View Full Version : Man says he has right to have sex with boys...
Devastatin Dave
08-04-2006, 18:53
http://www.nbc10.com/news/9621055/detail.html
Should the ACLU help this man defend his "rights"? I will not provide my opinion since Ser will close the thread for sure. Please supply your arguements (or, in the case of certain members, your admiration for the accused) in a mature and controlled manner. Please discuss...
Banquo's Ghost
08-04-2006, 18:59
From my limited knowledge of the ACLU, they defend civil liberties, not law-breaking.
"If you want to challenge the law, that's your right to do so," Judge Kathleen Sutula said. "But we're going to follow the laws of Ohio in this courtroom."
He broke the laws in Ohio, he goes to jail. If the judge had prevented him pronouncing his perverted views as his defence, then the ACLU might be right to challenge.
You're creating a non-issue.
:shrug:
Seriously, Ann Coulter Devastating Dave, I don't see how the ACLU figures into this case any more than the AARP or the ASPCA. You seem to be fixated.
Important point: You can make any defense you like when representing yourself in court. You can declare that you're possessed by Xenu, or that penguins made you do it. That's your right. But you'll still go to jail if the evidence is there.
Same things go for lawsuits. You can sue anybody for anything, but it doesn't mean you'll win.
Devastatin Dave
08-04-2006, 19:16
Why the nastiness towards your humble thread starter gentlemen? Please refrain from such childish attacks and please discuss the topic of the thread please.:laugh4:
Well then, absolutely not, the ACLU has no business being involved in this case. They're Freedom of Speech fanatics, and this man is definitely getting his chance to have some free speech. In court, mind you.
Freedom of religion doesn't apply, since it has been established time and time again that religious freedom does not supersede the law of the land. The Latter-Day Saints found that out in the late 1800s, and there are tons of other examples.
I can't think of any organization besides NAMBLA that will have any interest in defending this gentleman, and even they might balk at the idea of repeatedly raping autistic children. Or maybe they wouldn't -- I'm in no position to know.
The ACLU will be exactly as interested as the Republican National Party or the Flat Earth Society.
Devastatin Dave
08-04-2006, 19:40
Since you metioned NAMBLA, didn't the ACLU defend them?
To the best of my knowledge, yes they did. As well as Oliver North and a host of other unsavory types.
Like I said, they're free speech fanatics.
Here's what I don't understand -- since NAMBLA advocates illegal activity, why are they allowed to exist? How is that organization any different from, say, a "Let's Muder Strangers on Wednesdays" group? I thought free speech stopped being free once you directly advocated criminal behavior?
Is it obvious I haven't paid much attention to this subject?
Banquo's Ghost
08-04-2006, 20:09
Here's what I don't understand -- since NAMBLA advocates illegal activity, why are they allowed to exist? How is that organization any different from, say, a "Let's Muder Strangers on Wednesdays" group? I thought free speech stopped being free once you directly advocated criminal behavior?
Someone who is a constitutional expert for the USA may well bring their authority to bear here, but in free speech terms, it is a very slippery slope. The most libertarian views would be that it is fine to advocate a change in the law (ie what might currently be a criminal act but which the speaker considers is covered by a bad law) but not to advocate actual breaking of the law until it's changed.
For example, many people like to advocate the nuking of various countries into glass regardless of whether this would break international law. Should they be banned from airing their views? No, of course not, since the government involved is hardly likely to listen or gain legitimacy from that advocacy.
If however, someone advocates that terrorists should actually carry out their evil, then this should be controlled as it is much more likely that someone may listen and act in contravention of the law.
My two cents (and I can say that now we have the lovely and fragrant euro :grin:)
The most libertarian views would be that it is fine to advocate a change in the law (ie what might currently be a criminal act but which the speaker considers is covered by a bad law) but not to advocate actual breaking of the law until it's changed.
That makes a good deal of sense. I should be able to advocate against what I believe to be an unjust law -- such as the DMCA, but I shouldn't advocate breaking that law. (Although I think everybody should break the DMCA at least once a day.)
Is this the legal fig-leaf which NAMBLA hides behind? I've never looked into how or why they continue to exist. DD, since you seem to be fixated on the NAMBLA-ACLU Axis of Evil, could you elucidate?
