ACLU & Child Pornography

[mother earth]

Can anyone tell me if it is true that the ACLU is defending some organizations rights to post pornography & instructions on child rape on the web? Please tell me I am wrong.

[trotsky]

1. Why not ask the right-winger who told you this to provide proof?

:shrug:

[mother earth]

8. I did ask, it is on several website, but they are not reliable.

So I came here, knowing someone here could help me on this. They are claiming that NAMBLA (?sp) posted child rape instructions & was defended by the ACLU. Now, I know they love to tear down the ACLU & I do believe our freedoms are sometimes a double edged sword, but this was disturbing.

[tekriter]

2. That's an old one...

and is total BS.

[tx_dem41]

3. I'm not sure about the possible specific cases you are referring to...

...but I would want to know what definition of "pornography" you are using (e.g. text vs. pictures, etc.). I think that is relevant to current caselaw.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. I keep hearing this from freepers when they find out I'm an ACLU member

Does anyone know how this bullshit rumor got started?

[tx_dem41]

5. Some RWer is probably spinning factual stories such as this one...

http://www.bizreport.com/print/5885

[mother earth]

14. Thanks, TxDem, I'm saving this one, you're probably right.

[MountainLaurel]

6. I'll believe it when I see legitimate proof

And Bill O'Lielly don't count.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Are you talking about child porn or adult porn?

If you are talking about child porn, it is illegal on the entire planet and I am certain the ACLU is not interested in changing that. If you are talking about pictures or other erotic materials for adults of other adults having sex, that has jack shit to do with "child porn", although right-wingers love to try to link the two- invariably bringing up the words "children" and "pornography" in conjunction when trying to get the adult stuff banned.

[charlie]

9. ACLU

routinely objects to laws created ostensivebly to combat kiddie porn, but overreach into the realm of protected rights. Such cases make it easy for troglodytes to claim they champion child rapists.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. The key word there is "obstensibly".

Of course, if you think the government never uses laws "obstensibly" created to after things the public finds reprehensible for other, more nefarious purposes (witness the use of powers included in the patriot act specifically for the purpose of fighting terrorists to go after low-level drug dealers) then I could understand why you would have a problem with that.

Again, like I said, Child porn has been illegal- very illegal- for a long time. The ACLU isn't interested in changing that, but certainly if the government sayid "we need to search everyone's hard drive in the United States- to combat kiddie porn", yes I'm certain the ACLU might have a problem with that.

Anyway, I think I'll trust the judgement of the ACLU over the judgement of the full-of-shit troglodytes.

[charlie]

17. Thanks for the spelling correction

Up too late here :)

Ease up, I don't have a problem with the ACLU's actions on these laws. I was only stating how the ACLU-as-pedophile meme gets traction.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I hadn't actually read the NAMBLA story.

It's pretty hard to stick up for their right to free speech, but as a Jew, it's pretty hard for me to stick up for the right of Nazis and other right-wing fascists to have theirs as well.

Edit: And, sorry to come on so strong. Like I said before, I'm running late on my afternoon coffee. Zzzzang!

[chickenscratching]

24. its off topic

but i'm so happy to see you use troglodyte in a sentence!
may i ask, did you ever play dungeons and dragons?

[charlie]

27. Uh-uh

I've never much liked sword and sorcery motifs in games. It's a fine word though, innit?

[chickenscratching]

31. i love it! it feels so good to say it too. n/t

[tx_dem41]

10. I did find such a story from 2000 from the Washington Post....

Its more convoluted than how it's being spun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000831/aponline171914_000.htm


To me its more about the liability of posting such information, and not about the right to post it in the first place. My quick take, at least.

[mother earth]

25. Thanks, this is the one.

[Bluebear]

11. Can you tell me if Sean Hannity was brought up on molestation charges?

Some people were saying that and I don't know if it's true!

[kweerwolf]

33. That rumor has been discredited.

Apparently what happened is that Hannity had a hole in his pocket, went to grab the keys to his Chevette and thought he was being molested. Using a microscope, police dusted Hannity's "willie" and failed to find any fingerprints but his own. They did, however, discovered that his lip prints matched a pair found on Bill O'Reilly's ass.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. He has been found guilty

of criminal posession of a plastic hair helmet.

[_TJ_]

12. Don't ya think raping children

might be a bit of a breach of their civil liberties?

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Dont ya think repeating Right-Wing Fundy Bullshit Blather

and buying into their assumptions unchallenged: i.e. "The ACLU defends child-rape"... might be a bit of intellectual laziness on your part?

Maybe?

Addendum: The only organization in this country I know of that has engaged in the widespread institutional facilitation of child rape is the Catholic Church.

[mother earth]

18. Hey, preaching to the choir....

I know they like to spin their tales. Would I be here or be posting on this board if I bought into it? Thanks.

[_TJ_]

19. Don't ya think some sarcasm is so obvious

it don't need a smiley :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Guess Not.

Need Coffee, sorry.

[tx_dem41]

20. You should read post #10....the story, although spun....

.. is based on a factual case.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Gotcha. Granted, that is pretty disturbing stuff.

However, they weren't defending the rape of children, nor were they defending the guys who raped the children... They were defending the free speech rights of NAMBLA. And the prosecution's case against NAMBLA wasn't that they didn't have a right to their admittedly noxious views, but rather that they had "crossed the line" into facilitating crimes. Specifically, that the whole organization was involved in child abuse by making it easier for pedophiles to abuse children.

Now, I happen to agree that facilitating the sexual abuse of children is a fucking terrible, vile crime. Beyond words. But if they can indict all of NAMBLA on that, again, by the exact same logic why can't we throw the whole Catholic Church-- who we KNOW covered up for molesters and protected their freedom, allowing them proximity to more kids to abuse-- in jail?

[charlie]

30. It's just the sexed-up version

of those perennial Metal Killed Johnny cases, which have never won in the courts.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Someone needs to stop Ashlee Simpson before she kills again.

And single-digit IQ reality tv shows certainly make me want to blow my brains out.

[mother earth]

21. Like your addendum.

[Stryguy]

16. YOUR ANSWER WITHIN

This is a common "twist" of tales.

The ACLU has defended people who have been charged with child pornography. They have defended organizations linked to child pornography.

What they fail to mention is that the ACLU was not defending their rights to distribute child pornography. They were defending other constitutional rights of these individuals and organizations that were trampled on during child porn investigations.

Also they defended a publication that was meant for people who were interested in child porn but didn't have porn in it nor broke any laws.

They are doing the justice for our constitution. Just because it's distasteful to most of us that a publication like that exists doesn't mean that it shouldn't.. unless it breaks a law.

A close look at the ACLU's practices show that they aren't liberal, their constitutional fundamentalists. It just so happens that much of what the right wingers want flies in the face of the constitution and thus the ACLU has to get involved. (IE Patriot Act)

[patcox2]

22. They have challenged the law's overbreadth.

The federal kiddie porn law is written in such a way that it not only outlaws pictures of minors, it outlaws pictures of adults pretending to be minors, and it outlaws drawings of minors, cartoons of minors and a lot of other stuff which has nothing to do with real living breathing minors. It verges on penalizing the mere thought of a minor, as opposed to the deed. (there was one case of a man prosecuted and convicted for keeping a diary in which he wrote his fantasies of sex with minors).

I believe the ACLU did challenge these aspects of the law as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. So all those pictures of Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld

in their Catholic Schoolgirl uniforms are certainly of dubious legality.

[tx_dem41]

35. Damn you for giving me that mental image...

Dammit! :)

[tx_dem41]

26. From the Mass. ACLU's website: They have defended NAMBLA...

...http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/legal_issues/free_speech_and_assembly/curley_v_north_american_man_boy_love_association.html

I posted a related story in post #10.