| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"127.0.0.1" |
| Date: |
27 Feb 2006 04:38:15 PM |
| Object: |
Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
"The village includes an exclusively Jewish pre-school, high school, adult
education center, seniors center, health center, townhouse condos, and
apartment rental units. No non-Jews will be allowed."
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended,
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings,
and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national
origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of
18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people
securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap
(disability).
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8073
I guess diversity and multiculturalism is strictly for Gentile consumption
only. Apparently the fair housing act doesn't apply to jEws.
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
27 Feb 2006 10:06:38 PM |
|
|
"127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote:
I guess diversity and multiculturalism is strictly for Gentile consumption
only. Apparently the fair housing act doesn't apply to jEws.
Nor the Catholics, Methodists or any other religious groups, if they
are operating retirement communities.
<Sec. 807. [42 U.S.C. 3607] Religious organization or private club exemption
<
<(a) Nothing in this subchapter shall prohibit a religious
< organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution
< or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in
< conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society,
< from limiting the sale, rental or occupancy of dwellings which it
< owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose to persons of
< the same religion, or from giving preference to such persons, unless
< membership in such religion is restricted on account of race, color,
< or national origin. Nor shall anything in this subchapter prohibit a
< private club not in fact open to the public, which as an incident to
< its primary purpose or purposes provides lodgings which it owns or
< operates for other than a commercial purpose, from limiting the
< rental or occupancy of such lodgings to its members or from giving
< preference to its members.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Bruno" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
27 Feb 2006 06:29:44 PM |
|
|
127.0.0.1 wrote:
"The village includes an exclusively Jewish pre-school, high school, adult
education center, seniors center, health center, townhouse condos, and
apartment rental units.
No non-Jews will be allowed."
The original article doesn't say that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
27 Feb 2006 04:45:51 PM |
|
|
In article <3989095.5bIdHAO9e2@FreeBSD> "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1> writes:
"The village includes an exclusively Jewish pre-school, high school, adult
education center, seniors center, health center, townhouse condos, and
apartment rental units. No non-Jews will be allowed."
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended,
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings,
and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national
origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of
18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people
securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap
(disability).
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8073
I guess diversity and multiculturalism is strictly for Gentile consumption
only. Apparently the fair housing act doesn't apply to jEws.
Does this school system take tax dollars? If so, bring suit, and
I guarantee the ACLU will help you.
If these are private schools and take no tax money, then they
can do anything they want. Such a private school could
accept only neo-nazis, if it so chooses.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "127.0.0.1" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
27 Feb 2006 04:53:17 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <3989095.5bIdHAO9e2@FreeBSD> "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1>
writes:
"The village includes an exclusively Jewish pre-school, high school,
adult education center, seniors center, health center, townhouse condos,
and apartment rental units. No non-Jews will be allowed."
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as
amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of
dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race,
color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including
children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians,
pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of
18), and handicap (disability).
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8073
I guess diversity and multiculturalism is strictly for Gentile
consumption only. Apparently the fair housing act doesn't apply to jEws.
Does this school system take tax dollars? If so, bring suit, and
I guarantee the ACLU will help you.
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their own.
If these are private schools and take no tax money, then they
can do anything they want. Such a private school could
accept only neo-nazis, if it so chooses.
What about the Fair Housing ACT?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
27 Feb 2006 05:02:15 PM |
|
|
In article <3096112.c8QMxhUHZ9@FreeBSD> "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <3989095.5bIdHAO9e2@FreeBSD> "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1>
writes:
"The village includes an exclusively Jewish pre-school, high school,
adult education center, seniors center, health center, townhouse condos,
and apartment rental units. No non-Jews will be allowed."
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as
amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of
dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race,
color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including
children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians,
pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of
18), and handicap (disability).
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8073
I guess diversity and multiculturalism is strictly for Gentile
consumption only. Apparently the fair housing act doesn't apply to jEws.
Does this school system take tax dollars? If so, bring suit, and
I guarantee the ACLU will help you.
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
If these are private schools and take no tax money, then they
can do anything they want. Such a private school could
accept only neo-nazis, if it so chooses.
What about the Fair Housing ACT?
Bring a suit, then. Sounds like you might have a better chance
with that one.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "127.0.0.1" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
27 Feb 2006 05:23:02 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
How could you support a group that attacks the Boy Scouts; Yet defends
NAMBLA? Cary are those your views?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
27 Feb 2006 05:42:47 PM |
|
|
In article <1246257.hEAeo8vyde@FreeBSD> "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
How could you support a group that attacks the Boy Scouts;
Make that "attacks the Boy Scouts who took my tax dollars, but
would not allow an atheist -- such as, for example, myself -- in".
Ditto for gay kids. I have zero problems with that kind of "attack".
Yet defends NAMBLA?
Cary are those your views?
The ACLU did not defend man-boy love; it defended NAMBLA's right
of free expression. Just as it defended the the free-expression
rights of scum-sucking neo-nazis to march through a Jewish
neighborhood. And yes, supporting the freedom of expression
of anyone -- even neo-nazis and white supremecists -- is indeed
in line with my values.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
28 Feb 2006 02:09:57 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:1246257.hEAeo8vyde@FreeBSD:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their
own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
How could you support a group that attacks the Boy Scouts;
Because they take government funds collected in part from
people (gays, atheists) and then use it to discriminate
against the very same?
Either the Boy Scouts stop the discrimination; or stop
taking the moola.
Yet defends NAMBLA?
In that case, NAMBLA as an organization is being wrongly
held accountable for something that two people did. Two
men raped and murdered Jeffery Curley, a 10-year old boy,
and the plaintiffs brought a wrongful death suit against
NAMBLA holding it somehow responsible, even though one of
the two killers was *not* a member, plus the fact that
while NAMBLA argues for the repeal of AOC laws, it condemns
rape, not to mention murder.
You think it's fair to hold an organization responsible
for an act committed by a member when the organization
expressly condemns that very act?
Here's a story on the case:
<http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/24/kaminer-w.html>
NAMBLA strongly opposes age-of-consent laws in the belief
that they are arbitrary, simplistic, and a violation of the
rights of minors as well as adults. It expressly condemns
"sexual abuse and all forms of coercion," believes only in
"mutually consensual relationships" between men and boys, and
stresses that it "does not provide encouragement, referrals,
or assistance for people seeking sexual contact." The Web
site included the sayings of respectable writers and
academics (Oscar Wilde, Allen Ginsberg, Dudley Clendinen, and
John Money), a rather dry discussion of "positive and
beneficial experiences" between adults and minors, and a list
of journal articles on sexuality as well as some sophomoric
poetry. Maybe some people found this titillating, but all in
all, the NAMBLA Web site seemed a lot less incendiary than
the Bible.
NAMBLA's bulletin is more likely to offend: The issue I've
seen included a story about man-boy sex that could qualify as
soft-core porn--but nothing sanctioning, much less
encouraging, violence and abuse. Of course, some may believe
that any erotica involving minors is an invitation to abuse,
or statutory rape, at least. But if stories involving
sexually active minors were not protected by the First
Amendment, Lolita would be illegal (along with numerous TV
shows and movies). In fact, Nabokov had predictable trouble
finding a publisher for his controversial book; but even if
Lolita were construed as an endorsement of statutory rape, it
would remain protected speech. For speech to be prohibited,
it must have a clear, direct, immediate, causal relationship
to violence or other unlawful activities. Mere advocacy of
violence is legal; only incitement to violence--intentionally
provocative speech that is likely to result in immediate
unlawful action--can be prohibited.
Still, the Curley lawsuit is hard for civil libertarians to
ignore. Jeffrey Curley's murder was horrible and readily
exploited by advocates of repressive legislation. (It nearly
brought the death penalty back to Massachusetts.) The civil
suit against NAMBLA, aimed at censoring unpopular speech
about sexuality, reflects widespread biases about a supposed
link between homosexuality and pedophilia--a link denied by
such mainstream organizations as the American Medical
Association and the American Psychological Association.
(Children have more to fear from heterosexual predators
within their extended families.)
But for many people, facts about child abuse are less
compelling than their visceral reaction to NAMBLA's support
for adult-child sexual relationships. NAMBLA is highly
vulnerable (and the Curleys' lawyer, Lawrence Frisoli,
reportedly plans to demand its membership list during
pretrial discovery). Virtually no group of people is more
unpopular; even some attorneys generally sympathetic to First
Amendment claims have shied away from any association with
NAMBLA; the organization is now represented by the
Massachusetts ACLU.
NAMBLA has, however, found one unlikely defender--Jeffrey
Curley's father, a primary plaintiff in the case. Robert
Curley was previously represented by attorney Harvey
Silverglate, a Massachusetts ACLU board member and First
Amendment absolutist, in a dispute with the City of Cambridge
over mandatory diversity training. He is surprisingly
sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit: "I
really do have a lot of respect for them," Curley told The
Boston Globe. "They are very consistent in who they defend.
It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over
the years. They have a lot of courage."
The ACLU is doing exactly the right thing in this case.
This is nothing more than an attempt to stifle freedom of
association and the right of anyone to try to advocate
via legal means changes in the law.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRAOSgT/rA6+b3AyhAQHkUAgAiZl9Htri+xwa4hUrk7PdU4ag95JtrrKh
z8ypqC57XHbcANfHiYS9cqjwjoBwo/3m8ncriD/M8dHAcpOaIDWxIsy+PSBqw7/x
X8CIQ3KuNvDPC3HhSK1O3UQm0O8UMG9Du3YMV8oqJDYZKqWMyc92nz+oZwlShvVM
TSDfwC0XN5TbfHV8N668wgXgsiqFsOFo3zsPb3e8v7exPR2nZMrtZEgJ1VxK11CH
tWdiAG/n/KBxK/hBxq1DnUZASeKj70zQx2RAS1Co9jJMeVjDwp3/+8bw8dU/NpfL
YRV86pUC/iKZl1iNyvhPWjHdZf9VBvwpnv+x4E8hTpY/q7rgskqFBQ==
=1Dye
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "waybackjack" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
28 Feb 2006 03:09:49 PM |
|
|
On the other hand, your'e a Walz protege and so normal folks dismiss
your opinions.
On 28 Feb 2006 20:09:57 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:1246257.hEAeo8vyde@FreeBSD:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their
own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
How could you support a group that attacks the Boy Scouts;
Because they take government funds collected in part from
people (gays, atheists) and then use it to discriminate
against the very same?
Either the Boy Scouts stop the discrimination; or stop
taking the moola.
Yet defends NAMBLA?
In that case, NAMBLA as an organization is being wrongly
held accountable for something that two people did. Two
men raped and murdered Jeffery Curley, a 10-year old boy,
and the plaintiffs brought a wrongful death suit against
NAMBLA holding it somehow responsible, even though one of
the two killers was *not* a member, plus the fact that
while NAMBLA argues for the repeal of AOC laws, it condemns
rape, not to mention murder.
You think it's fair to hold an organization responsible
for an act committed by a member when the organization
expressly condemns that very act?
Here's a story on the case:
<http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/24/kaminer-w.html>
NAMBLA strongly opposes age-of-consent laws in the belief
that they are arbitrary, simplistic, and a violation of the
rights of minors as well as adults. It expressly condemns
"sexual abuse and all forms of coercion," believes only in
"mutually consensual relationships" between men and boys, and
stresses that it "does not provide encouragement, referrals,
or assistance for people seeking sexual contact." The Web
site included the sayings of respectable writers and
academics (Oscar Wilde, Allen Ginsberg, Dudley Clendinen, and
John Money), a rather dry discussion of "positive and
beneficial experiences" between adults and minors, and a list
of journal articles on sexuality as well as some sophomoric
poetry. Maybe some people found this titillating, but all in
all, the NAMBLA Web site seemed a lot less incendiary than
the Bible.
NAMBLA's bulletin is more likely to offend: The issue I've
seen included a story about man-boy sex that could qualify as
soft-core porn--but nothing sanctioning, much less
encouraging, violence and abuse. Of course, some may believe
that any erotica involving minors is an invitation to abuse,
or statutory rape, at least. But if stories involving
sexually active minors were not protected by the First
Amendment, Lolita would be illegal (along with numerous TV
shows and movies). In fact, Nabokov had predictable trouble
finding a publisher for his controversial book; but even if
Lolita were construed as an endorsement of statutory rape, it
would remain protected speech. For speech to be prohibited,
it must have a clear, direct, immediate, causal relationship
to violence or other unlawful activities. Mere advocacy of
violence is legal; only incitement to violence--intentionally
provocative speech that is likely to result in immediate
unlawful action--can be prohibited.
Still, the Curley lawsuit is hard for civil libertarians to
ignore. Jeffrey Curley's murder was horrible and readily
exploited by advocates of repressive legislation. (It nearly
brought the death penalty back to Massachusetts.) The civil
suit against NAMBLA, aimed at censoring unpopular speech
about sexuality, reflects widespread biases about a supposed
link between homosexuality and pedophilia--a link denied by
such mainstream organizations as the American Medical
Association and the American Psychological Association.
(Children have more to fear from heterosexual predators
within their extended families.)
But for many people, facts about child abuse are less
compelling than their visceral reaction to NAMBLA's support
for adult-child sexual relationships. NAMBLA is highly
vulnerable (and the Curleys' lawyer, Lawrence Frisoli,
reportedly plans to demand its membership list during
pretrial discovery). Virtually no group of people is more
unpopular; even some attorneys generally sympathetic to First
Amendment claims have shied away from any association with
NAMBLA; the organization is now represented by the
Massachusetts ACLU.
NAMBLA has, however, found one unlikely defender--Jeffrey
Curley's father, a primary plaintiff in the case. Robert
Curley was previously represented by attorney Harvey
Silverglate, a Massachusetts ACLU board member and First
Amendment absolutist, in a dispute with the City of Cambridge
over mandatory diversity training. He is surprisingly
sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit: "I
really do have a lot of respect for them," Curley told The
Boston Globe. "They are very consistent in who they defend.
It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over
the years. They have a lot of courage."
The ACLU is doing exactly the right thing in this case.
This is nothing more than an attempt to stifle freedom of
association and the right of anyone to try to advocate
via legal means changes in the law.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRAOSgT/rA6+b3AyhAQHkUAgAiZl9Htri+xwa4hUrk7PdU4ag95JtrrKh
z8ypqC57XHbcANfHiYS9cqjwjoBwo/3m8ncriD/M8dHAcpOaIDWxIsy+PSBqw7/x
X8CIQ3KuNvDPC3HhSK1O3UQm0O8UMG9Du3YMV8oqJDYZKqWMyc92nz+oZwlShvVM
TSDfwC0XN5TbfHV8N668wgXgsiqFsOFo3zsPb3e8v7exPR2nZMrtZEgJ1VxK11CH
tWdiAG/n/KBxK/hBxq1DnUZASeKj70zQx2RAS1Co9jJMeVjDwp3/+8bw8dU/NpfL
YRV86pUC/iKZl1iNyvhPWjHdZf9VBvwpnv+x4E8hTpY/q7rgskqFBQ==
=1Dye
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
01 Mar 2006 01:01:32 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
YoYo@home.net (waybackjack) wrote in
news:4404bbf6.34361765@free.teranews.com:
On the other hand, your'e a Walz protege
Walz has called MIB *you*. You've called me Walz, even though
both MIB and I have differed with Walz, publically.
What's left, to complete this little circle? Am I supposed
to call you Walz? Or Walz you?
and so normal folks dismiss your opinions.
Especially as "normal folks" are too busy spamming usenet
with multiple, morphing identities expressly designed to
avoid killfiles (I see three in this thread)...right Bro'?
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRATkAT/rA6+b3AyhAQGxJQgAjugSC4emIYkkijv6miwU1ODj5bHIuSzu
qlGzK0CrLC80QL5llh3YQMuGUzvfwkjG2c+v6Dr2pykFCDHt+pDuy2Xl1sr6atol
5b7NMGdI4M+CUWQe+3k2sCiKZ/Sh2INN/EeAIvLp/JLYkvlUzx3HnyORlnAb3b4t
9ZyoxLwJ6sHivktNZ3IphJz7eZrxcXpuWuAAN+GW9rU2Jr8Pg1HiBFyAXbR3UFvQ
CuoUCB99y+ObGu9/caab6Owg2i/opVbVZ2d47DGgGESE3uoHzurob7OaihsNsrut
7BoZ2G9tMqDOeXDhe0MH/XL7H4Lk62ZfryF2kP3iGn/HWDueQ9aFdA==
=ljYE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Way Back Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
01 Mar 2006 01:40:27 PM |
|
|
On 1 Mar 2006 19:01:32 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
You've called me Walz, even though
both MIB and I have differed with Walz, publically.
You're not Walz; he's your mentor; and you both agree on major issues:
1) You're share-the-wealth enthusiasts
2) Bisexual
3) Not opposed to sex between adults and "consenting" children.
The rest of your bunch: MIB, Cary, Shockley, Chevrolet Bob, Karl, and
a few others are not quite as perverted as you and your mentor.
They're bad enough, tho.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
02 Mar 2006 01:23:30 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm@Home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote in
news:4405f8c1.29577140@news.prodigy.net:
On 1 Mar 2006 19:01:32 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
You've called me Walz, even though
both MIB and I have differed with Walz, publically.
You're not Walz; he's your mentor;
Funny, I didn't even know my "mentor" existed until a couple
of years back or so, and I've been posting on asb-l since
1997, me recalls.
And hey, why did you snip out the part about morphing IDs
expressly designed to avoid killfiles. You think that
trolling usenet is something that "normal folks" do?
(Trolling, getting your kicks out of annoying and stirring
up trouble somewhere, sounds like a mild case of anti-social
personality syndrome).
and you both agree on
major issues:
1) You're share-the-wealth enthusiasts
2) Bisexual
3) Not opposed to sex between adults and "consenting"
children.
I would like to say that you're right on that; however,
I'm prolly the lone bunchie there.
The rest of your bunch: MIB, Cary, Shockley, Chevrolet
Bob, Karl,
Karl? KARL!? Gosh, we're a bunch, and I don't even know all my
fellow bunchmates. Who's Karl?
and a few others are not quite as perverted as
you and your mentor.
Well, since you've included me in the likes of MIB, Cary,
Gray, and Bob, people I admit who are intelligent, write
well, and post insightful and informative material, I must
admit, you've made my day. I can't say how they feel about
having me as a fellow bunchmate, but from my POV, thank
you for the compliment.
(Oh, and throw Joni and toto and FNC in the "bunch" too,
willya? That'll make me feel even better.)
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRAY1gT/rA6+b3AyhAQEozAgArgCD2Evgbhx1ypKEkeKfMq3ZvpT+mfDP
dPonm+oIIisGNuumDKA3sJBtWQ2pT2QtrLmBVacMNPcZCkJ2KylcGWLga3liyXL7
oZHlOHbfXqT/k66S2zwnKoxK0KZKwisz5HNaVo87feUILNtNZiFxbNy8Ge3y2AO8
PJRkjrt+PUXS5gP61fb5Xfue4cgXceb7zk0SfRIC/lEWiIRO6xil9xYlOVJD0vtQ
1n3H694DbJTa9pVmGnCxUwNus4qIn1Gtj0M7iVxzLHHBzKOy9c+7FPPyjnkDOFF9
BYQhDo2+RbN76DspyOTl4TqywB8T5g6yjn8gkVbRpaoVpJE9iRfXfQ==
=KLnS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
02 Mar 2006 01:32:14 PM |
|
|
In article <DHNLIV8238778.5579861111@anonymous.poster> Secret Squirrel <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> writes:
I'm@Home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote in
news:4405f8c1.29577140@news.prodigy.net:
{...}
1) You're share-the-wealth enthusiasts
2) Bisexual
3) Not opposed to sex between adults and "consenting"
children.
I would like to say that you're right on that; however,
I'm prolly the lone bunchie there.
The rest of your bunch: MIB, Cary, Shockley, Chevrolet
Bob, Karl,
Karl? KARL!? Gosh, we're a bunch, and I don't even know all my
fellow bunchmates. Who's Karl?
Karl the Phantom Proletarian Polymorphic Pedophile, apparently.
and a few others are not quite as perverted as
you and your mentor.
Well, since you've included me in the likes of MIB, Cary,
Gray, and Bob, people I admit who are intelligent, write
well, and post insightful and informative material, I must
admit, you've made my day. I can't say how they feel about
having me as a fellow bunchmate, but from my POV, thank
you for the compliment.
(Oh, and throw Joni and toto and FNC in the "bunch" too,
willya? That'll make me feel even better.)
FNC bunches quite nicely, in my experience.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Way Back Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
02 Mar 2006 01:54:52 PM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2006 19:23:30 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm@Home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote in
and you both agree on
major issues:
1) You're share-the-wealth enthusiasts
2) Bisexual
3) Not opposed to sex between adults and "consenting"
children.
I would like to say that you're right on that; however,
I'm prolly the lone bunchie there.
Are you serious? Walz has been advocating #3 for years.
Here's his most recent:
http://tinyurl.com/h9yen
(...)
Message-ID: <43FD6DB8.415D@armory.com>
From: "R. Steve Walz" <rste...@armory.com>
(....)
Are you finally admitting that sexual relations between an adult and
"consenting" child are harmful to the child?
---------------------
They aren't, so "admitting" that would be wrong.
Steve
___________
Bro
_____
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
03 Mar 2006 02:13:58 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
nospam@nospam.org (Way Back Jack) wrote in
news:44074d59.27951375@free.teranews.com:
On 2 Mar 2006 19:23:30 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
I'm@Home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote in
and you both agree on
major issues:
1) You're share-the-wealth enthusiasts
2) Bisexual
3) Not opposed to sex between adults and "consenting"
children.
I would like to say that you're right on that; however,
I'm prolly the lone bunchie there.
Are you serious? Walz has been advocating #3 for years.
Walz is a fellow bunchie in your mind?
Dude, have you read some of the exchanges he's had with
MIB? All is not well in your "collective"; I'd say.
Here's his most recent:
http://tinyurl.com/h9yen
(...)
Message-ID: <43FD6DB8.415D@armory.com>
From: "R. Steve Walz" <rste...@armory.com>
(....)
Are you finally admitting that sexual relations between an
adult and "consenting" child are harmful to the child?
---------------------
They aren't, so "admitting" that would be wrong.
Steve
Well, he's right, strictly speaking; in that at least the sex
cannot be not inherently harmful; any examination of either
personal case histories in this culture or of examples from
history or other cultures reveal that to be true. Although
undeniably culture can mind-***** the kid because of it,
just as it can inflict guilt and trauma in someone due to
any other action.
(I differ with Walz over some of the specifics; I think that
the prohibition of adult-juvenile sexuality cross-culturally
is broader than he, though this is the result of broad
convergences in humanity's cultural evolution).
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRAeHAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHdbwgAtq/iiJQEw4PQAThxzn+mmFskofcrga62
D0Bfo8D24YYDL69pyxvrIT4yESJnmx66MLHhamvQ5XM8G2JS5/5qsxK8g49+smY4
XUqj022NgW4RXV5mBIoN+FOFYuHQRKCNIkAf42RAos0w42EniueK4F21Ih3eNqZx
aFDFw7wBRpwZytuVy4AXJQ0xv0hGllNn625HWcHVGgx5eQiA73cAFVyCYN2lvmlF
Qt8NQRR9uaLkTV9a537mSqkbddtXyuatGvkcFSdOFuE+eGMPgiKA+k2QYuru0H+O
lNYSpZqlBmyMX7QLJ1x0C1JxUCuGn7+1T1vUCXY3+LkP5+eQ2Szy5Q==
=/Zfy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Way Back Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
03 Mar 2006 03:45:31 PM |
|
|
On 3 Mar 2006 20:13:58 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
Dude, have you read some of the exchanges he's had with
MIB? All is not well in your "collective"; I'd say.
Walz and MIB?
One's a pervert; the other a pathological liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
06 Mar 2006 10:21:02 AM |
|
|
In article <4408b8bf.36292109@news.newshosting.com> (Way Back Jack) writes:
On 3 Mar 2006 20:13:58 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
Dude, have you read some of the exchanges he's had with
MIB? All is not well in your "collective"; I'd say.
Walz and MIB?
One's a pervert; the other a pathological liar.
Yes? In what manner is MIB either one?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
01 Mar 2006 01:50:00 PM |
|
|
I'm@Home.net (Way Back Jack)
On 1 Mar 2006 19:01:32 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
You've called me Walz, even though
both MIB and I have differed with Walz, publically.
You're not Walz; he's your mentor; and you both agree on major issues:
1) You're share-the-wealth enthusiasts
2) Bisexual
3) Not opposed to sex between adults and "consenting" children.
The rest of your bunch: MIB, Cary, Shockley, Chevrolet Bob, Karl, and
a few others
We're a "bunch"?
Cool! I always wanted to be in a bunch. Do we get a decoder ring?
are not quite as perverted as you and your mentor.
<SNORT!> Young grasshopper, you simply have no idea. Give me
a Gravitizer, three feather dusters, a wash basin full
of raspberry Jello, and a bottle of 16 Million Reserve,
and ... well, you simply have no idea.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "toto" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
01 Mar 2006 07:46:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:50:00 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
I'm@Home.net (Way Back Jack)
On 1 Mar 2006 19:01:32 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
You've called me Walz, even though
both MIB and I have differed with Walz, publically.
You're not Walz; he's your mentor; and you both agree on major issues:
1) You're share-the-wealth enthusiasts
2) Bisexual
3) Not opposed to sex between adults and "consenting" children.
The rest of your bunch: MIB, Cary, Shockley, Chevrolet Bob, Karl, and
a few others
We're a "bunch"?
bunch of carrots?
Cool! I always wanted to be in a bunch. Do we get a decoder ring?
I thought you were an *ilk*
are not quite as perverted as you and your mentor.
<SNORT!> Young grasshopper, you simply have no idea. Give me
a Gravitizer, three feather dusters, a wash basin full
of raspberry Jello, and a bottle of 16 Million Reserve,
and ... well, you simply have no idea.
LOL
-- cary
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
01 Mar 2006 01:12:08 PM |
|
|
Secret Squirrel <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net>
YoYo@home.net (waybackjack) wrote in
news:4404bbf6.34361765@free.teranews.com:
On the other hand, your'e a Walz protege
Walz has called MIB *you*. You've called me Walz, even though
both MIB and I have differed with Walz, publically.
What's left, to complete this little circle? Am I supposed
to call you Walz? Or Walz you?
Around on his willie? I wouldn't; not on a bet.
But that's just me...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
28 Feb 2006 03:48:31 PM |
|
|
In article <4404bbf6.34361765@free.teranews.com> (waybackjack) writes:
On the other hand, your'e a Walz protege and so normal folks dismiss
your opinions.
Particularly, it appears, when they can come up with no answers
to them.
-- cary
On 28 Feb 2006 20:09:57 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1> wrote in
news:1246257.hEAeo8vyde@FreeBSD:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their
own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
How could you support a group that attacks the Boy Scouts;
Because they take government funds collected in part from
people (gays, atheists) and then use it to discriminate
against the very same?
Either the Boy Scouts stop the discrimination; or stop
taking the moola.
Yet defends NAMBLA?
In that case, NAMBLA as an organization is being wrongly
held accountable for something that two people did. Two
men raped and murdered Jeffery Curley, a 10-year old boy,
and the plaintiffs brought a wrongful death suit against
NAMBLA holding it somehow responsible, even though one of
the two killers was *not* a member, plus the fact that
while NAMBLA argues for the repeal of AOC laws, it condemns
rape, not to mention murder.
You think it's fair to hold an organization responsible
for an act committed by a member when the organization
expressly condemns that very act?
Here's a story on the case:
<http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/24/kaminer-w.html>
NAMBLA strongly opposes age-of-consent laws in the belief
that they are arbitrary, simplistic, and a violation of the
rights of minors as well as adults. It expressly condemns
"sexual abuse and all forms of coercion," believes only in
"mutually consensual relationships" between men and boys, and
stresses that it "does not provide encouragement, referrals,
or assistance for people seeking sexual contact." The Web
site included the sayings of respectable writers and
academics (Oscar Wilde, Allen Ginsberg, Dudley Clendinen, and
John Money), a rather dry discussion of "positive and
beneficial experiences" between adults and minors, and a list
of journal articles on sexuality as well as some sophomoric
poetry. Maybe some people found this titillating, but all in
all, the NAMBLA Web site seemed a lot less incendiary than
the Bible.
NAMBLA's bulletin is more likely to offend: The issue I've
seen included a story about man-boy sex that could qualify as
soft-core porn--but nothing sanctioning, much less
encouraging, violence and abuse. Of course, some may believe
that any erotica involving minors is an invitation to abuse,
or statutory rape, at least. But if stories involving
sexually active minors were not protected by the First
Amendment, Lolita would be illegal (along with numerous TV
shows and movies). In fact, Nabokov had predictable trouble
finding a publisher for his controversial book; but even if
Lolita were construed as an endorsement of statutory rape, it
would remain protected speech. For speech to be prohibited,
it must have a clear, direct, immediate, causal relationship
to violence or other unlawful activities. Mere advocacy of
violence is legal; only incitement to violence--intentionally
provocative speech that is likely to result in immediate
unlawful action--can be prohibited.
Still, the Curley lawsuit is hard for civil libertarians to
ignore. Jeffrey Curley's murder was horrible and readily
exploited by advocates of repressive legislation. (It nearly
brought the death penalty back to Massachusetts.) The civil
suit against NAMBLA, aimed at censoring unpopular speech
about sexuality, reflects widespread biases about a supposed
link between homosexuality and pedophilia--a link denied by
such mainstream organizations as the American Medical
Association and the American Psychological Association.
(Children have more to fear from heterosexual predators
within their extended families.)
But for many people, facts about child abuse are less
compelling than their visceral reaction to NAMBLA's support
for adult-child sexual relationships. NAMBLA is highly
vulnerable (and the Curleys' lawyer, Lawrence Frisoli,
reportedly plans to demand its membership list during
pretrial discovery). Virtually no group of people is more
unpopular; even some attorneys generally sympathetic to First
Amendment claims have shied away from any association with
NAMBLA; the organization is now represented by the
Massachusetts ACLU.
NAMBLA has, however, found one unlikely defender--Jeffrey
Curley's father, a primary plaintiff in the case. Robert
Curley was previously represented by attorney Harvey
Silverglate, a Massachusetts ACLU board member and First
Amendment absolutist, in a dispute with the City of Cambridge
over mandatory diversity training. He is surprisingly
sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit: "I
really do have a lot of respect for them," Curley told The
Boston Globe. "They are very consistent in who they defend.
It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over
the years. They have a lot of courage."
The ACLU is doing exactly the right thing in this case.
This is nothing more than an attempt to stifle freedom of
association and the right of anyone to try to advocate
via legal means changes in the law.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRAOSgT/rA6+b3AyhAQHkUAgAiZl9Htri+xwa4hUrk7PdU4ag95JtrrKh
z8ypqC57XHbcANfHiYS9cqjwjoBwo/3m8ncriD/M8dHAcpOaIDWxIsy+PSBqw7/x
X8CIQ3KuNvDPC3HhSK1O3UQm0O8UMG9Du3YMV8oqJDYZKqWMyc92nz+oZwlShvVM
TSDfwC0XN5TbfHV8N668wgXgsiqFsOFo3zsPb3e8v7exPR2nZMrtZEgJ1VxK11CH
tWdiAG/n/KBxK/hBxq1DnUZASeKj70zQx2RAS1Co9jJMeVjDwp3/+8bw8dU/NpfL
YRV86pUC/iKZl1iNyvhPWjHdZf9VBvwpnv+x4E8hTpY/q7rgskqFBQ==
=1Dye
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Way Back Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
28 Feb 2006 04:16:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:48:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <4404bbf6.34361765@free.teranews.com> (waybackjack) writes:
On the other hand, your'e a Walz protege and so normal folks dismiss
your opinions.
Particularly, it appears, when they can come up with no answers
to them.
Pedophiles come to the aid of their own.
-- cary
On 28 Feb 2006 20:09:57 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1> wrote in
news:1246257.hEAeo8vyde@FreeBSD:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their
own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
How could you support a group that attacks the Boy Scouts;
Because they take government funds collected in part from
people (gays, atheists) and then use it to discriminate
against the very same?
Either the Boy Scouts stop the discrimination; or stop
taking the moola.
Yet defends NAMBLA?
In that case, NAMBLA as an organization is being wrongly
held accountable for something that two people did. Two
men raped and murdered Jeffery Curley, a 10-year old boy,
and the plaintiffs brought a wrongful death suit against
NAMBLA holding it somehow responsible, even though one of
the two killers was *not* a member, plus the fact that
while NAMBLA argues for the repeal of AOC laws, it condemns
rape, not to mention murder.
You think it's fair to hold an organization responsible
for an act committed by a member when the organization
expressly condemns that very act?
Here's a story on the case:
<http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/24/kaminer-w.html>
NAMBLA strongly opposes age-of-consent laws in the belief
that they are arbitrary, simplistic, and a violation of the
rights of minors as well as adults. It expressly condemns
"sexual abuse and all forms of coercion," believes only in
"mutually consensual relationships" between men and boys, and
stresses that it "does not provide encouragement, referrals,
or assistance for people seeking sexual contact." The Web
site included the sayings of respectable writers and
academics (Oscar Wilde, Allen Ginsberg, Dudley Clendinen, and
John Money), a rather dry discussion of "positive and
beneficial experiences" between adults and minors, and a list
of journal articles on sexuality as well as some sophomoric
poetry. Maybe some people found this titillating, but all in
all, the NAMBLA Web site seemed a lot less incendiary than
the Bible.
NAMBLA's bulletin is more likely to offend: The issue I've
seen included a story about man-boy sex that could qualify as
soft-core porn--but nothing sanctioning, much less
encouraging, violence and abuse. Of course, some may believe
that any erotica involving minors is an invitation to abuse,
or statutory rape, at least. But if stories involving
sexually active minors were not protected by the First
Amendment, Lolita would be illegal (along with numerous TV
shows and movies). In fact, Nabokov had predictable trouble
finding a publisher for his controversial book; but even if
Lolita were construed as an endorsement of statutory rape, it
would remain protected speech. For speech to be prohibited,
it must have a clear, direct, immediate, causal relationship
to violence or other unlawful activities. Mere advocacy of
violence is legal; only incitement to violence--intentionally
provocative speech that is likely to result in immediate
unlawful action--can be prohibited.
Still, the Curley lawsuit is hard for civil libertarians to
ignore. Jeffrey Curley's murder was horrible and readily
exploited by advocates of repressive legislation. (It nearly
brought the death penalty back to Massachusetts.) The civil
suit against NAMBLA, aimed at censoring unpopular speech
about sexuality, reflects widespread biases about a supposed
link between homosexuality and pedophilia--a link denied by
such mainstream organizations as the American Medical
Association and the American Psychological Association.
(Children have more to fear from heterosexual predators
within their extended families.)
But for many people, facts about child abuse are less
compelling than their visceral reaction to NAMBLA's support
for adult-child sexual relationships. NAMBLA is highly
vulnerable (and the Curleys' lawyer, Lawrence Frisoli,
reportedly plans to demand its membership list during
pretrial discovery). Virtually no group of people is more
unpopular; even some attorneys generally sympathetic to First
Amendment claims have shied away from any association with
NAMBLA; the organization is now represented by the
Massachusetts ACLU.
NAMBLA has, however, found one unlikely defender--Jeffrey
Curley's father, a primary plaintiff in the case. Robert
Curley was previously represented by attorney Harvey
Silverglate, a Massachusetts ACLU board member and First
Amendment absolutist, in a dispute with the City of Cambridge
over mandatory diversity training. He is surprisingly
sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit: "I
really do have a lot of respect for them," Curley told The
Boston Globe. "They are very consistent in who they defend.
It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over
the years. They have a lot of courage."
The ACLU is doing exactly the right thing in this case.
This is nothing more than an attempt to stifle freedom of
association and the right of anyone to try to advocate
via legal means changes in the law.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRAOSgT/rA6+b3AyhAQHkUAgAiZl9Htri+xwa4hUrk7PdU4ag95JtrrKh
z8ypqC57XHbcANfHiYS9cqjwjoBwo/3m8ncriD/M8dHAcpOaIDWxIsy+PSBqw7/x
X8CIQ3KuNvDPC3HhSK1O3UQm0O8UMG9Du3YMV8oqJDYZKqWMyc92nz+oZwlShvVM
TSDfwC0XN5TbfHV8N668wgXgsiqFsOFo3zsPb3e8v7exPR2nZMrtZEgJ1VxK11CH
tWdiAG/n/KBxK/hBxq1DnUZASeKj70zQx2RAS1Co9jJMeVjDwp3/+8bw8dU/NpfL
YRV86pUC/iKZl1iNyvhPWjHdZf9VBvwpnv+x4E8hTpY/q7rgskqFBQ==
=1Dye
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
28 Feb 2006 04:22:29 PM |
|
|
In article <4404cb84.38344312@news.prodigy.net> I'm@Home.net (Way Back Jack) writes:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:48:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <4404bbf6.34361765@free.teranews.com> (waybackjack) writes:
On the other hand, your'e a Walz protege and so normal folks dismiss
your opinions.
Particularly, it appears, when they can come up with no answers
to them.
Pedophiles come to the aid of their own.
"Normal folks" come to the aid of good folks.
-- cary
-- cary
On 28 Feb 2006 20:09:57 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1> wrote in
news:1246257.hEAeo8vyde@FreeBSD:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their
own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
How could you support a group that attacks the Boy Scouts;
Because they take government funds collected in part from
people (gays, atheists) and then use it to discriminate
against the very same?
Either the Boy Scouts stop the discrimination; or stop
taking the moola.
Yet defends NAMBLA?
In that case, NAMBLA as an organization is being wrongly
held accountable for something that two people did. Two
men raped and murdered Jeffery Curley, a 10-year old boy,
and the plaintiffs brought a wrongful death suit against
NAMBLA holding it somehow responsible, even though one of
the two killers was *not* a member, plus the fact that
while NAMBLA argues for the repeal of AOC laws, it condemns
rape, not to mention murder.
You think it's fair to hold an organization responsible
for an act committed by a member when the organization
expressly condemns that very act?
Here's a story on the case:
<http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/24/kaminer-w.html>
NAMBLA strongly opposes age-of-consent laws in the belief
that they are arbitrary, simplistic, and a violation of the
rights of minors as well as adults. It expressly condemns
"sexual abuse and all forms of coercion," believes only in
"mutually consensual relationships" between men and boys, and
stresses that it "does not provide encouragement, referrals,
or assistance for people seeking sexual contact." The Web
site included the sayings of respectable writers and
academics (Oscar Wilde, Allen Ginsberg, Dudley Clendinen, and
John Money), a rather dry discussion of "positive and
beneficial experiences" between adults and minors, and a list
of journal articles on sexuality as well as some sophomoric
poetry. Maybe some people found this titillating, but all in
all, the NAMBLA Web site seemed a lot less incendiary than
the Bible.
NAMBLA's bulletin is more likely to offend: The issue I've
seen included a story about man-boy sex that could qualify as
soft-core porn--but nothing sanctioning, much less
encouraging, violence and abuse. Of course, some may believe
that any erotica involving minors is an invitation to abuse,
or statutory rape, at least. But if stories involving
sexually active minors were not protected by the First
Amendment, Lolita would be illegal (along with numerous TV
shows and movies). In fact, Nabokov had predictable trouble
finding a publisher for his controversial book; but even if
Lolita were construed as an endorsement of statutory rape, it
would remain protected speech. For speech to be prohibited,
it must have a clear, direct, immediate, causal relationship
to violence or other unlawful activities. Mere advocacy of
violence is legal; only incitement to violence--intentionally
provocative speech that is likely to result in immediate
unlawful action--can be prohibited.
Still, the Curley lawsuit is hard for civil libertarians to
ignore. Jeffrey Curley's murder was horrible and readily
exploited by advocates of repressive legislation. (It nearly
brought the death penalty back to Massachusetts.) The civil
suit against NAMBLA, aimed at censoring unpopular speech
about sexuality, reflects widespread biases about a supposed
link between homosexuality and pedophilia--a link denied by
such mainstream organizations as the American Medical
Association and the American Psychological Association.
(Children have more to fear from heterosexual predators
within their extended families.)
But for many people, facts about child abuse are less
compelling than their visceral reaction to NAMBLA's support
for adult-child sexual relationships. NAMBLA is highly
vulnerable (and the Curleys' lawyer, Lawrence Frisoli,
reportedly plans to demand its membership list during
pretrial discovery). Virtually no group of people is more
unpopular; even some attorneys generally sympathetic to First
Amendment claims have shied away from any association with
NAMBLA; the organization is now represented by the
Massachusetts ACLU.
NAMBLA has, however, found one unlikely defender--Jeffrey
Curley's father, a primary plaintiff in the case. Robert
Curley was previously represented by attorney Harvey
Silverglate, a Massachusetts ACLU board member and First
Amendment absolutist, in a dispute with the City of Cambridge
over mandatory diversity training. He is surprisingly
sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit: "I
really do have a lot of respect for them," Curley told The
Boston Globe. "They are very consistent in who they defend.
It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over
the years. They have a lot of courage."
The ACLU is doing exactly the right thing in this case.
This is nothing more than an attempt to stifle freedom of
association and the right of anyone to try to advocate
via legal means changes in the law.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRAOSgT/rA6+b3AyhAQHkUAgAiZl9Htri+xwa4hUrk7PdU4ag95JtrrKh
z8ypqC57XHbcANfHiYS9cqjwjoBwo/3m8ncriD/M8dHAcpOaIDWxIsy+PSBqw7/x
X8CIQ3KuNvDPC3HhSK1O3UQm0O8UMG9Du3YMV8oqJDYZKqWMyc92nz+oZwlShvVM
TSDfwC0XN5TbfHV8N668wgXgsiqFsOFo3zsPb3e8v7exPR2nZMrtZEgJ1VxK11CH
tWdiAG/n/KBxK/hBxq1DnUZASeKj70zQx2RAS1Co9jJMeVjDwp3/+8bw8dU/NpfL
YRV86pUC/iKZl1iNyvhPWjHdZf9VBvwpnv+x4E8hTpY/q7rgskqFBQ==
=1Dye
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShoMo" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
28 Feb 2006 05:41:43 PM |
|
|
All you need is Roger ... to complete the quorum of quiffs.
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:22:29 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <4404cb84.38344312@news.prodigy.net> I'm@Home.net (Way Back Jack) writes:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:48:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <4404bbf6.34361765@free.teranews.com> (waybackjack) writes:
On the other hand, your'e a Walz protege and so normal folks dismiss
your opinions.
Particularly, it appears, when they can come up with no answers
to them.
Pedophiles come to the aid of their own.
"Normal folks" come to the aid of good folks.
-- cary
-- cary
On 28 Feb 2006 20:09:57 -0000, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1> wrote in
news:1246257.hEAeo8vyde@FreeBSD:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their
own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
How could you support a group that attacks the Boy Scouts;
Because they take government funds collected in part from
people (gays, atheists) and then use it to discriminate
against the very same?
Either the Boy Scouts stop the discrimination; or stop
taking the moola.
Yet defends NAMBLA?
In that case, NAMBLA as an organization is being wrongly
held accountable for something that two people did. Two
men raped and murdered Jeffery Curley, a 10-year old boy,
and the plaintiffs brought a wrongful death suit against
NAMBLA holding it somehow responsible, even though one of
the two killers was *not* a member, plus the fact that
while NAMBLA argues for the repeal of AOC laws, it condemns
rape, not to mention murder.
You think it's fair to hold an organization responsible
for an act committed by a member when the organization
expressly condemns that very act?
Here's a story on the case:
<http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/24/kaminer-w.html>
NAMBLA strongly opposes age-of-consent laws in the belief
that they are arbitrary, simplistic, and a violation of the
rights of minors as well as adults. It expressly condemns
"sexual abuse and all forms of coercion," believes only in
"mutually consensual relationships" between men and boys, and
stresses that it "does not provide encouragement, referrals,
or assistance for people seeking sexual contact." The Web
site included the sayings of respectable writers and
academics (Oscar Wilde, Allen Ginsberg, Dudley Clendinen, and
John Money), a rather dry discussion of "positive and
beneficial experiences" between adults and minors, and a list
of journal articles on sexuality as well as some sophomoric
poetry. Maybe some people found this titillating, but all in
all, the NAMBLA Web site seemed a lot less incendiary than
the Bible.
NAMBLA's bulletin is more likely to offend: The issue I've
seen included a story about man-boy sex that could qualify as
soft-core porn--but nothing sanctioning, much less
encouraging, violence and abuse. Of course, some may believe
that any erotica involving minors is an invitation to abuse,
or statutory rape, at least. But if stories involving
sexually active minors were not protected by the First
Amendment, Lolita would be illegal (along with numerous TV
shows and movies). In fact, Nabokov had predictable trouble
finding a publisher for his controversial book; but even if
Lolita were construed as an endorsement of statutory rape, it
would remain protected speech. For speech to be prohibited,
it must have a clear, direct, immediate, causal relationship
to violence or other unlawful activities. Mere advocacy of
violence is legal; only incitement to violence--intentionally
provocative speech that is likely to result in immediate
unlawful action--can be prohibited.
Still, the Curley lawsuit is hard for civil libertarians to
ignore. Jeffrey Curley's murder was horrible and readily
exploited by advocates of repressive legislation. (It nearly
brought the death penalty back to Massachusetts.) The civil
suit against NAMBLA, aimed at censoring unpopular speech
about sexuality, reflects widespread biases about a supposed
link between homosexuality and pedophilia--a link denied by
such mainstream organizations as the American Medical
Association and the American Psychological Association.
(Children have more to fear from heterosexual predators
within their extended families.)
But for many people, facts about child abuse are less
compelling than their visceral reaction to NAMBLA's support
for adult-child sexual relationships. NAMBLA is highly
vulnerable (and the Curleys' lawyer, Lawrence Frisoli,
reportedly plans to demand its membership list during
pretrial discovery). Virtually no group of people is more
unpopular; even some attorneys generally sympathetic to First
Amendment claims have shied away from any association with
NAMBLA; the organization is now represented by the
Massachusetts ACLU.
NAMBLA has, however, found one unlikely defender--Jeffrey
Curley's father, a primary plaintiff in the case. Robert
Curley was previously represented by attorney Harvey
Silverglate, a Massachusetts ACLU board member and First
Amendment absolutist, in a dispute with the City of Cambridge
over mandatory diversity training. He is surprisingly
sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit: "I
really do have a lot of respect for them," Curley told The
Boston Globe. "They are very consistent in who they defend.
It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over
the years. They have a lot of courage."
The ACLU is doing exactly the right thing in this case.
This is nothing more than an attempt to stifle freedom of
association and the right of anyone to try to advocate
via legal means changes in the law.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRAOSgT/rA6+b3AyhAQHkUAgAiZl9Htri+xwa4hUrk7PdU4ag95JtrrKh
z8ypqC57XHbcANfHiYS9cqjwjoBwo/3m8ncriD/M8dHAcpOaIDWxIsy+PSBqw7/x
X8CIQ3KuNvDPC3HhSK1O3UQm0O8UMG9Du3YMV8oqJDYZKqWMyc92nz+oZwlShvVM
TSDfwC0XN5TbfHV8N668wgXgsiqFsOFo3zsPb3e8v7exPR2nZMrtZEgJ1VxK11CH
tWdiAG/n/KBxK/hBxq1DnUZASeKj70zQx2RAS1Co9jJMeVjDwp3/+8bw8dU/NpfL
YRV86pUC/iKZl1iNyvhPWjHdZf9VBvwpnv+x4E8hTpY/q7rgskqFBQ==
=1Dye
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
04 Mar 2006 06:35:15 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Pedophiles come to the aid of their own.
"Normal folks" come to the aid of good folks.
I've learned not to respond to EbrolaJack.
Although it's funny he has a problem with
Secret, who, despite being a pedophile,
has yet to screw one child.
I'd go after EbrolaJack's mental problems,
but borderlines typically hurt themselves
more.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
02 Mar 2006 02:16:41 AM |
|
|
Way Back Jack wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:48:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <4404bbf6.34361765@free.teranews.com> (waybackjack) writes:
On the other hand, your'e a Walz protege and so normal folks dismiss
your opinions.
Particularly, it appears, when they can come up with no answers
to them.
Pedophiles come to the aid of their own.
--------------------
All you can do is run away screaming the meaningless epithet
"pedophile" and hope they don't think you're yelling your name.
You're like McCarthy screaming "Commie", and hoping that the terror
he engendered would hide his evil and ignorance.
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
02 Mar 2006 02:12:40 AM |
|
|
waybackjack wrote:
On the other hand, your'e a Walz protege and so normal folks dismiss
your opinions.
----------------------
It's rewarding to be the icon of everything you hate, quite heartening
to be the boogie-man to such an ignorant racist lying ***** as yourself.
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "127.0.0.1" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
27 Feb 2006 05:58:28 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1246257.hEAeo8vyde@FreeBSD> "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1>
writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
How could you support a group that attacks the Boy Scouts;
Make that "attacks the Boy Scouts who took my tax dollars, but
would not allow an atheist --
Where did the Boy Scouts disallow an atheist scout leaders?
Cite please.
such as, for example, myself -- in".
Ditto for gay kids. I have zero problems with that kind of "attack".
It wasn't "Gay Kids" It was gay scout leaders.
Yet defends NAMBLA?
Cary are those your views?
The ACLU did not defend man-boy love; it defended NAMBLA's right
of free expression.
Yet they slammed the Boy Scouts for wanting straight scout leaders.
Just as it defended the the free-expression
rights of scum-sucking neo-nazis to march through a Jewish
neighborhood.
Yet the Nazi's never marched in said neighborhood.
And yes, supporting the freedom of expression
of anyone -- even neo-nazis and white supremecists -- is indeed
in line with my values.
What about the free expression of Boy Scouts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
27 Feb 2006 10:18:42 PM |
|
|
"127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Make that "attacks the Boy Scouts who took my tax dollars, but
would not allow an atheist --
Where did the Boy Scouts disallow an atheist scout leaders?
Cite please.
http://www.komotv.com/news/story.asp?ID=21204
among others
http://www.scouting.org/media/press/2002/020206/index.html
announces the formal resolution that requires all Scouts and Scouters
(leaders) to "be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law" which
requires "duty to God".
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Where Is The ADL & The ACLU? |
27 Feb 2006 06:19:48 PM |
|
|
In article <1883626.8bAyVObn32@FreeBSD> "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1246257.hEAeo8vyde@FreeBSD> "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1W.0.0.1>
writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
The ACLU bring suit against Jews? They look out for their own.
I'm a card-carrying member, and I'm as goy as it gets.
How could you support a group that attacks the Boy Scouts;
Make that "attacks the Boy Scouts who took my tax dollars, but
would not allow an atheist --
Where did the Boy Scouts disallow an atheist scout leaders?
Cite please.
They do not allow atheist Boy Scouts. To take the first example
Google coughs up:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/31/atheist.scout.ap/
such as, for example, myself -- in".
Ditto for gay kids. I have zero problems with that kind of "attack".
It wasn't "Gay Kids" It was gay scout leaders.
Both:
http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/openingdoor.html
Yet defends NAMBLA?
Cary are those your views?
The ACLU did not defend man-boy love; it defended NAMBLA's right
of free expression.
Yet they slammed the Boy Scouts for wanting straight scout leaders.
And taking my tax dollars while doing so. The ACLU does not attack
the right of private and privately-funded organizations to be as
absurdly exclusive as they may wish to be.
Just as it defended the the free-expression
rights of scum-sucking neo-nazis to march through a Jewish
neighborhood.
Yet the Nazi's never marched in said neighborhood.
Yes? And your point would be?....
The ACLU lost 30,000 members while defending the right of
the slime to march. It was not of their doing that the
march folded in the end.
And yes, supporting the freedom of expression
of anyone -- even neo-nazis and white supremecists -- is indeed
in line with my values.
What about the free expression of Boy Scouts?
Absolutely. Just don't exepct my tax dollars to support that expression.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
