|
The First Amendment has limits...and those limits have been consensually agreed upon.
Most speech is protected...but hate speech, threatening the President, and certain forms of public pornography are not allowed...so there is precedent for limiting free speech (on this I disagree with ACLU, whose libertarian views on free speech are broader).
Organized Child Rape and Pedophilia (which is what NAMBLA stands for) can easily be banned...and there's legal precedent to consider their actions a security concern for the State. You can do it under the pornography clause...but if you really want to hit them up, you can argue that since their organization SPECIFICALLY targets individuals who are dependents (people under 18), that their existence constitutes a security concern for the State (and its under 18 citizens, which it is obligated to protect).
With that legal argument, we can ban the organization because its sole mission is the deliberate and planned sexual exploitation of under-18 dependents (all who are dependents of a parent/guardian/State custody). Their existence is as equally dangerous as the presence of serial rapists or murderers at large (none who can argue that their free speech has been violated because their rapes and murderers were not allowed by the State!)....they constitute an ever-present danger to the rights of individuals (the under-18 year old citizens of the U.S.) and to society's morals (as interpreted by the Judges).
The free speech argument doesn't apply...because it's not speech that is in question, but planned actions and outcomes (child rape/pedophilia). There is enough evidence available to a Court to merit the judgment that NAMBLA's existence is not related to politically-protected speech, but to specifically target the sexual innocence of dependents of the State...thus, they constitute a Security Concern. The State has ample grounds to consider NAMBLA's free speech appeals to be irrelevant...and the Security Concern PREEMINENT.
If you want to ban Nambla, launch a class-action lawsuit on behalf of parents/guardians who fear for their children being accosted by NAMBLA members outside of their presence. The Courts and Legislatures would be obligated to address the legitimate concern of parent/guardian citizens...and their dependents...and NAMBLA members would be hard pressed to argue that their "free speech" (advocacy and planning of child rape and pedophilia, as defined by our laws), is being trampled upon.
You have been armed, DU...now go for it!
|