supreme court case involving the a.c.l.u. and the right to publish pedophilia material?
93436
The case is Curley v. NAMBLA.  It hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court as of yet.  As of last year, it was still in the Massachusetts court system.\nTo Izzy06:  They are not protecting NAMBLA, they are protecting A from being prosecuted for the crimes of B if A did not directly incite such actions.  If I ran a gun safety school, and a student of mine killed someone, I would hope not to be prosecuted for the murder.
339775
This is a listing of briefs for cases currently on the Docket.  The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe RR case is an employment discrimination case.  I've also posted a link to the latest slip opinions.\n\nhttp://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/home.html\nhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html
211056
We should probably make sure we know the answer to the question of whether it "was illegal" or not. The jury still seems to be out on that one. One camp (the executive branch)holds that Congress's authorization of "any and all necessary force" gave Bush the authority, and another doesn't (the Legislative). Sounds like it's time for the good old Judicial branch to step in and resolve the dispute. Then we can talk about whether or not a censure (different from censor) is appropriate.
45613
Near v. Minnesota\n283 U.S. 697 (1931)\nAuthor: DK\n\nFacts: A Minnesota law provided for abatement, as a public nuisance, of a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical. D’s newspaper published defamatory and scandalous articles and a court issued an injunction permanently enjoining the newspaper from publishing.\n\nIssue: Was the law unconstitutional?\n\nHolding: Yes\n\nRationale:  According to the court, the injunction was prior restrain on press and was unconstitutional.  The Court stated that the appropriate way of dealing with unprotected speech was after the fact punishment and not prior restraint on the freedom of press.  Therefore, prior restrain can’t be used to punish a publication unless there exist some exceptional circumstances (e.g. national security during times of war).
847619
Among the biggest journalists' organizations are SPJ, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press. Both have active websites.\n\nHowever, the case - actually Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, has no practical effect on journalists. In the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 as void for vagueness, and thus overbroad and unconstitutional. Specifically, the section of the law involved materials that neither involved children nor were obscene.\n\nAs to public impact, I suspect it freed certain publications, including websites, from the threat of prosecution under the act - but left them still vulnerable if they produce or contain child (or other) pornography.
367108
the aclu says yes to child pornography and no to baby jesus.\n\ni'd say that's beyond communism. that's f*cked up secular humanism...and even that is being nice about it.
579255
check out this court case http://www.ulcseminary.org/forum/uploads/ULCvUSA.pdf
706539
And P is for Pedophile.
440826
In a law library. The cite is 7 N.J.Super. 81. A reference librarian should be able to help you find a reporter that includes the case.
195382
lexisnexis or westlaw should work, but its $$$. the other option to research is your local law school library. The librarians are generally pretty good.\n\nAs far as I can tell there are no california state cases published by that name. (only cases that go to the state supreme court, and some at the intermediate appeals level are published) There may be federal cases, but I didn't want to take the time.\n\ngood luck
1120749
how about sex offender's human right been violated?\n\nhere the link  from human right watch org\nhttp://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/24/usdom11006.htm\n\nhttp://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_sentencing\nyou will find alot of us here or ask me\n\nhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/roar_4_freedom/
916203
The key word there is "legally".  No minor can give legal consent.  Period.\nI would love for you to post a link that proves your allegation that the ACLU supports the MBLA.\nThanks.  I'll be waiting.
1151024
Contact the ACLU!\nor Erin Brokavich\n\nThey love that kind of stuff!
231639
Who do you propose reporting Yahoo too? The morality police? We all have first amendment rights under the constitution. I've seen a lot of posts that I don't agree with but people still have a right to post them no matter what their politics or sexual orientation.
646962
I'd contact the State Board of Education, the state Ombudsmen as well as Attorney General and the ACLU office in your state. Good luck to you....
460651
ACLU    American Civil Liberties Union
917570
Hey, they helped defend Rush Limbaugh and several religious conservatives including that scumbag, the "reverend" Fred Phelps.\nThat proves there impartiality.\n\nHERE ARE SOME EXAMPLE OF THE ACLU DEFENDING RELIGOUS FREEDOM INCLUDING 2ND ADMENDMENT RIGHTS,TAKEN FROM THEIR SITE:\n\n    September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.\n\n    August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.\n\n    May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.\n\n    February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.\n\n    December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.\n\n    November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.\n\n    November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.\n\n    August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.\n\n    July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.\n\n    June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.\n\n    June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.\n\n    May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.\n\n    March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.\n\n    February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.\n\n    October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.\n\n    July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.\n\n    April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.\n\n    January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.\n\nSO I GUESS THAT SHOW THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE WRONG  AND DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHATS REALLY GOING ON WITH THE ACLU OR REFUSES TO UNDERSTAND.