That makes a good deal of sense. I should be able to advocate against what I believe to be an unjust law -- such as the DMCA, but I shouldn't advocate breaking that law. (Although I think everybody should break the DMCA at least once a day.)
Is this the legal fig-leaf which NAMBLA hides behind? I've never looked into how or why they continue to exist. DD, since you seem to be fixated on the NAMBLA-ACLU Axis of Evil, could you elucidate?
While I am not a legal expert, the way I believe the constitution should be viewed does indeed provide for NAMBLA's existance, versus arresting everyone that joins the organization.
In short Banquo's Ghost pretty muched nailed it in my opinion.
Banquo's Ghost
08-04-2006, 20:25
Is this the legal fig-leaf which NAMBLA hides behind? I've never looked into how or why they continue to exist.
I don't know. I didn't even know what the acronym stood for until this thread when I looked them up.
Urggh. :jawdrop: My skin will be crawling all night. Thanks. :beadyeyes:
Don Corleone
08-04-2006, 20:55
Dave does have a point. The ACLU is not just about free-speech, though that is their primary cause. They also advocate for the removal of laws they consider to be unjust, and the setting aside of verdicts issued under those laws.
The ACLU is the group that led the charge on gay marriage. They have also led charges on polygamy and assisted suicide. Essentially, they see themselves as a counter-balance to an over-reaching government that meddles in issues they see as beyond the realm of government.
I think the connection DevDave sees is the whole homosexual marriage thing. The ACLU has led the charge on this on the grounds that the only reason laws don't recognize homosexual marriage is because of a relgious pretext that has no business in our legal code. Dave is making what I believe HE thinks is a natural progression to NAMBLA (and bestiality and any other hitherto deviant considered sexual behavior). What he's failing to account for is the divide of consent. The ACLU fights for the rights of practioners of homosexual marriage, polygamy and other aberrant sexual practices in the Judeo-Christian tradition when all parties are consenting adults. You could throw sexual practices into two categories (and the ACLU does) those in which every participant is aware and consenting to the actions and those in which not every participant is (or can be). You can also divide them into two camps along the lines of bible-sanctioned and bible-prohibited. I believe the ACLU's guiding philosophy is that the second categorization should have no standing in our legal codes.
NOTE: I am not editorializing in favor or in opposition to the ACLU view OR Dave's view. I'm trying to lay out the arguments as best as I can see them so that before we really get going, at least we're all arguing the same points.
My two cents (and I can say that now we have the lovely and fragrant euro :grin:)
It...smells?
Vladimir
08-05-2006, 02:09
Scratch and sniff money: :inquisitive:? Do you really want to smell something that has touched so many stranger's hands?
Banquo's Ghost
08-05-2006, 09:57
It...smells?
Sure does.
The euro smells very fishy indeed - in fact the Brits think it stinks to high heaven.
:wink:
Kralizec
08-05-2006, 11:08
Someone who is a constitutional expert for the USA may well bring their authority to bear here, but in free speech terms, it is a very slippery slope. The most libertarian views would be that it is fine to advocate a change in the law (ie what might currently be a criminal act but which the speaker considers is covered by a bad law) but not to advocate actual breaking of the law until it's changed.
Exactly. A while ago a couple of loons here founded a party that wanted (among other perverted things) to legalize sex for ages 12 and above. I think there was a thread about it here, probably posted by Frag ~;)
A lot of people wanted to see it forbidden, but I didn't. Anybody should be able to advocate for a change of law, and of course they should obey it until they get their way. These people should not be silenced, democracy is not so feeble that it can't stand up to repulsive influences, in fact banning it would probably be counterproductive and goes against the principles of democracy itself.
Patriarch of Constantinople
08-05-2006, 22:31
A suburban Cleveland man accused of sexually assaulting nine disabled boys told a judge Wednesday that his apartment was a religious sanctuary where smoking marijuana and having sex with children are sacred rituals protected by civil rights laws.
What religion is this?
Distasio, a self-professed pagan friar
Oh, figures
Distasio was arrested on charges he molested two disabled boys he was tutoring at his home. He's also accused of raping seven other autistic children at a Cleveland school for special-needs students
WHat a monster. Its one thing to rape children but its totally different raping special needs students and calling it a religious ritual.
