Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So you're finally acknowledging (as if you hadn't before) that the North American Man-Boy Love
Association, a group that according to former undercover FBI Special Agent Bob Hamer meets and talks about raping little boys, has a right to exist (notice I didn't end that sentence with a ?).
I have never denied any of that...
I'm just confirming what you've said all along, but were hesitant to make yourself clear about it.
I think I've also said they are a joke,...
A lot of people don't find the subject of child rape funny.
And now for a disclaimer (if you support child rape, you MUST provide a disclaimer stating that child rapists should be punished).
and that any of them that seek to act on raping little boys should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Kinda like the arsonist who set the fire using a garden hose to put out an out of control forest fire (the extreme harm has already been done and will continue to be done, and instead of preventing it, you deal with the aftermath).
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
According to you, since NAMBLA supposedly has a right to exist, then they supposedly have a right to put out a publication that talks about man-boy sex (i.e. child rape). (Notice again that I didn't end that sentence with a ?).
They have the same right of assembly and the press as every other American and the same responsibilities that come with those rights as any other American.
i.e. if you have right to publish the contents of The Holy Bible, you should have the right to publish speech about child rape.
I have no idea what they publish in their publication, I always sort of assumed they limited it to their public political stance to avoid getting in trouble. As we have both observed before though if their publication is advocating a crime they can be held responsible for that.
The central theme is 'man-boy love' (child rape). That's enough for any decent society to prohibit it.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I have (oops, it appears that the term sides with aCW, not Kit who says that NAMBLA has a right to exist and put out a monthly publication that promotes "man-boy love") :
Prior Restraint
Definition
In First Amendment law, prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or expression before the speech happens. .
Overview (Under Construction)
Prior restraint typically happens in a few ways. It may be a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license before speaking. Prior restraint can also be a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. There is a third way--discussed below--in which the government outright prohibits a certain type of speech...
Oops, I seem to have left part of it out, I should have said what the Supreme Court says about prior restraint and censorship. Namely that the state has to have very specific reasons to use prior restraint.
There was no purpose in talking about how the same group of judicial activists who gave us Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges might use 'Prior Restraint' laws to prohibit NAMBLA and
hence the LGBTQ movement from talking about and hence promoting sex with children. Besides, the all too powerful communist founded ACLU is on the side of NAMBLA and SCOTUS ruled on inflammatory speech in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio.
A little about those little boys who supposedly aren't hurt by talk about man-child rape:
Warning! The mother of a homosexual murder/rape (in that order) victim talks about what homosexuals do to children.
In 1997, adult male members of the gay organization, NAMBLA, had lured Barbara Curley's young son into thinking strangers were cool, their buying him treats and promising him a bicycle. But what Jeffrey, a 10-year old little boy didn't know, was that these men wanted access to his still developing sexual organs and private parts.
It's not much different than the gay adults had done to Jesse Dirkhising, a boy of 13-years old. His murderers had tied Jesse to a mattress on the floor, securing him with duct tape so they could have fun sticking items into his anus without him being able to get away. When he screamed from the pain, they stuffed his underwear into his mouth taking life's air supply from him while they continued to abuse his body. Do you think they were sorry? When they were done, they took their pants down and spilled out their warm feces all over the teenager's dead body.
Jeffrey Curley, unlike Jesse, was simply held down by a very obese gay NAMBLA member. The gay held a rag soaked with gasoline to the child's face in the back seat of the gay's fancy car until little Jeffrey was dead. A report said the gay men then took Jeffrey back to their apartment and played with his dead cadaver. When done with violating the body, they stuffed little Jeffrey's dead body into a Tubberware tub and covered it with lime, added concrete and then throw it into the river. Not exactly the story of baby Moses, who was covered with a warm blanket as he sailed down a river alive and in an open basket.
Barbara Curley, Jeffrey's mother, sued NAMBLA in 1999 to take down their offensive Web site that had helped to kill her child, Web site pages found in the gay murderer's apartment. She probably thought other sane Americans would agree with the injustice that had been done to her son. She was wrong...
Read more:
http://www.freedomisknowledge.com/otw/barbaracurleyintro.htm
10 year old Jeffrey Curley, murdered by homosexuals who were supporters of NAMBLA
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I asked this question in an earlier post and since you didn't answer, will ask it again:
Does this supposed "right" to form an organization and put out publications only extend to homosexual adult males raping little boys, or does it extend to other organizations? (Notice that I ended that sentence with a ? this time).
While I could pose several scenarios, here's one (just one) that I would like you to answer in detail as to why it should be legal for this group of people to meet as an organization and put out publications promoting their cause:
A group of men start an organization (the number of participants in the organization is not known since they keep their membership secret, but it is known that there is at least several hundred men in the organization itself, but due to the internet, the group has thousands of supporters)) that meet regularly and put out a monthly newsletter promoting violence (beating up and in some cases murdering) against homosexuals.
Explain away Kit.
They have the same right of assembly and the press as every other American and the same responsibilities that come with those rights as any other American. As we have both observed before though if their publication is advocating a crime they can be held responsible for that. Particularly if the website and publication can be linked to justifications used by persons who act on their advice.
Be careful Kit, if you go to your favorite political forum in a homosexual pornography website and tell the homosexuals there that those conspiring to murder homosexuals "have the same right of assembly and the press as every other American and the same responsibilities that come with those rights as any other American.", I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't be too popular.
Perhaps you should go public with your view and stand out on a street street corner with sign saying that people have a right to talk about murdering homosexuals. Since your obituary will be on the cover of every major news outlet, I guess I'll get to see what you look like.
BTW, don't think for a second that I'm trying to convince you of anything. You and your kind disgust me to no end, and I'm just pointing to those people out there who still have an ounce of decency in them what we're up against.
Moving on...
