Dispatches from the Creation Wars

The ACLU and the NAMBLA Case

Much has been made of the fact that the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU has taken on a case defending NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, in a civil lawsuit arising from the kidnapping and killing of a 10 year old boy. There is no more controversial or emotionally-charged issue than this. NAMBLA is universally, and justifiably, viewed as a vile organization that advocates something that nearly everyone despises in the strongest possible terms. Unfortunately, that makes it a perfect target for demagoguery and superficial demonizing, and that is just what we have seen. One group has even begun a website called the “ACLU NAMBLA Rage Page” where people can register their revulsion. Bill O’Reilly has ranted against the ACLU for taking the case, as has virtually everyone on the right in America, and many people claim outright that the ACLU is fighting for the right to rape children. But in the midst of this understandably emotional outpouring, something has been lost – the legal issue. This is, after all, a court case and court cases are decided not by emotional reactions, but by reference to legal precedents. So what is the legal issue at stake and under dispute?

Here are the facts of the case. A 10 year old boy named Jeffrey Curley was tortured and murdered by two men, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari. The men were caught, tried, convicted and sentenced. Furthermore, the parents of the victim filed a civil lawsuit against the two men and won a $200 million verdict, which they will surely never collect. But then the parents went a step further by suing NAMBLA, an organization that advocates that the age-of-consent laws be changed to allow sexual relations between adult men and juvenile boys. Jaynes was a member of NAMBLA and the police found that he had 8 issues of their publication in his home and had accessed their website at the Boston Public Library.

The legal argument that the parents of the victim are making is that NAMBLA’s publications fostered an atmosphere that caused the crime to take place. That’s right – they do not allege that there was anything that specifically instructed Jaynes to rape and kill a child, that either their publications or their website provided any material support for the crime, or even that it advocated committing such a crime, only that the “totality of the child sex environment” advocated by NAMBLA somehow caused this to happen. In fact, the defendants filed a motion early on in the case asking that the plaintiffs spell out specifically what statements or expressions in either the group’s publications or website could reasonably be construed as causing Jaynes to commit this crime. The amended complaint did not do so, referring instead only to the general “climate” fostered by NAMBLA. And herein lies the crux of the case.

It’s not illegal to advocate a change in the laws, and nowhere in their complaint do the plaintiffs point to any statement made in any NAMBLA publication that urges that one violate the laws in place currently. And in most cases, it’s not even illegal to advocate breaking the law. Multiple court rulings have established that only if the advocacy carries a “clear and present danger” of an “imminent breach of the peace” can speech that advocates criminal behavior be censored and punished by law. This is known as the Brandenberg test because of the Supreme Court case it stems from, and the standard has been upheld several times by the Court, as recently as 2000. But the question at stake here is not so much whether the government can censor such speech, but whether the person or organization that advocates a change in the laws should be held responsible for the actions of someone who reads their material and thereafter breaks those laws.

Let’s think about the ramifications of this precedent if the plaintiff wins. There have been numerous cases of anti-abortion advocates killing abortion doctors. One such activist was recently put to death in Florida for committing murder. Under the precedent that would be given if the plaintiffs win in the NAMBLA case, anti-abortion groups whose literature such a murderer had read, or whose website they visited, could be sued and held responsible for the actions of the individual who pulled the trigger. After all, they advocate a change in the laws and they “foster an atmosphere” in which abortion doctors are viewed as murderers who must be stopped. Let’s say a law is passed banning the ownership of automatic weapons. The NRA would surely oppose such a law and would advocate that the law be changed in their publications and on their website. Could the parents of a victim of a murder by such a weapon blame the NRA on the same grounds as NAMBLA is being sued? Of course they could. The NRA would be “fostering a climate of lawlessness” by claiming that the gun laws are unjust and illegitimate.

Once we establish the legal principle that groups which advocate changing the laws can be held responsible for the actions of those who break the laws, the sky is the limit for such lawsuits. What is now legal advocacy aimed at changing the laws would be suppressed by the need to avoid civil damages. And the principle of individual responsibility would be undermined in America yet again. The responsibility for the murder of Jeffrey Curley lies with the two men who committed the act and those men have been tried and convicted – and frankly, if someone in prison takes a shiv to one or both of them, I don’t think any of us will lose any sleep over it. But we cannot let our justifiable outrage at this horrible crime allow us to set a precedent that could destroy what is now legal and protected political advocacy in America. We cannot allow that emotional reaction to prompt us to destroy a bedrock principle of our legal system, the notion that it is actions that are punishable, not words no matter how repulsive they may be.

The ACLU is, in my view, correct to take this case. They are not defending the right of men to rape and kill little boys, the men were duly convicted of crimes and the laws that they were convicted under are not at issue. They are not defending the message that NAMBLA puts out, anymore than the Jewish ACLU attorney David Goldberger was defending the anti-semitic message that the Nazis were advocating when he took their case and defended their right to assemble and speak their views, even if those views are repulsive to virtually everyone. It may well be that the ACLU will suffer financially because of this highly controversial case, as they did when they lost 30% of their membership after taking the Nazi case in Skokie. But if they do, it will be a result of the triumph of emotional demagoguery over sober thinking. And that will hurt us all far more than most people can currently envision.

Comments

  1. #1 John
    May 19, 2004

    Nambla needs to die!

