of story. Period. Finis. Goodbye, farewell and amen.
Luckily, my anger is of the non-emotional type, so my judgement is clear on these types of sickos. Whack ‘em. = ;)
Danno –
I agree, they’re sickos. But you’re advocating a dangerous precedent that could cause problems to speech that is more near and dear to your heart.
When we decide to blur the line of causality we then open the debate to how blurry we’re willing to make that line. This is potentially a very important case because it will help define causation which is a key element in almost all tort cases.
Just wait and see.
But you’re advocating a dangerous precedent that could cause problems to speech that is more near and dear to your heart.
That has already been done a million times over. Decent people have stood up for decent values in this country for many years now, only to be legislated out of position. Do you think they can do any worse to the right than they have already done? Before you answer that, my guess is that you’re going to say yes. But if we don’t stand up against stuff like this, we deserve to have this sort of crap hanging over our heads. It’s just going to get worse if we don’t. Talk about a dangerous precedent.
To paraphrase a favorite Phil Hartman sketch of mine:
I don’t know spit about lawyerin’ . . . but I do know something about right and wrong. I’ve got to stand up and say no when it needs to be said. All the intellectual arguments in the world are not going to make it right to sit back and say, “Just let them argue about whether or not it’s OK to let the child fuckers publish their ‘how-to’ pamphlets.” Shame.
You got to stand for something or you just might fall for anything.
Am I the only one that’s reminded of Clinton and Rwanda? The U.S. signed the 1948 Genocide Convention, committing itself to trying to prevent (and punish) genocide. When the Hutus began to slaughter the Tutsis, the Clinton administration lived up to that agreement by carefully avoiding the term genocide (although they admitted to “acts of genocide”, which luckily isn’t the same thing at all).
The Hutu militia had prepared a list in advance of Tutsis (and some moderate Hutus), to try to kill all of them. The list included names, addresses and sometimes car license plate numbers. The lists were read on the radio, as killers walked around with a machete in one hand and a transistor in the other, trying to exterminate everyone on the list. When those trying to stop the slaughter pleaded with the Clinton administration to at least jam the radio broadcasts, Clinton refused because jamming a radio broadcast would violate free speech.
Does he bear any responsibility?
I’d be willing to support the right of NAMBLA to free speech, as utterly repugnant and depraved as find it to be.
I would also…contrary to what Alastair said above…support the right of an enterprising journalist/weblogger/whatever to publish as much personal information as they can unearth about any members of an organization that advocates child abuse–including names, addresses, photos, places of employment, eating habits, licence plate numbers…
Danno –
I think this is where we split ways. You see things in black and white, right and wrong. I don’t. Evidently you equate the punishment of NAMBLA’s speech with halting the ACTUAL behavior they advocate. I don’t buy that. I don’t think litigating NAMBLA out of existence is going to change anything in its members behavior. It may make you feel better and it will probably make that poor family feel better, but nothing substantial will come of it.
You pulled out a sentence from my prior post in your response. The problem is that your answer addresses nothing I’ve said. Your argument is that injustice has been done to the group you identify with so its okay to pass it on to others. Smart. During this argument you also decide that the speech of an incredibly small, I mean REAL small, portion of society is worth creating case law that could potentially limit the speech rights of ALL of us. Just because you don’t understand the potential legal ramifications to what you’re advocating doesn’t mean you should ignore them.
And that Phil Hartman statement does nothing to further your position. All it says to me is that you’re a stubborn fool unwilling to consider something more than your gut reaction.
Danno –
I think this is where we split ways. You see things in black and white, right and wrong. I don’t. Evidently you equate the punishment of NAMBLA’s speech with halting the ACTUAL behavior they advocate. I don’t buy that. I don’t think litigating NAMBLA out of existence is going to change anything in its members behavior. It may make you feel better and it will probably make that poor family feel better, but nothing substantial will come of it.
You pulled out a sentence from my prior post in your response. The problem is that your answer addresses nothing I’ve said. Your argument is that injustice has been done to the group you identify with so its okay to pass it on to others. Smart. During this argument you also decide that the speech of an incredibly small, I mean REAL small, portion of society is worth creating case law that could potentially limit the speech rights of ALL of us. Just because you don’t understand the potential legal ramifications to what you’re advocating doesn’t mean you should ignore them.
And that Phil Hartman statement does nothing to further your position. All it says to me is that you’re a stubborn fool unwilling to consider something more than your gut reaction.
sorry about the double post. accidentally clicked the automatic double click button.
I was following NAMBLA several years before 0′Reilly and others entered the fray. I personally take offense to their previous publications.
When the NAMBLA “debate” became national and after several civil and criminal legal actions, they took down their web site. It is obviously back up.
The content of their original web site included guides for circumventing U.S. age-consent and child-rape laws. They even went as far as arranging trips to Asian countries with no laws or lax enforcement to establish trysts for perverts to practice their pederasty since they could not legally do that here.
If that’s not aiding and abetting, what is?
All you free speech advocates should demand that all our country’s research and instruction for developing weapons of mass destruction be entered into the public domain. After all we taxpayers paid for it. Maybe then some enterprising terrorist, domestic or foreign, could use that information to eradicate disfavored groups. There would be no blood on our hands since we didn’t actually commit the crime.
(Sorry to exploit the national fear and fervor against terrorism, but I’m a little short on time in trying to develop analogies.)
mark s.
Of course I see things in black in white . . . my conscience is clearer and all the better for it. As far as being stubborn, guilty as charged. As far as being a fool, sometimes. But let me ask you a question:
How would you feel if someone raped your child and they got the information on how to accomplish the deed through NAMBLA? Would you feel any different? Do you even have any children? Not trying to imply anything except that it might be that if you don’t have any children of your own, I can see why you seem to be so cavalier about this issue.
I have been, on occasion, been accussed of being injecting emotion about my view on very sensitive subjects. To that I admit as well. But I do believe that I am coming from the right place when I make my views known.
You’re right, we definitely split ways on this. You for reasons I understand to a degree but reject and myself for being an emotional, stubborn fool.
Good day.
I have also been accused of being a poor proof reader as well. You have the evidence.
Danno-
Still setting it up. Nascent blogger; getting some substance and waffling on URL cost.
Alastair-
Nothing priveleged or private in stating times of maximum activity in an office (‘business’ hours?).
My basic question, though, was when does providing information that aids the comission of a crime become the abetting of said crime?
I am reminded of Abbie Hoffman’s “Steal This Book” (of which, somewhere, I stil have a copy. Which I stole.) and the controversy around the ‘subversive’ material it held. (My favorite is still the fish in the safety deposit box.) Likewise, there are some pretty scary things floating around the far-right-wing tables at gun shows these days, some of which I would find difficult to label as not calling for armed insurrection, or at least the methodology behind it.
Is the guy who outlines the getaway route on publicly available map an accomplice?
Sorry, I’m at work and I’m posting between crises.
Hypothetical:
Sicko “A” publishes a piece called “How To Boff Johnny And Get Away With It.” Sicko “B” uses that information, which he did not previously posess, and does it, but is then arrested and incarcerated. Then, late one night in his twin suite at the Graybar Hotel, Sicko “B” is fed his own nuts. Johnny’s family is devastated, as, unfortunately, is Sicko B’s kin.
How much responsibility for all the collateral damage – let alone the actual rape – is Sicko “A” accounatble for?
How far indeed
Ted Barlow muses: Two men read a NAMBLA publication and abducted a ten-year old boy. They murdered him, molested his corpse, and hid his body. They were caught and sent to prison for life. The parents are suing NAMBLA for…
corquando, Sicko A is, of course, heavily responsible. The question is whether A is prosecutable.
I don’t think so. There’s one hellavu restraint on the State we Americans happen to have. Freedom of speech. The moment we begin to question it our country loses its most valuable defense against fascism.
My feelings are absolutely black/white on this subject. NAMBLA is unprosecutable. …That said, Brian has precisely the correct approach.
As to the nuclear secrets argument: apples and oranges. One situation deals with individual threats, the other threatens the whole damn species. Big diff. (Not that nuclear secrets are that hard to crack anyhow) The real argument here is whether you should be prosecuted for crimes you commit or crimes you think/talk about.
Black and white for this libertarian.
“My feelings are absolutely black/white on this subject. NAMBLA is unprosecutable. …That said, Brian has precisely the correct approach.”
We’re not talking about whether NAMBLA should be criminally prosecuted for murder or child molestation. There’s no question whatsoever of that. The question is whether the parents of that child have a civil claim, given that NAMBLA helped the molesters through its “how to” manual on how to lure a child, stop him from talking, escape the country if they’re after you, etc.
As a libertarian, how can you prefer Brian’s approach – let someone publish their names, home addresses, etc. so the parents can go over one night and do something sick to them – rather than allow the parents to try to hold the organization financially liable for helping child molesters to be more effective at committing and getting away with their crimes? There’s no comparison to novels that describe crimes, or to any political activity. NAMBLA’s clear intent was to help people molest children.
Will our country really collapse if those that go out of their way to encourage crime against children have to pay a financial penalty for their actions?
“Will our country really collapse if those that go out of their way to encourage crime against children have to pay a financial penalty for their actions?”
In a word, yes. Eventually.
Does the practice of fining people for speaking/promoting something make us any more free? Or less?
I support Brian’s approach not to promote revenge, but to keep these sickos from hiding behind an over-powered organization built to promote crime against children. If someone violates the rights of those sickos *then* the law can come into play. Until then I see nothing wrong with revealing authors.
It’s not against the law to own a gun. It’s not against the law to keep track of the president’s movements. It’s not against the law to talk about how you wish the pres was dead.
It IS against the law to try to shoot him.
Are there to be thoughts/ideas/experiences that, once expressed, become valid grounds for civil suit?
As a libertarian how could you claim that?
I agree with Radley that the ACLU has bigger (and far more worthwhile) fish to fry. But where does the moral line between Nazi/KKK and pedophile begin? How is one â??politicalâ? and the other not?
If we’re going to protect the right of speech for people promoting fascism/death camps/lynching/race-war why not raping children?
Sorry, forgot to sign. Heh.
Free speech is never popular. That’s why we have a constitution to protect it – and even that doesn’t always work.
Let’s change the facts a little. What if, instead of a “rape and escape manual”, someone simply writes a novel involving the rape and murder of a little boy, with lots of detail about how the killer gets away with it. Supposing two pedophiles read the novel and then use it as a roadmap to commit the same crime, except they get caught.
For those who want the suit against NAMBLA to go forward, do you want the author of the novel to be sued, too?
One group who culd benefit from a publication like NamBLA’s are those who may want to read it in order to be able to advise kids on how to AVOID the rape methodology the pamphlet describes. If the NAMBLA-ites are open with their manipulation, that’s more resources to combat it. Why for example arrest a conscientious set of parents for reading a manuscript that clues them in on a child-molester’s modus vivendi. I realize those arent the facts of this case but it is true abut the general principle of free speech and one of its underlying merits, namely that overall more access to information is better than less.
Playing games with “what-ifs” isn’t helping.
Everyone is overlooking the original intent of our beloved First Amendment. My copy of the Constitution, provided by the Cato Institute, reads “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,…”.
This protection was to protect “we, the people” from government. You know, that group “instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed.” We are protected in speech against government. Speech that calls out the “King” and his tyrannical ways.
Except that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
NAMBLA’s speech is not protected political speech. Their speech is constructed with the intent of allowing others to perpetrate a crime.
Should NAMBLA develop a guide on “How to Sodomize The Politicians Who Sodomize You,” then I might consider taking up the cause to help protect their speech. Until then, their speech should be as regulated as those who wish to scream, “Fire!” in a theater.