Judge strikes down part of Patriot Act

[Heracles 417]

ACLU rocks!

ACLU defends child-molester group

Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder

Posted: December 13, 2000

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Julie Foster

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.

The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group.

The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."

Both killers are now serving life sentences. The family filed the lawsuit against NAMBLA and the Internet service provider that hosted its site, arguing their son might still be alive were it not for the group and its website.

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.

''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe.

The Curleys won a $328 million wrongful death case against their son's killers earlier this year, but since both men are penniless, Frisoli called it largely a moral victory. WND reported in July that Frisoli was preparing a class-action lawsuit against NAMBLA. If NAMBLA loses the class-action suit, individuals and parents of children who were involved in sexual relationships with members will be able to collect damages.

According to Frisoli, NAMBLA has anywhere from 300 to 1,300 members, depending on which time period is selected for the lawsuit, translating to thousands of children that would constitute the class in the suit.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=18029

Wow never heard of NAMBLA. This is another great organization to tell the folks back home about..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thank God for that judge.

Amen, sister!

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Child molesters have the same rights as you and me.

are you referring to convicted or accused?

[mawilson 2,133]

Child molesters have the same rights as you and me.

are you referring to convicted or accused?

Accused, as well as those who have been convicted and released from incarceration .

[GaryC 7]

Child molesters have the same rights as you and me.

are you referring to convicted or accused?

Accused, as well as those who have been convicted and released from incarceration .

Well, at least they practice what they preach.

Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography

Federal agents arrested Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, Friday in Arlington for allegedly possessing child pornography.

According to a criminal complaint obtained by ABC News, Rust-Tierney allegedly used his e-mail address and credit card to subscribe to and access a child pornography website.

The complaint states that federal investigations into child pornography websites revealed that "Charles Rust-Tierney has subscribed to multiple child pornography website over a period of years."

As recently as last October, the complaint alleges, "Rust-Tierney purchased access to a group of hardcore commercial child pornography websites."

Complaint Alleges Access to Graphic Material

Rust-Tierney admitted to investigators that he had downloaded videos and images from child pornography websites onto CD-ROMs, according to the complaint.

The videos described in the complaint depict graphic forcible intercourse with prepubescent females. One if the girls is described in court documents as being "seen and heard crying", another is described as being "bound by rope."

The investigation is being conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and the Arlington County Police as part of the Northern Virginia and District of Columbia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

Rust-Tierney made an initial appearance in a federal court in Alexandria, VA, Friday. He is being detained pending a preliminary hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 28.

Youth Coach, Argued Against Restricting Public Internet

Rust Tierney coaches various youth sports teams in and around Arlington, Virginia, according to court documents.

In the past, Rust-Tierney had argued against restricting Internet access in public libraries in Virginia, writing, "Recognizing that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library, the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2900174&page=1

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Child molesters have the same rights as you and me.

are you referring to convicted or accused?

Accused, as well as those who have been convicted and released from incarceration .

According to that article the group was being blamed for something that an individual did, simply because the individual possessed some materials put out by the group.

I see people here objecting to the group being sued because they don't agree with its ideas, as opposed to anything it specifically did to encourage the crime.

If you're going to sue someone you can't expect to win if you sue the wrong person.

[mawilson 2,133]

FWIW, I don't think "possession" of anything - including pornography, drugs or weapons - should be a crime.

[Heracles 417]

Child molesters have the same rights as you and me.

are you referring to convicted or accused?

Accused, as well as those who have been convicted and released from incarceration .

Well, at least they practice what they preach.

Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography

No wonder they are so passionate about protecting other scumbags rights..

[GaryC 7]

FWIW, I don't think "possession" of anything - including pornography, drugs or weapons - should be a crime.

Do you agree with this?

ACLU files suit to overturn child protection law

A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday pits the need to protect children from sexual predators versus sex offenders' rights to move freely in society after serving their sentences.

The ACLU of Indiana filed the suit challenging a new city ordinance that fines child molesters caught near city playgrounds or other gathering spots for children.

Calling the ordinance passed in mid-May unconstitutionally vague, the group said it would make law-abiding citizens unwitting violators of the ordinance and hinder their ability to work, vote and worship.

The ordinance prohibits sex offenders convicted of crimes against children from coming within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, recreation centers, swimming pools, sports fields or facilities when children are around. One exception to the ban is if the offender is accompanied by an adult with no history of sex crimes.

Anyone who violates the ordinance commits an infraction punishable by progressive fines: $600 for the first violation, $1,000 for the second and $2,500 for subsequent violations within the same year.

The ordinance goes beyond a bill passed this session by the Indiana General Assembly. That law bars sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a public park, school or youth programs center.

Supporters of the local measure say it is necessary to safeguard society's most vulnerable.

"You see all the stories almost every day about a child falling victim to a molester," Democratic City-County Councilman Vernon Brown said. He said this was one of the few things the council could do to save at least one child "from that horror."

According to Doug Gosser, of the Indiana Sheriff's Association, between 6,000 and 7,000 people are on the Indiana Sheriff's Association's Sex Offender Registry. He said the registry database does not break down how many of the offenders abused children.

Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, said the city ordinance effectively restores the long-discarded, punitive practice of "banishment," because it is virtually impossible to travel the streets and highways of Marion County without passing within 1,000 feet of a public playground or other prohibited site.

Drive on I-65 and you pass the Velodrome and a skate park, Falk said. "You can't get from point A to point B in Indianapolis without being in violation."

The suit gives anonymous examples of former offenders who would be hurt by the ordinance.

There's the man who received counseling and was awarded joint custody of his son, now 7 years old. The pair frequently visits parks and other recreational centers. Because the man is employed at a place within 1,000 feet of a park, he would breach the ordinance by going to work, the suit says.

Another man votes at a public school within range of a sports field. Because he is not eligible to cast an absentee ballot, the new restrictions would keep him from voting, the suit says.

Falk said that even the ordinance's exemption -- lifting the restrictions if the former offender is accompanied by an adult with no record of sex crimes -- is problematic.

Falk said the term "accompanied" is not defined in the ordinance. "If you're within five feet, if you're within 10 feet, if you go with someone and they have to go to the bathroom, do you have to go to the bathroom with them?" he asked.

Democratic Councilman Greg Bowes, one of two council members who opposed the ordinance, also questions the practicality of enforcing the law and thinks it does little to protect children.

Many child molesters abuse children in their families or other children they know -- not strangers, he said.

Though it's every parent's worst nightmare, "we don't have that much trouble of people grabbing children out of parks."

[mawilson 2,133]

No wonder they are so passionate about protecting other scumbags rights..

Someone could probably find child porn on your computer if they really wanted to find it.

Are you saying you've never browsed a porn website? Are you sure all the girls you saw

were 18 and older?

[GaryC 7]

No wonder they are so passionate about protecting other scumbags rights..

Someone could probably find child porn on your computer if they really wanted to find it.

Are you saying you've never browsed a porn website? Are you sure all the girls you saw

were 18 and older?

No I don't and no you wouldn't find kiddy porn on my computer.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well the last two paragraphs say it all really.

Again it doesn't make their interpretation of constitutional law 'wrong', again considering that the case (like all the others) was ruled on by an independent judge.

[GaryC 7]

Shifting gears now, how about this persons right to free speech?

District pulls plug on speech

Foothill valedictorian criticizes decision to censor her proclamation of faith

By ANTONIO PLANAS

REVIEW-JOURNAL

Foothill High School Valedictorian Brittany McComb is pictured at her Henderson home on Friday. McComb's speech at the high school's graduation ceremony on Thursday was cut short because officials said its religious references crossed over into proselytizing.

Photo by K.M. Cannon.

She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.

But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.

The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.

School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.

But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.

That's why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.

"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb said. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."

In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ.

In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.

"There should be no controversy here," Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."

Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.

Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied.

In 2003, the Clark County School Board amended district regulations on religious free speech, prohibiting district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer.

The remainder of the amendment allows for religious expression during school ceremonies.

Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content," it states.

"To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored."

District legal counsel Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross into the realm of preaching.

"We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize," Hoffman said. "We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that."

McComb, who will study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching. She said although some people might not like the message of her speech, it was just that, her speech.

"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said. "Those are my opinions.

"It's what I believe."

[mawilson 2,133]

No wonder they are so passionate about protecting other scumbags rights..

Someone could probably find child porn on your computer if they really wanted to find it.

Are you saying you've never browsed a porn website? Are you sure all the girls you saw

were 18 and older?

No I don't and no you wouldn't find kiddy porn on my computer.

That's what you think.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well there was no court decision made there – but again a legal precedent existed, referenced within the article.

Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.

Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied.

Given the limited context here, if you disagree with the decision at least put the blame where it belongs - with the judges who set the precedent.