Most criminals blame their problems on anyone or anything except themselves. But that is to be expected. Remember the old saying “There is not a guilty man in prison, just ask any of them”. I think the problem today is we now have organizations, the internet, the press and large groups of people who make excuses for bad behavior. Indirectly this encourages more criminal behavior. No I cannot quote a study that can prove this statment. However, as an example in today’s news, the ACLU is in court defending the rights of members of NAMBLA by saying it is OK for juvenile boys to decide for themselves if they want to have sex with an adult man. Does anyone in their right mind think a 12 year old boy should be permitted to make that kind of decision. This kind of thing should be thrown out of court and the laywers for the ACLU should be censured by the judge for even filing this kind of lawsuit. This type of evil behavior has been slowly creeping into our society and passed off as acceptable. When will it stop. I have several friends that have retired from teaching. They all have horror stories of the loss of respect for authority and the attitude of today’s students. If the majority of our children can’t be controlled and held to any moral standards our countrie’s future is in jeopardy.
John Spehar said:John I'm not sure you're being consistent here. The ACLU is not defending the idea of sex with underage boys, it's defending the right of NAMBLA to advocate sex with underage boys. It's a free speech question. If you are arguing that we have become too tolerant, as a society, of men having sex with underage boys I'd say you're wrong--it's still a crime, and the ACLU is not arguing that it should be legal or acceptable. The ACLU is arguing that in a free society, all speech should be free, and individuals are responsible for acting on their own decisions.
Most criminals blame their problems on anyone or anything except themselves. But that is to be expected. Remember the old saying "There is not a guilty man in prison, just ask any of them". I think the problem today is we now have organizations, the internet, the press and large groups of people who make excuses for bad behavior.... as an example in today's news, the ACLU is in court defending the rights of members of NAMBLA by saying it is OK for juvenile boys to decide for themselves if they want to have sex with an adult man. Does anyone in their right mind think a 12 year old boy should be permitted to make that kind of decision.
here are two scenarios, similar to those mentioned in this thread, that make this issue more clear
-
a 14 year old boy plays Grand Theft Auto, carjacks a stranger, then his family hires a lawyer who blames Grand Theft Auto. Members of the LSC forum denounce the decline of American society and the rise of the “blame everyone else” mentality
-
A 14 year old boy reads NAMBLA literature, and decides it’s ok to have sex with a 40 year old creep. His family hires a lawyer who blames NAMBLA. Members of the LSC forum in this case seem to be doing the opposite, blaming NAMBLA
I’m looking for some consistency here. IMHO we should have (and do in fact have) strict laws forbidding adults from sexual contact with person below the age of consent, which I’d set at probably 18. But should organizations like NAMBLA be able to advocate illegal behavior? I’d say yes. It’s a constitutional right.
Are you arguing that no one takes responsibility any more, or are you arguing that we need to strictly censor speech in order to prevent people from being enticed into bad behavior?
I am arguing that a large percentage of people in today’s society do not take responsibility for their actions. And with the current teaching in schools, the slant in news stories and the decisions in our courts we are creating an increase rather than a decrease in those numbers. Is there something wrong with stopping an organization like NAMBLA from pushing for sex with minors? I don’t think so. I also do not think this is a restriction on free speech. If, as you say, there are laws against sex with minors, either male or female, than why is it OK to let an organization like NAMBLA have the right to disregard those laws. If they want the laws changed they should pursue their representatives to change the laws and have it made legal. Instead they take the back door and spread the word through the internet and distributing phamplets to minors. Then yell I was denied my freedom of speech when they are shut down.
John Spehar said:If you can't speak about a subject, how can you lobby to have the law changed? I mean, think of it this way--in 1900 it was illegal for women to vote. Women who argued they should be able to vote were arguing against an existing law--like NAMBLA. Was there something wrong with Martin L. King pushing for an end to segregation? Many people thought so, called him a "troublemaker" and urged him to shut up. Obviously NAMBLA is nothing like Martin King, and I find them repugnant, but really, how are you going to argue this point? Would you not allow people to argue for, say, the legalization of marijuana? Or for and end to seat belt laws? If speaking aganst an existing law is forbidden, laws can never chang.e
Is there something wrong with stopping an organization like NAMBLA from pushing for sex with minors? I don't think so. I also do not think this is a restriction on free speech. If, as you say, there are laws against sex with minors, either male or female, than why is it OK to let an organization like NAMBLA have the right to disregard those laws. If they want the laws changed they should pursue their representatives to change the laws and have it made legal. Instead they take the back door and spread the word through the internet and distributing phamplets to minors. Then yell I was denied my freedom of speech when they are shut down.
Also it runs against your argument that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Suppose I urge people to ignore seatbelt laws. You listen to me, and you die in a car crash–am I responsible, or are you? You seem to be arguing that it would be my fault, because I advocated breaking the law. Or suppose I advocated robbing banks, and you robbed a bank. Would I be to blame? So which position are you taking–that individuals are repsonible for the choices they make, or the people who tried to persuade them are responsible?