TheAgitator.com
More NAMBLA
Saturday, March 6th, 2004Will Baude has more thoughts on the NAMBLA-ACLU case.
Upon reflection, I’d like to adjust my position a little. I’ve never thought the NAMBLA pamplet ought to be banned. And I don’t think NAMBLA ought to be held liable in this particular case.
But that position isn’t consistent with me writing that the ACLU should never have taken the case under any circumstances, even if the organization were of unlimited resources. If the ACLU had unlimited resources, and I feel the pamphlet is protected speech, then of course, in that scenario, the ACLU should take the case. Will’s right. I was wrong.
I still don’t think the ACLU should have taken the case, but that’s precisely because the organization has limited resources. And I’d rather see them take cases that effect more freedom for more people, such as fighting the PATRIOT Act, or congressional efforts to silence critics of the drug war, then fighting for the rights of pederasts to publish how-to guides.
The traditional argument for the ACLU defending offensive speech is the slippery slope argument — that once you let the state censor the Ayran nationalists, they’ll next come for the Nazis, then the fascists, then Pat Buchanan. And I think history has largely proven that argument legitimate.
I just don’t think NAMBLA’s a slippery slope. The pamplet shouldn’t be banned, or found to contribute to the commission of a crime, but I just can’t see this case getting a heck of a lot of space in your Emmanuel con law outline.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe 25 years from now, we’ll all be sitting around in a drab Orwellian nightmare, and someone will stand up and say, with regret…
“First, they came for the child-rapists…”
But I doubt it.
UPDATE: There’s a great discussion going on over at Crooked Timber. I thought the following was a particularly strong critique of my position:
In a world of limited resources, NAMBLA is fairly obviously about as undeserving a recipient of aid as any organization could be â?? if the ACLU could protect anyone elseâ??s rights before NAMBLAâ??s, it should. However, if, in the judgment of the ACLUâ??s lawyers, the legal tactics that are being used against NAMBLA wonâ??t be limited to being used against similarly horrible organizations, but will be used against publishers generally, the ACLU must defend NAMBLA â?? the question isnâ??t whether NAMBLA is the most deserving recipient of aid, itâ??s whether the point of law being litigated is the most important attack on the civil liberties law.
An excellent point.
Here’s my question, (and please forgive my lack of knowledge of the judicial process and law making/interpretation in general)..o.k. it’s actually 2 questions:
1. I’m getting from this that the fear is that a judgement against NAMBLA’s right to publish and distribute a “How To Rape Young Boys And Get Away With It” pamphlet would then lead to book burnings and bans on cerain types of speech (aren’t we already there??). If that is the case then:
2.) Why does it have to be that a judgement AGAINST such a dispicable organization as NAMBLA would HAVE to apply to legitimate publishers, say for example the company that publishes Sports Illustrated. Aren’t our judges supposed to be some of the smartest people this country has to offer? Why then can they not make a judgement that either A. goes against precedent, or B. set’s a precedent? Shouldn’t we be able to trust our judges to make the right decision for America and Americans? What am I missing here?
Matt, the whole point of this “rule of law” thing that judges are supposed to work for is that the rules are the same for everyone. And this is sensible. To take your example, if the courts hammer NAMBLA, but don’t intend to hammer Sports Illustrated, this will still chill Sports Illustrated. The publisher of Sports Illustrated will look at the NAMBLA case and say, that could happen to us, tomorrow. Better close up shop while we still can.
Judges are bound by precendent because ordinary people use that same precendent to predict what judges will do. So if a judge sets the precendent that free speech takes second place to Think Of The Children or what have you, the rest of us are going to use that precendent in decided whether to say or do things that might be controversial. Being even a little bit wrong about what a judge will do next can ruin your life instantly, so judges must follow predictable rules of precedent or the rest of us have to live in fear.
If precendent doesn’t bind judges, it creates enough fear to bind the citizens and chill our willingness to do things that ought to be protected. And that’s why precendent matters, and you need to stop bad trends at NAMBLA even if it seems to you like they shouldn’t apply to Sports Illustrated.
–G
If you are a supporter of government protecting the liberty of it’s citizens you have to draw the line somewhere otherwise you have nothing but chaos. Organizations that support the raping of a child is where I draw the line. These people clearly support an agenda that is based on infringing upon the liberty of children. If our government is unwilling to protect the liberty of children from these monsters then it’s probably not even worth having a government at all.
Grant:
There is also a thing called past practice. Call it precedent if you must but having had a number of cases decided against the plaintiff in settling labor disputes on the grounds of past practice it would seem to me that any jurist worth his salt would utilize this idea.
Example: Members of a legal bargaining unit have for years been perfoming a simple task of calling off the numbers of box cars. Then for some reason the bargaining through default allows the members of management to call off the numbers without complaint and this goes on for more years. Then suddenly a member of the bargaining unit discovers that that job is his and files a grievance.
