Do You Support NAMBLA In Principle?

[Blef]

Perhaps their society's fear of allowing them to have the right to exist for freedom of speech is rather unreasonable. In fact, now, they're allowed to exist, but they have no support and basically no members. The last vestige of the organization is the website itself. Granting them speech rights is merely a hollow expression.

Society's reason... And is that your reason, too?

Who do you see as legitimate granter of speech rights? Or would you say "grantor"?

[Paleface2500]

What!!! Would I support a group who wishes to engage in sexual activities with minors? NO. Leave it at that. No need to discuss this further

[The Bacon Guy]

If you feel this way, please refrain from posting. It adds nothing.

[Epistemologist]

Who do you see as legitimate granter of speech rights? Or would you say "grantor"?

Society, which might be ambiguous. Perhaps we can come to a resolution here. If protecting free speech is in our interest regardless of what group is being protected, then yes, we can grant NAMBLA speech rights. But we can still unyieldingly ignore what they have to say because their pedophilic actions are seen as wrong by our society (and most societies, for that matter).

Some would argue that doing this wouldn't even be free speech, because NAMBLA would be practically mute. But at least the group can be used as a poster child for the protection of free speech in their society. That is, of course, if they can even get sufficient membership. As many of the members are already criminals for their disgusting acts, the group has a bad reputation.

What!!! Would I support a group who wishes to engage in sexual activities with minors? NO. Leave it at that. No need to discuss this further

Yes, they support a disgusting act that we see as wrong. But, as I just said, perhaps we could grant them free speech rights, but they would practically mean nothing.

If you feel this way, please refrain from posting. It adds nothing.

He has free speech rights! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I think we successfully resolved this issue.

[The Bacon Guy]

He has free speech rights!

Not on a private forum.

Anyway, I think we successfully resolved this issue.

So you agree that they, as an organisation, are not in any way a threat and that granting them free speech will do no harm?

[Epistemologist]

So you agree that they, as an organisation, are not in any way a threat and that granting them free speech will do no harm?

What I'm saying is that give free speech if you want but the government will make them practically mute because no one will listen.

[The Bacon Guy]

Which was my original argument against your point that allowing them free speech opens the door for their agenda to become legitimate. The overwhelming majority will oppose their agenda entirely, so there isn't any danger from it. I say let them have their fun.

[Epistemologist]

Which was my original argument against your point that allowing them free speech opens the door for their agenda to become legitimate. The overwhelming majority will oppose their agenda entirely, so there isn't any danger from it. I say let them have their fun.

Okay, we've resolved it, although I still have some natural doubts.

[Blef]

Society, which might be ambiguous. Perhaps we can come to a resolution here. If protecting free speech is in our interest regardless of what group is being protected, then yes, we can grant NAMBLA speech rights. But we can still unyieldingly ignore what they have to say because their pedophilic actions are seen as wrong by our society (and most societies, for that matter).

Some would argue that doing this wouldn't even be free speech, because NAMBLA would be practically mute. But at least the group can be used as a poster child for the protection of free speech in their society. That is, of course, if they can even get sufficient membership. As many of the members are already criminals for their disgusting acts, the group has a bad reputation.

That's all I'm saying; protecting free speech is in our interest. NAMBLA has a right to their speech. No one is obligated to listen. A right to speech doesn't come with a guaranteed audience, but to silence them completely sets a dangerous precedence for other speech to be silenced as well. Someday it might be your speech, or speech you want to hear.