Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Board Had Right to Fire Teacher Who Advocated Sex With Boys
NY LAW JOURNAL ^ | 7/17/03

Posted on 07/16/2003 7:54:08 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: wideminded; ExSoldier

There they are, peacefully doing their own thang behind hallowed closed doors, and if the police were to show up I hope they don't exhibit any (gasp!) adversarial distrust to these citizens who might be having a quilting bee instead of polluting the neighborhood with rights-robbing and violence-inducing poisons.

21 posted on 07/17/2003 6:47:04 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion

Counterfeiting is okay, so long as it happens in the basement instead of on the driveway, eh? Will rape become the next privacy issue for the moral-liberals ever eager to excuse and enable immoral conduct? Supposedly his right to pursue his happiness takes presedence over the rights of parents and children to pursue their happiness. Supposedly he has free will which should be respected while the Board of Education members have none.

22 posted on 07/17/2003 6:53:53 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: umgud
I'll refrain from stating what should be done to every NAMBLA member.

There. That's much better.
23 posted on 07/17/2003 7:01:56 AM PDT by BayouCoyote (PORK AKBAR!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BayouCoyote
That's really cruel -- people just don't look right with their penises stuffed in their mouths. You Meanie you!
24 posted on 07/17/2003 7:12:53 AM PDT by Imagine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
You apparently understand what the SC ruling did. Your ideas of what is moral don't count in someone else's private life.
25 posted on 07/17/2003 7:37:06 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
I just don't understand how there can even be an organization like NAMBLA. Why is such a thing tolerated?
26 posted on 07/17/2003 7:49:45 AM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"Based on the SC ruling, this is wrong."

SCOTUS is made up of humans.

Humans are subject to poor judgment.

27 posted on 07/17/2003 7:57:01 AM PDT by dogbrain ("Life is hard son. It's harder if you're stupid.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dogbrain; VRWC_minion
Don't take this a defense of our boneheaded SCotUS, but the NAMBLA situation can be easily distingished from anti-Sodomy laws.

The pretext of striking down the anti-Sodomy laws was that it was two consenting ADULTS. Pedophilia involves children, who, by law, are too young to consent.

Of course, as the right to abortion (with or without parental notification) continues to expand, combined with all that "it takes a village" crap, it's only a matter of time before some court rules (a) children ARE consenting and (b) therefore child molestation is perfectly legal under the right to privacy.
28 posted on 07/17/2003 8:09:24 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
I'm not familiar with the exact wording of the ruling, but I would HOPE that the consenting parties would be specified as "adults", NOT "parties" or "persons".
29 posted on 07/17/2003 8:27:54 AM PDT by dogbrain ("Life is hard son. It's harder if you're stupid.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
The guy isn't accused of pedophilia. He is accused of having a private membership in Nambla.

Your right about the age of consent which in some states is 14 and most 16. The laws banning sex between teachers and students are probably also unconstitutional so far as children over 16.

30 posted on 07/17/2003 9:11:26 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"Privacy is privacy."

So according to you, what Jeffrey Dahlmer did in the privacy of his home to all those young boys is no business of the government? What NAMBLA advocates is already against the law and has nothing to do with "privacy" issues. Child molestation is already a crime....are you saying that the right to privacy trumps this?

31 posted on 07/17/2003 5:11:40 PM PDT by ExSoldier (M1911A1: The ORIGINAL "Point and Click" interface!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
are you saying that the right to privacy trumps this?

The SC did, yes.

32 posted on 07/17/2003 5:14:14 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"The SC did, yes."

No they didn't. Illegal behavior is never a protection afforded by the Constitution. Better to let people think you're a fool than to open your mouth (or post something like you did) and remove all doubt.

33 posted on 07/17/2003 5:21:52 PM PDT by ExSoldier (M1911A1: The ORIGINAL "Point and Click" interface!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Watch out!

The same group that declared homosexuality not a disease, but a choice. Have declared that pedophlia does not damage children. Next, they will try to have it de-criminalized.

34 posted on 07/17/2003 5:50:36 PM PDT by ElectricRook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman
I have seen/read several documentaries about their conventions, internet communications, and convictions of members actually caught and prosecuted. Why can't NAMBLA be prosecuted under the RICO law? Seriously, some of you people good at legal research?

On this post, the guy should have been fired years ago. The state is in charge of our public schools; it has a compeling
interest in providing safety and good examples in its leaders/instructors/principals.

vaudine
35 posted on 07/17/2003 6:16:04 PM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Imagine
Sometimes they overlap, thus aren't seperate.
36 posted on 07/17/2003 6:19:29 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (this space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
No they didn't. Illegal behavior is never a protection afforded by the Constitution

What is illegal about belonging to Nambla ? Talk about fools.

I wasn't going to mention it but even the right to free assembly is being violated by the state here.

37 posted on 07/17/2003 7:47:22 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: vaudine
I have seen/read several documentaries about their conventions, internet communications, and convictions of members actually caught and prosecuted. Why can't NAMBLA be prosecuted under the RICO law? Seriously, some of you people good at legal research?

I have serious problems with the RICO law having nothing to do with this particular issue. It's a violation of due process. I know a decent old guy who lost his house by the RICO law because he and some buddies were playing poker for money at his house. This is not the way to go with any problem, even if it "works".

On this post, the guy should have been fired years ago.

No argument there, the law needs to be different. Or is it a union contract issue?

The state is in charge of our public schools; it has a compeling interest in providing safety and good examples in its leaders/instructors/principals.

The problem is "public" schools, as such.

38 posted on 07/17/2003 8:10:46 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"What is illegal about belonging to Nambla?"

Nothing, but the activities advocated and assisted by NAMBLA members and their infomational material are illegal. So you think child molesters and real little child rapers...ie pedophiles should be a sanctioned Constitutional activity? Just what activity of yours do you think is threatened because Nambla is threatened?

39 posted on 07/18/2003 1:08:38 AM PDT by ExSoldier (M1911A1: The ORIGINAL "Point and Click" interface!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
So you think child molesters and real little child rapers...ie pedophiles should be a sanctioned Constitutional activity

Under the right to privacy and under the right of free assembly.

40 posted on 07/18/2003 7:38:12 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson