What did they defend that's objectionable. Promoting changes to statuatory rape laws?
You may not be aware of this, but having sex with children is illegal. NAMBLA promotes illegal behavior. But I don't want to acctually have to explain to you why the rape of children is wrong. If you don't know then there's no point discussing it.
And I disagree with their defense of them. They were defending the right of Nambla to publish their literature. The ACLU seems to have a blind defense policy where they defend all first ammendment cases, hence their defense of Falwell after he blamed 9/11 on them.
What exactly did ACLU MA do to raise such controversy? Here's an abstract of the case, Curley v. NAMBLA a civil suit filed in Mass. Court. There is no defense of criminal activity involved in this case. Once again we have the 'grain of truth' to the right's lies.
Curley v. NAMBLA The ACLU of Massachusetts is representing the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and a number of individual NAMBLA members in a civil lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court.
ACLUM's motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the claims were barred by the First Amendment was denied by the court, which noted that the complaint could be read to suggest that the defendants did more than to make available the material contained in their publications and on their web site.
In other words, a trial on evidence of complicity in crimes could go forward. IS THERE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE?
In a subsequent order, the court dismissed the claims against NAMBLA as an organization, holding that, as an unincorporated association, it could not be sued in its own name.
The court's rulings allow the remaining defendants to renew their request for dismissal of the suit based on a factual showing that their conduct was limited to the expression of ideas and information. Attorneys: John Reinstein, Sarah Wunsch.
