Amazon sells 'deadly' pedophile magazine

[Ben Kenobi]

Let me get this straight.

These folks are publishing their experiences with little boys? They ought to be charged!

Skywalker:

Your distinction does not protect the people you want to protect. First off, the easiest argument to make against people bringing up inconvenient points is that they are inciting violence.

Now, if NAMBLA wants to change the law, they will have to suffer under the law. Anyone who breaks the law in the pursuit of changing the law must still face the consequences of the law.

The change has to come from two sources, either the people or the justice will refuse to try the person. But still, they must face the punishment of the law.

Secondly, you have a false dilemma. Look at Dr. King. He got arrested, yet he managed to change the law. It is only through the application of an unjust law that the law will ever be changed.

So what about these NAMBLA folks. I say lock'em up and see if the people rally behind their cause.

[Kirnwaffen]

Ben Kenobi:

The problem with your argument is that you have overlooked the main thrust of Skywalker's argument. Martin Luther King was not arrested for merely advocating a change in the law, he was arrested for violating it. Nobody here ever said that these people should not be prosecuted if they are in violation of the law. The problem is that, if they simply say that pedophilia should be legal, they are, and should be, protected.

Don't get me wrong, I find the idea utterly offensive and disgusting, but the First Amendment doesn't allow for picking and choosing who it protects.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Bullsh1t

Why don't you scream "fire!" in a crowded theatre next.

Come on...

What you don't get is they are advocating for the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater. The advocacy is legal. So is telling people how to scream fire in a crowded theater and not get caught. What you can't do is actually scream "fire" nor can you tell someone to go do it. There's the difference.

BTW, is it against the law to scream "fire" in a crowded theater if there's a fire?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
There are precedents set about people screaming false fire alarms...

Actually no. The "precident" was being set was SCOTUS upholding a clearly unconstitutional law which forbade criticism of the government. IIRC, it was the Sedition Act of 1917, and the people being jailed were anti-war activists.

And that's really the whole point. If you don't have the right to advocate policy change, a change in the laws, etc., you really have no rights at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem is that, if they simply say that pedophilia should be legal, they are, and should be, protected.

Then the question becomes simple, have they or have they not broken the law?

If they have indulged their desires in little children, then they have broken the law.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Don't get me wrong, I find the idea utterly offensive and disgusting, but the First Amendment doesn't allow for picking and choosing who it protects.

In the THEORY of YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Reality is a different story.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then the question becomes simple, have they or have they not broken the law?

If they have indulged their desires in little children, then they have broken the law.

Which has nothing to do with what were are talking about.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
In the THEORY of YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

So far, SCOTUS' as well.

[Dinner]

All members of the man boy love association should be rounded up and shot. Seriously, this organization just helps to insure children are sodomized and abused by sexual preditors.

[Ted Striker]

Another example of 1st Amendment Not Being Absolute

Not so, says U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, also a same-day New York Times editorial: The First Amendment is not absolute, it does not protect "a message of racial intimidation and a clear threat of violence," and concludes that the Virginia law banning cross-burning should be upheld.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/12/22/Perspective/Cross_buring__intimid.shtml

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So far, SCOTUS' as well.

Check again.

[Kirnwaffen]

BTW, is it against the law to scream "fire" in a crowded theater if there's a fire?

No.

What you can't do is actually scream "fire" nor can you tell someone to go do it. There's the difference.

Yes, there is. However, in this case, providing the justification for the illegal behavior, as well as the how to, probably constitutes incitement.

If they have indulged their desires in little children, then they have broken the law.

Yes, if that is the case, then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; however, this has little to do with the publishing of a magazine. This is a civil case, so criminal law really doesn't matter at this point.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
All members of the man boy love association should be rounded up and shot. Seriously, this organization just helps to insure children are sodomized and abused by sexual preditors.

That's another question entirely. I'm inclined to agree with you.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Check again.

An entirely different issue, threatening speach vs political advocacy.

[Ted Striker]

"political advocacy"

jesus christ

It's about as threatening as you can get.