"Not all pedophilia is bad, and sex [with boys] can be healthy," Distasio told the court.
According to the journals, two of Distasio's victims were so helpless they could never tell anyone what happened.
That's healthy?!
Seamus Fermanagh
08-05-2006, 23:53
Exactly. A while ago a couple of loons here founded a party that wanted (among other perverted things) to legalize sex for ages 12 and above. I think there was a thread about it here, probably posted by Frag ~;)
A lot of people wanted to see it forbidden, but I didn't. Anybody should be able to advocate for a change of law, and of course they should obey it until they get their way. These people should not be silenced, democracy is not so feeble that it can't stand up to repulsive influences, in fact banning it would probably be counterproductive and goes against the principles of democracy itself.
Agreed. However, while no government should have the power to squelch the free expression of those individuals, I -- as an individual -- have the right to shun them and view them with loathing and contempt.
Exactly. A while ago a couple of loons here founded a party that wanted (among other perverted things) to legalize sex for ages 12 and above. I think there was a thread about it here, probably posted by Frag ~;)
A lot of people wanted to see it forbidden, but I didn't. Anybody should be able to advocate for a change of law, and of course they should obey it until they get their way. These people should not be silenced, democracy is not so feeble that it can't stand up to repulsive influences, in fact banning it would probably be counterproductive and goes against the principles of democracy itself.
Actually, it was not a party, but a PRESSURE GROUP in teh Netherlands.
A lot of people wanted to see it forbidden, but I didn't. Anybody should be able to advocate for a change of law, and of course they should obey it until they get their way. These people should not be silenced, democracy is not so feeble that it can't stand up to repulsive influences, in fact banning it would probably be counterproductive and goes against the principles of democracy itself.
Oh yeah of course. Me, I want to change the laws on slowly torturing minorities to death. Any chance of getting the go from the judges on that one? Everyone should be able to advocate a change of the law after all, and sadistic torturers are people as well. Or necrophilia! Ace! Dead girls don't say no, we don't even need laws on that one. These guys should be shot for so many reasons, they stated that having laws against turning kids inside-out would only make the kids curious, can you believe it? How dare they pretend they care about the kids wellbeing. See, all of this happens because of the consistent watering down of what is considered not done, every sick bastard starts to feel a little bit too human. You know what scares me? Soft laws on childrape in combination with open borders, every sick bastard in europe can come to pedoparadise Holland.
English assassin
08-07-2006, 10:55
Soft laws on childrape in combination with open borders, every sick bastard in europe can come to pedoparadise Holland.
Not from the UK they can't, since we prosecute sex crimes abroad under UK laws back here. But don't let that stop you.
If we over look the actual case that got DD's goat, and I think we had better, is there anything in principle objectionable to someone having a view on the issue of consent that differs either from the law, or the views of the majority? (I am not advocating child rape here, before anyone gets all excited. But I can't see why in principle no one should be allowed to ask, say, why a 16 year old can validly consent to sex but a 15 year old not. Or, indeed, vice versa.)
The issue came up in a case involving adult S and M sex here, where the particpants were charged with grievous bodily harm. But they said, we are adults, and we consented to the use of power tools on our gentials. Oh no, said the House of Lords, no one can validly consent to having their nuts attacked with an orbital sander, its such a mad thing to agree too the consent must be invalid, off to jail with you (heh, I bet THEY didn't have any problems in the prison showers...)
And yet you apparently CAN validly consent to gender reassignment surgery, which is surely a bit more extreme even than buffing yourself with wet and dry paper, where you actually have a diagnosis of being mad. (Unkind, I know. But anyone who believes they are a woman despite they evidence of a john thomas looking up at them has obviously got some mental issues at least).
So all these issues around the boundaries of consent seem quite tricky, and surely a sensible subject for discussion. Any reason why Liberty (our ACLU) should not have taken up the case of the Black and Decker loving S and M freaks, for instance? Surely what a man does with a drill in private is his own business?
SM is something completily different, it's weird but it's in mutual agreement. This filth wants to have sex with 12 year olds, they do not have kids fooling around in mind. 12 Year olds aren't mature enough to make up their own minds, they are easily manipulated, so you can't call it mutual agreement. Why are we even discussing this, some things are just wrong.