The labor board takes note that for the past number of years management has been performing this task without complaint. The decision is the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed because the most recent action by the bargaining unit has been in default of the work.
The ACLU does not take cases that are considered to be mundane mainly because they do not generate fund raising possibilites. NAMBLA will raise the hackles of its supporters enough to cut loose with big bucks mainly because there is big bucks to be made in any kind of sex.
It appears to me that we have lost pride and the ability to feel shame. Shame should not be confused with embarassment. While I’m against outlawing certain books just because I don’t like their content; some judgement should be exercised by the purchaser.
“First, they came for the child-rapists…”
That was hilarious.
Aren’t THEY supposed to come for the child rapist?
Forgive me people but I do not see a comparison between child rapist and the Jews during the holocaust.
“But dude, you like, have sex with kids”
Stan from South Park
Iâ??m struggling to understand why this type of assistance to child molesters should be protected. Perhaps one of you can explain it to me. Weâ??re not talking about an exchange of ideas â?? this was a â??how toâ? manual giving specific information meant to assist child molesters. The sole purpose was to help child molesters to be more effective at luring victims, fooling parents and, if necessary, helping molesters to escape the country to avoid prosecution. This was designed specifically to help in the commission of one of the worst sorts of crime. It offered valuable, specific technical knowledge â?? trade tips â?? that would have been difficult and expensive for molesters to collect on their own. Thus, NAMBLAâ??s purpose to provide something of value to child molesters, in order to help them in their crimes. The target is not the general public, to educate them. The goal is to increase the amount of child molestation and prevent guilty parties from getting caught, and NAMBLA offered something of value to assist in that goal.
The link to Will Baude describes the how to manual as â??mere wordsâ?. Suppose NAMBLA gave money to child molesters, to help them finance their crimes. They would only be offering â??mere moneyâ?. In this case, I donâ??t see the difference. Perhaps Iâ??m handicapped by my Ph.D. in economics, but something of value is something of value, whether the value is transmitted through words or through little green pieces of paper. The technical information on how to lure children had value. The authors disseminated it with the express intent to encourage and facilitate the rape of children and, by giving potential molesters valuable information, thereâ??s every reason to believe that they were successful in their attempt to increase child molestation.
Perhaps the molesters could have acquired the information elsewhere. This same argument would apply to someone who provided money, guns, a hide-out, details about a specific child that could be successfully targeted at a specific time or a particular parent whose guard was down â?? any of these things could have been acquired elsewhere. If one person refuses to drive the get-away car, there are others on this planet that have a car and can drive, so one cannot be sure that the crime would not have been committed otherwise. All that we know for sure is that on particular party chose to offer something of value to facilitate the crime.
To summarize â?? NAMBLA deliberately offered valuable resources for the express purpose of aiding and abetting in the commission of a particularly heinous crime. They werenâ??t expressing general ideas, they werenâ??t trying to convince society to change its laws or attitudes, they werenâ??t trying to entertain, they were trying to help molesters molest. Their goal was to facilitate the rape of children, and they were successful in this goal. They participated by offering something of value that would lower the cost and increase the effectiveness of child-rapists, and they participated knowingly and deliberately. They didnâ??t know the specific name of each and every child molester that would be helped by the technical expertise and guidance they offered, but the specific names truly are â??mere wordsâ?. If you shoot a gun towards a crowd of strangers with the goal of killing some of them, or set off a bomb in a shopping center when you know that it will be packed, the fact that you didnâ??t know in advance precisely who you would kill doesnâ??t make you any less guilty.
surveys
survey
online surveys
paid surveys
http://paidsurveys.sweetbuyz.com
Shopping
online shopping
shop
paid to shop
shopping network
http://paidtoshop.sweetbuyz.com
boxing
boxing news
boxing gloves
boxing training
http://boxing.sweetbuyz.com
ebay
make money online
make money at home
make money woke at home
make money from home
http://makemoneyonebay.sweetbuyz.com
puppy training
http://puppy-training.belleity.com
asthma
athma symptoms
asthma treatment
asthma attack
asthma relief
http://asthma-cure.sweetbuyz.com
quit smoking
stop smoking
smoking cessation programs
cigarette addiction information
nicotine addiction
nicotine patch
http://quitsmoking.crpublish.com
people finder
people search
background checks
search people
people finder free
http://people-finder.crpublish.com
home decor
home decorating
interior decorating
home decorating ideas
http://easyhomedecorating.sweetbuyz.com
make money online
work at home business
internet business opportunity
home business
internet business
http://make-money-online.crpublish.com
hiking
hiking boots
hiking gear
backpacking equipment
http://backpacking.sweetbuyz.com
testicular cancer
thyroid cancer
colon cancer symptoms
lung cancer symptoms
alternative cancer treatment
http://beatcancer.pedronetwork.com