My Answer on the ACLU and Child Molestation
joellerose | September 22, 2007 at 02:45 pmby
408 views | 4 Recommendations | 3 comments
Some people seemed surprised by this reference and statement, not believing that the ACLU would countenance child molestation and pornography, and think that I am mistaken.
I was a resident of Massachusetts in 1997 when a 10 year old child, James Curley, was sexually abused and then horribly murdered by two men. When they were apprehended, it was found that these men had followed instructions published by the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in how to seduce a child, and how to hide the evidence of the crime. NAMBLA was then sued for damages by James Curley’s parents. We were all stunned when the ACLU jumped in and defended the right of NAMBLA to publish such dangerous and vicious rubbish.
Also, note this information from the Stop the ACLU website:
“In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.”
The case is…: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747
The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit.”
“The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be ” a gross violation of privacy.”
From the Catholicleague.org:
“As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers’ ages was impermissible.”
From Sea to Shining Sea
HLShanckenThese members have powered this story: