George Soros Funded ACLU Doesn’t Defend Civil Liberties; It Defends Deadly Pedophiles: Here’s Proof!
Does the ACLU Any Longer Defend Civil Liberty?
Does the ACLU Any Longer Defend Civil Liberty?
Paul Craig Roberts
There are many signs of American collapse. One of the most scary is the fact that the American Civil Liberties Union no longer knows what are the civil liberties it purports to defend. Identity Politics has transformed civil rights into privileges for victim groups.
Yesterday (February 22, 2018) I received a 50-state survey from the ACLU. The envelop in which the questionnaire arrived said the survey was about how “to protect civil liberties during the Trump Presidency.” However, the survey (essentially a fundraiser) did not mention a single civil liberty contained in the Bill of Rights and added as amendments to the US Constitution.
Nothing about the sweeping away by the criminal Bush regime of habeas corpus with indefinite detention. No mention of the criminal Obama regime’s kill list, which swept away due process by executing US citizens on allegation alone without trial, evidence, and conviction. Nothing about the sweeping away by both criminal regimes of the prohibition against spying on citizens without warrants. No mention of the shutdown of free speech and protest or of the destruction of civil liberties by unaccountable police who brutalize, rob, and murder Americans at will.
In place of civil liberties, the ACLU has Identity Politics. The ACLU “civil rights” survey is concerned with the civil rights of illegal aliens, of women to have abortions and publicly financed birth control, the “fundamental rights of LGBT people,” and Muslim bans. The civil liberties listed in the Constitution do not qualify for concern; only invented rights that are not listed in the Bill of Rights.
The letter accompanying the questionaire does mention the First Amendment and suppression of free speech “emanating from the White House.” I mean, really, the Bush and Obama regimes decimated free speech and imprisoned whistleblowers. Julian Assange has been imprisoned for years in the Ecuadoran embassy in London for publishing leaked material revealing criminal and deceitful behavior of the US government. By the time of Trump’s election, the First Amendment was a dead letter civil right.
In the ACLU’s Identity Politics, white people, espeially white heterosexual males, have no rights. They are not protected by quotas, political correctness, or hate speech prohibitions. No one has to worry about offending a white by destroying statures of white males or church plaques commendorating George Washington and Robert E. Lee. Try destroying a stature of Martin Luther King. A white person can be called every name in the book, and is. White DNA is said to be an abomination. Anyone who said black DNA or homosexual DNA was an abomination would face hate crime charges.
Even men-hating white feminists jump on the anti-white bandwaggon, denouncing white heterosexual–not homosexual–males as misogynist. The feminists reserve their hate for the men attracted to women.
War is the greatest destroyer of civil liberty. Indefinite detention, execution without due process, spying without warrants, suppression of the First Amendment are all consequences of the use of 9/11 to put the US on a war basis. The replacement of civil liberty with a police state is said to be necessary in order to protect us from Muslim terrorists, expanded to include undefined “domesic extremists.” Currently the US is being put on an even greater war basis with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and even Venezuela declared as threats to America.
The ACLU shares responsibility for the explosion of the threat level from al Qaeda to every country that “threatens” America by having its own independent foreign policy and insisting on its sovereignty. It was Trump who said he was going to normalize relations with Russia, and it was the ACLU and the entirety of the liberal/progressive/left who jumped on the anti-Trump bandwaggon and went after him with the orchestrated conspiracy of Russiagate. What the liberal/progressive/left did was to drive Trump into the arms of the military/security complex.
Clearly, the liberal/progressive/left and the ACLU are a greater menace to the Bill of Rights than Donald Trump.
Curley v. NAMBLA
Curley v. NAMBLA was a wrongful death lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2000, by Barbara and Robert Curley against the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), saying the organization had incited the men who kidnapped and murdered their young son. They sought $200 million in damages.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (ACLU-M) represented NAMBLA because of the issue of censorship of unpopular speech about sexuality. It succeeded on getting the suit dismissed, based on the specific legal issue that NAMBLA is organized as an association, not a corporation.[1] The Curleys continued their suit against individual members of NAMBLA and its steering committee members. They finally dropped the lawsuit in 2008 because the court ruled that their only witness to incitement was not competent to testify. Soon after his son’s murder, Curley had campaigned for the state to pass a bill to re-establish use of the death penalty, but he changed his position and in 2007 opposed it.