Kralizec
08-07-2006, 11:44
Actually, it was not a party, but a PRESSURE GROUP in teh Netherlands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NVD
Oh yeah of course. Me, I want to change the laws on slowly torturing minorities to death. Any chance of getting the go from the judges on that one? Everyone should be able to advocate a change of the law after all, and sadistic torturers are people as well. Or necrophilia! Ace! Dead girls don't say no, we don't even need laws on that one. These guys should be shot for so many reasons, they stated that having laws against turning kids inside-out would only make the kids curious, can you believe it? How dare they pretend they care about the kids wellbeing. See, all of this happens because of the consistent watering down of what is considered not done, every sick bastard starts to feel a little bit too human. You know what scares me? Soft laws on childrape in combination with open borders, every sick bastard in europe can come to pedoparadise Holland.
Sure Frag, you can try to get all that legalized if you want. Just don't expect anybody to take you seriously.
Sure Frag, you can try to get all that legalized if you want. Just don't expect anybody to take you seriously.
Ya and now without laughing, I am sure democracy has a few tricks for dealing with those promoting such activities. It has by the way, those being in an group that commits/promotes criminal acts can be trialed for being part of a criminal organisation. Why didn't the judges use every resource at hand to annihilate this organisation? They just didn't want to.
Kralizec
08-07-2006, 13:12
...because they aren't convicted criminals?
The members of this party (wich doesn't exist anymore, apparently) were self proclaimed pedophiles, but that just indicates their sexual orientation, not wether any of them actually done it (some of them probably did while not talking about it)
They advocated a change of the law, not breaking the current ones as it is as far as I know. Therefore they didn't do anything illegal, and the court refused to forbid the party.
...because they aren't convicted criminals?
The only reason they aren't all convicted criminals is the judge not convicting them. The leader was prosecuted though for childrape though (in his defence, he has always been so very open about it from day 1, so says the NVD). So you think they want to change the law so that they can restraint themselves some more? It's not changing a law, it's legalising a crime.
I really can't understand those that see it differently.
Kralizec
08-07-2006, 13:37
I really can't understand those that see it differently.
That wouldn't be the first time :laugh4:
Seamus Fermanagh
08-07-2006, 17:00
The primary concern is informed consent.
At what age can someone make an informed decision as to whether or not they are ready for sex?
For want of a better tool, our societies use chronology. Some people will always argue that chronology is arbitrary.
Yet the issue is basic to the concern. Informed consent from a person mentally capable of that level of decision making is all the difference in the world between criminal abuse and a simple shared activity.
I can't think of a better tool than chronology so far, and the line must be drawn somewhere to protect those who cannot provide relatively mature informed consent.
Those who cross that line are predators and need to be dealt with as such.
rory_20_uk
08-07-2006, 17:31
Informed consent relies in Medicine on Gillick competance. Much better than age alone, as people develop differently.
~:smoking:
SM is something completily different, it's weird but it's in mutual agreement. This filth wants to have sex with 12 year olds, they do not have kids fooling around in mind. 12 Year olds aren't mature enough to make up their own minds, they are easily manipulated, so you can't call it mutual agreement. Why are we even discussing this, some things are just wrong.
I was mature enough to know I wanted sex when I was 12. What were you thinking when you were that age?
ICantSpellDawg
08-07-2006, 18:40
I was mature enough to know I wanted sex when I was 12. What were you thinking when you were that age?
i love the idea, no matter what the issue of discussion is, that people have this deep seated need to challenge any statement that does not make 100% sense; "children just shouldnt be allowed to choose to have sex". This challenge eventually turns into an opposing position which, in effect, turns into a new movement over time. I view the current obsession with homosexual issues as a product and example of this inevitable trend.
the beauty is that we dont recognize that what we believe in now, for whatever reasons, others will most probably not believe in 20 years from now. Child consent ages will be pushed down continuously for numerous reasons; freedom of choice, sexual liberation, equality. all we need to do is lubricate the human mind to break free from it's bigoted and arbitrary judgements on right and wrong and we will be free... somehow... until we realize that freedom isnt logical and that consent doesnt really matter (just looking into my crystal ball.
