It actually sounds like we are mostly in agreement
Submitted by Drifter on 2003-02-21 11:20:06, Friday
In reply to Re: For Ron.. [Read this, corrected text --Ron] submitted by Ron on 2003-02-21 05:16:02, Friday
|
But we still have our differences. Firstly, I do not believe that the publication in question constitutes criminal conspiracy. I believe it constitutes free speech. NAMBLA is not the only organization that provides information for those who choose to break the law. The magazine High Times provides all manner of information on growing marijuana and avoiding prosecution. Yet no one has bothered to charge that they are a criminal enterprise. The book "The Anarchist Cookbook" provides information on creating high explosives, demolishing suspension bridges, and processing illegal drugs. Even though they tried, no one (not even the author who is now a christian) was able to stop this book from being published (you can currently buy it from Amazon). Gay organizations regularly give out information on safe sex, and are known to give out condoms and lubricants with the goal that people use them while committing the crime of sodomy (which is still illegal in most states). Yet no one charges them as being a criminal organization. Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Jessie Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, Mahatma Ghandi, Henry David Thoreau and many other leaders have at some point given out information promoting civil disobedience (a criminal act involving trespassing, marching without a permit, and the breaking of various other laws) and giving instructions on the practice of said same. Yet no one claims they are/were members of a criminal enterprise. This is a freedom of speech issue. Does NAMBLA have the right to speak their mind without government interference? I argue that they do (and so does the KKK and neo-nazis and other groups that I, as a minority, despise). You spoke at length about conflicts of interest. Somehow implying that since NAMBLA members are attracted to children, they cannot speak out on issues relating to children. What a curious reasoning this is. So you are saying that arguments should no longer be tested on the basis of their merits or their validity, but simply on the basis of who wrote them. Thats a peculiar way of thinking. Or perhaps you are implying that a priest should not write about religion because he has a conflict of interest. Or that a married couple should not write about marriage because they have a conflict of interest. Let us then discard all literature about religion written by priests or pastors since, obviously, they are biased. Let us discard all books written by lawyers or judges about the legal system, because thats their job so they have a conflict of interest. As you see, this reasoning is silly. It is made even more silly in the article you quoted (illegally and without the author's permission). That article is written by someone with an extreme conflict of interest because he finds himself in a position of having to convince 80% of the members of his organization to oust NAMBLA or risk losing their legitimacy. So, when NAMBLA speaks out on issues relating to children, they have a conflict of interest and should be ignored, but when the gay organizations speak out against NAMBLA they should not be ignored even though they have an even bigger conflict of interest in needing to oust NAMBLA in order to maintain their legitimacy. Again, I dont agree with most of NAMBLA's views, so you dont need to establish how ridiculous some of their reasoning is, because we already agree on that. What we disagree on is whether NAMBLA has the right to promote the views they do and whether their speech should be considered criminal. This is clearly a free speech issue and I would hate to see the day when you must carefully analyze what your about to say for fear that your speech may be considered criminal. Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. |
Follow ups: