Why is it that the ACLU defends pedophile's "rights" to view child pornography and sites such as NAMBLA, but

doesn't defend the pedophile priests? Isn't it the same thing? Or is it that their hatred of the Church trumps their delight in defending child rapists? How can this be defended? Don't give me this crap about defending civil rights. I totally understand that. But when something is criminal, such as child pornography, this is not someone's "civil rights." It is criminal. Period. Children have for too long been mistreated and tossed about as sexual objects. These are children. How can the ACLU (Anti Children Liberal Union) advocate this?

Guys, you can bluster all you want, but the ACLU cherry picks - it is obvious. also, what about your "leader" Roger Baldyn being a Communist and saying to do a lot of flag waving, as if to present a smokescreen that the organization was truly patriotic. You two respondents are full of it. Why are you on the side of molesters? This is not freedom of speech, this is freedom to molest young children. Can't you see that?

ACLU is corrupt

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.

The ACLU doesn't hate churches!

Is the ACLU against religion?
The ACLU believes in the right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of the realm of all religions.

You misrepresent their positions. Please read this carefully, and perhaps you might get it!

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/1...

The ACLU does not defend child pornography for the same reason that it does not defend priests accused of child molestation (or worse). The ACLU does vigorously oppose governmental action which infringes on constitutional freedoms, including freedom of speech. For example, the ACLU took a position against the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002 because it criminalized not only child pornography but the transmission of images of children which were not pornographic. Likewise, the ACLU would very likely defend web sites like NAMBLA's because they view it as a free speech issue. The basic premise to which they ascribe is that freedom of speech doesn't just mean freedom of popular speech. Once we start denying people the right to speak freely on matters which we feel are repulsive or distasteful, then freedom of speech becomes the freedom to speak or express ourselves according the the dictates of our government. That kind of speech isn't free at all.

Please prove that the ACLU has defended child pornography. The ACLU case with NAMBLA had nothing to do with child pornography.

And am I reading your correctly that you want the ACLU to represent pedophile priests?

the one thing you will always see about the aclu is that they never defend anyone that really needs it.they defend the off the wall crap.the lawyers at acle should be disbarred for anyone connected with nambla or child porno.there is no argument of legality that they can raise. retired texas deputy sheriff.the other poster that says child porn has nothing to do with nambla is blind.they are one in the same just under another title.nambla promotes sex with young minor boys. they promote the illegal sex acts with these young boys. these same acts are child pornography.trhe same poster compares pedophile priests. there arguments fall on deaf ears.nambla and the priests are doing thye same thing.what common sense you say is that aclu has no business in representing pedophiles,nambla, or child pornigrapht.trhe poster should open their eyes because they are all breaking the law by performing and forcing to perform illegal sex aid with minors