I have no solution to this gravitational effect, but as long as i have a vote and a voice, i will never allow children to be molested (as well as numerous other things that society has found to "make sense if you really think about it"). while i absolutly see much of the logical progression in issues such as this, i will oppose them in principle.
game on, child touchers - i will not be convinced. you still havnt convinced me of 80% of the things that society takes as a given currently.
Don Corleone
08-07-2006, 18:52
Actually, Tuff, in the past 40 years, all the sexually liberalizing trends you mention have been in affect, and the general trend has been for a shift upwards in the age of consent.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14 year old cousin. Nowadays, we'd lynch him.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-07-2006, 18:52
Informed consent relies in Medicine on Gillick competance. Much better than age alone, as people develop differently.
~:smoking:
Not familiar with it. What are the reliability and validity scores?
i love the idea, no matter what the issue of discussion is, that people have this deep seated need to challenge any statement that does not make 100% sense; "children just shouldnt be allowed to choose to have sex". This challenge eventually turns into an opposing position which, in effect, turns into a new movement over time. I view the current obsession with homosexual issues as a product and example of this inevitable trend.
the beauty is that we dont recognize that what we believe in now, for whatever reasons, others will most probably not believe in 20 years from now. Child consent ages will be pushed down continuously for numerous reasons; freedom of choice, sexual liberation, equality. all we need to do is lubricate the human mind to break free from it's bigoted and arbitrary judgements on right and wrong and we will be free... somehow... until we realize that freedom isnt logical and that consent doesnt really matter (just looking into my crystal ball.
I have no solution to this gravitational effect, but as long as i have a vote and a voice, i will never allow children to be molested (as well as numerous other things that society has found to "make sense if you really think about it"). while i absolutly see much of the logical progression in issues such as this, i will oppose them in principle.
game on, child touchers - i will not be convinced. you still havnt convinced me of 80% of the things that society takes as a given currently.
That was a lot of text to say nothing.
ICantSpellDawg
08-07-2006, 19:07
Actually, Tuff, in the past 40 years, all the sexually liberalizing trends you mention have been in affect, and the general trend has been for a shift upwards in the age of consent.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14 year old cousin. Nowadays, we'd lynch him.
good point, but i do get it.
at the same time, people USED TO marry multiple partners, kill homosexuals for percieved offences and keep women in kitchens. saying that people USED TO do something holds only trivial value.
what i mean is that simply saying "CHILDREN USED TO BE ABLE TO GIVE CONSENT" isnt making a strong enough case. How do we know that consent as we know it now was the standard used to decide whether the child was ready for sex back then?
Modern consent had little to do with many historical arranged marriages, either.
i understand that you don't like my idea of "downward trend" because history has a pendulum like motion - both ups and downs. i just believe that people effect how fast history's pendulum moves in one direction oo another. and i'm trying to reverse the trnd in this instance (most instances)
Don Corleone
08-07-2006, 19:13
There's also a whole question about 'what is a child'. There's a lot we can discuss to throw up smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, even if every one of this puss-bag's victims was 25, they were mentally incapable of giving consent. If you have sex with somebody who's catatonic, you're a rapist. Plain and simple.
Strike For The South
08-07-2006, 19:35
I was mature enough to know I wanted sex when I was 12. What were you thinking when you were that age?
Physically yes but mentaly no
rory_20_uk
08-07-2006, 19:37
Not familiar with it. What are the reliability and validity scores?
Not sure, but it's in UK law. Basically it goes on the say so of a senior Pediatrician (preferably if it's a significant issue that is being undertaken)
~:smoking:
Physically yes but mentaly no
How could I possibly have physically known anything?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-07-2006, 20:26
Not sure, but it's in UK law. Basically it goes on the say so of a senior Pediatrician (preferably if it's a significant issue that is being undertaken)
~:smoking:
I'd hope it scores pretty well if it's a legal tool in the UK. A good test is, to my thinking, more reliable than the simple use of chronology. As is pretty obvious, there is a high correlation between age and maturity, but by no means is it perfectly causal and neither is the connection clearly a linear progression.
Ironside
08-07-2006, 23:22
How could I possibly have physically known anything?
You're basically physically hardwired for sex. You don't need to know anything by experience or theoretical knowledge, but your body will still know.
You're basically physically hardwired for sex. You don't need to know anything by experience or theoretical knowledge, but your body will still know.
That much is clear - by admitting that I wanted sex, I am both admitting that I recognized it, you know, with my mind, and that obviously indicates that something chemical was going off in my body. How I might not 'mentally know' while 'physically knowing' is, basically, totally preposterous.
Alexanderofmacedon
08-08-2006, 04:19
I don't know, but just not me. And yes Gore, I agree, at 12 I had same feelings.
Tribesman
08-08-2006, 08:16
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14 year old cousin. Nowadays, we'd lynch him.
Isn't the current lowest age for marriage 12 in some States , though that can done away with if the child is pregnant or already has a baby .
But instead of lynching (which AFAIK is illegal) action is bought under federal law in these cases , like the recent one where a "couple" from Nebraska went to Kansas to get married and the groom got to spend his honeymoon in jail for statuatory rape .
I wonder what the position is of those who champion States rights over the evil Feds when it comes to this issue ?:inquisitive:
Banquo's Ghost
08-08-2006, 08:50
Isn't the current lowest age for marriage 12 in some States , though that can done away with if the child is pregnant or already has a baby .
But instead of lynching (which AFAIK is illegal) action is bought under federal law in these cases , like the recent one where a "couple" from Nebraska went to Kansas to get married and the groom got to spend his honeymoon in jail for statuatory rape .
I wonder what the position is of those who champion States rights over the evil Feds when it comes to this issue ?:inquisitive:
According to this source (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm), Tribes, there are no states with an age of consent as low as 12. Canada and Mexico (which are really States of the Union, they just pretend otherwise :wink:) have the variable limit with 12 as the baseline. However, the source does not claim to be absolutely authoritative.
I guess the States rights thing is no different from sovereign countries having different rules. In the Republic, it's 17 - across the non-existent border to the North, 'tis 16. One just has to check first (not a very likely scenario, I'll grant, for a horny 16 year old).
Go to Spain, apparently, and 13 is the legal age of consent. Yikes.
Tribesman
08-08-2006, 08:54
According to this source, Tribes, there are no states with an age of consent as low as 12.
A different source ...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm
Edit ....I see Banquo , different subjects .
Banquo's Ghost
08-08-2006, 09:03
According to this source, Tribes, there are no states with an age of consent as low as 12.
A different source ...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm
Edit ....I see Banquo , different subjects .
Fascinating, nonetheless. If the marriageable age in Kansas say, is 12 (for females) but the age of sexual consent is 16, no wonder people get confused. I am inclined however, to accept your source as more authoritative.
I like Note k: A female child of 12 may get married - with permission from a judge. (I know this is the exceptional power you noted, but it is odd that a judge can give permission for paedophilia. Fragony will have a seizure when he logs on :grin:)
Seamus Fermanagh
08-08-2006, 14:28
Fascinating, nonetheless. If the marriageable age in Kansas say, is 12 (for females) but the age of sexual consent is 16, no wonder people get confused. I am inclined however, to accept your source as more authoritative.
I like Note k: A female child of 12 may get married - with permission from a judge. (I know this is the exceptional power you noted, but it is odd that a judge can give permission for paedophilia. Fragony will have a seizure when he logs on :grin:)
This trends back to "the old days" when it was not uncommon for young women to be married off in their early teens. Remember, the original versions of these rules predate women's suffrage, the admittance of women to institutions of higher learning, etc. Women were officially "chattel" in some places until far too recently.
In its best format, Judges used this power as a tool. Hypothetical example. Young man and local troublemaker of age 17 gets age 13 paramour pregnant. Judge presents 17 year old with choice of a) measurable time in pokey or b) enlistment for 5 years in USMC and marriage to young lass [who is then entitled to have most of his pay set aside for her and her child along with insurance etc.]
Judge's goal: mom-to-be in parent's home with financial support while both have a few years to finish growing up [raising a child and going for a soldier being traditional tools for this].
Unfortunately, a judge who "liked 'em young" could also be setting up an unofficial service for buddies with the same predeliction. Power is always double-edged.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.