Contents
[hide]
Background[edit]
In 1997, Barbara and Robert Curley’s 10-year-old son Jeffrey was kidnapped, raped and murdered by two men, Salvatore Sicari, 21, and Charlie Jaynes, 22.[2] Jeffrey was a latchkey child and knew Sicari from the neighborhood, who lived only a block away. The two men befriended Jeffrey, taking him on car rides to diners.[3] They offered to replace his recently stolen bicycle with a new one in exchange for sex. When Jeffrey refused, Jaynes killed him in the car’s backseat.[3] Sicari confessed to his part in the murder but insisted that Jaynes committed the murder. NAMBLA literature and a membership card was found in the backseat of the car and in Jaynes’ apartment.[3][2] Sicari was convicted of first-degree murder and Jaynes was convicted of second-degree murder and kidnapping.[4]
Following his son’s murder, Robert Curley campaigned for Massachusetts to reinstate the death penalty, which had been ruled unconstitutional in 1975. A bill to do so failed on a tie vote in the Massachusetts House of Representatives shortly after his son’s murder.[5] He later changed his position and in 2007 opposed death penalty legislation.[6]
Lawsuit[edit]
The Curleys filed a civil suit against NAMBLA in 2000, seeking $200 million in damages.[4] It charged that NAMBLA’s “adult-child sexual relationship” propaganda, including Jaynes’ viewing of the group’s website, caused his violent predatory behavior and urge to have sex with and rape young male children.[7][3]
The suit was based on the fact that the convicted murderer had NAMBLA materials and had been found to have visited the group’s website. The ACLU said that the suit against NAMBLA highlighted censorship of unpopular speech about sexuality. According to Wendy Kaminer, a longtime ACLU executive, the case was based on “widespread biases about a supposed link between homosexuality and pedophilia“; in fact, studies have shown that children are more likely to be preyed upon by heterosexuals in their extended families.[7][3]
Proving the incitement is difficult given the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution standards that govern words in any medium.[8] At the time the Internet was much less popular, so the point rested on the court’s viewing the Internet as such a different media as to warrant a different legal standard.[8] Despite the lawsuit’s claims, the NAMBLA website displayed no erotica, nor conspiracies to rape or incitements to violence.[7]
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the US Supreme Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In September 2001, the court declined the defense’s request for summary judgment, because Brandenburg “does not foreclose liability ‘on any set of facts that might be shown'” as to incitement just by NAMBLA’s publications, meetings and website.[9] But the court dismissed the suit based on the specific legal issue that NAMBLA is organized as an association, not a corporation.[1]
The Curleys continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members and NAMBLA Steering Committee members.[10][11]
The Curleys dropped the lawsuit in 2008. They had only one witness prepared to testify that NAMBLA somehow incited one of the convicted criminals in the murder of their son, and the judge ruled the witness was not competent to testify. Robert Curley said, “That was the only link we were counting on … When they ruled that out, that was the end of the line.”[12]
Effects[edit]
The publicity around this case contributed to the gay community’s disassociation from NAMBLA and from any appearance of supporting pederasty (attraction to adolescents after youths enter puberty) and pedophilia (attraction to prepubescent children). This division was already present in NAMBLA, related to their public image and publication(s) content.[13]
NAMBLA had been the subject of several law enforcement sting operations and raids. It had also been accused of links in several high-profile child abduction cases, such as the 1979 Etan Patz case in New York City.[14] In February 2017, Pedro Hernandez, a clerk in a local bodega in 1979, was convicted of the kidnapping and murder of Patz, based on confessions to police. He is said to have a low IQ and mental health issues.[15]
NAMBLA denied any connections to crimes, but their public image was already permanently damaged. The gay community cut all ties of support.[14]