  2. #2 Rob Ryan
    May 19, 2004

    Nothing would please me more than NAMBLA’s demise; however, as Ed stated, that is not the issue. The ACLU must protect the rights of all Americans even if that means defending the rights of an organization as reprehensible as NAMBLA, or, for that matter, the KKK. The right to advocate an unpopular position is essential to democracy.

  3. #3 Ed Brayton
    May 19, 2004

    Thanks Rob. You said pretty much exactly what I would have said in response to John and saved me the time.

  4. #4 Karen
    May 20, 2004

    Would the ACLU fight for the freedom of speech if some group taught people through a website or pamplets how to bomb abortion clinics or kill doctors that perform them?

  5. #5 Ed Brayton
    May 20, 2004

    Would the ACLU fight for the freedom of speech if some group taught people through a website or pamplets how to bomb abortion clinics or kill doctors that perform them?

    No, but that’s not remotely analogous. If the NAMBLA literature actually had instructions on how to break the law, as opposed to advocating a change in the law, then there would be a legitimate case there and the ACLU would likely not have gotten involved. In the case in question, that wasn’t even alleged, much less proven. If the NAMBLA website, for instance, had instructions on how to lure children, or places to illegally buy chloroform, then the father’s case would have been much stronger. But since there was no such literature to be found, the case rested solely on the fact that the group advocates something that we all find is horrible. But that is fully protected.

  6. #6 Karen
    May 20, 2004

    You actually believe that NAMBLA doesn’t tell men how to lure children so they can have sex with them? And then tell them how to avoid getting caught? They may not tell someone how to kill a child but they certainly teach them how to rape one. Yes RAPE, a child can consent, or am I living in a hole somewhere and they changed the child rape laws?

  7. #7 Ed Brayton
    May 20, 2004

    You actually believe that NAMBLA doesn’t tell men how to lure children so they can have sex with them? And then tell them how to avoid getting caught? They may not tell someone how to kill a child but they certainly teach them how to rape one. Yes RAPE, a child can consent, or am I living in a hole somewhere and they changed the child rape laws?

    You’re conflating two different issues. Can children legally consent to sex? No, and I don’t believe those laws should be changed. But that has nothing to do with the question of whether they actually have material showing someone how to violate the law currently. The father’s attorney in the case in question had the right to subpeona NAMBLA materials, and did so, but they didn’t present anything in court that did anything like what you have alleged. If they had, they would have had a strong and legitimate case. The fact that they didn’t present any such materials obviously suggests that they don’t exist, especially given their subpeona power. If they had material showing them how to lure children and how to hide evidence, the plaintiff’s would most certainly have presented it and they would likely have won the case, and the ACLU would not have taken it on appeal.

  8. #8 Karen
    May 20, 2004

    Yeah I am sure people of NAMBLA were going to turn over their lovely pamplet on “The Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationships”, which the Curley’s attorney says he has a copy of.

    ACLU pics and chooses it’s cases and even if they come to defense of people such as Rush Limbaugh every now and again. They simply choose which group it deems should receive the benefits of the First Ammendment which means they are picking and choosing not because of the Constitution but because of their beliefs.

  9. #9 Rob Jagger
    May 20, 2004

    Karen while it is true that the ACLU picks and choses its cases. I would put forth the theory that they would have to based on economic realities. Arguing cases costs them money. So they can only handle so many cases at a time. They chose cases such as this one because it is a textbook case of protected speech and due to the inflammatory nature of the subject few people would step in and defend these people’s rights. If you want the ACLU to be able to work on more cases then I would suggest you give them your financial support and encourage others to do so as well.

  10. #10 Ed Brayton
    May 20, 2004

    Yeah I am sure people of NAMBLA were going to turn over their lovely pamplet on “The Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationships”, which the Curley’s attorney says he has a copy of.

    They don’t have to turn it over voluntarily, they can be ordered to turn over anything and everything they’ve put out. In fact, they can simply have their offices raided, hard drives taken, and so forth, if they are uncooperative. If the attorney really has such a pamphlet, why didn’t he enter it into evidence? Would it make sense that he has this incredibly damning piece of evidence that could be the key to his entire case, with who knows how much in damages…but he won’t show it to the court? That simply makes no sense. Attorneys claim to have things to the media all the time that they don’t really have. During the OJ trial, lots of trial balloons were floated to the press but never showed up in court. Why? Because they didn’t exist. They were trying to win the public relations battle by planting a seed that someone would believe. If they had it, they would have entered it into evidence and released it to the media. They wouldn’t just claim they have it.

    ACLU pics and chooses it’s cases and even if they come to defense of people such as Rush Limbaugh every now and again. They simply choose which group it deems should receive the benefits of the First Ammendment which means they are picking and choosing not because of the Constitution but because of their beliefs.

    Sorry, that’s utter nonsense. Do you really think that David Goldberger, the Jewish attorney who defended the Nazis in Skokie, just looked around at all the possible cases and thought, “Of all those groups, the Nazi’s should really receive the benefits of the first amendment”? Do you really think that the ACLU, an officially pro-choice organization, decided that Right to Life was the one group deserving of their representation in 1992 when they defended their right to protest at Clinton’s inauguration? If you do, then I really must wonder what color the sky is in your world.

    The ACLU has, thousands of times, come to the legal defense of organizations it finds repugnant. In the Skokie case, it cost them 1/3 of their membership, but they did it anyway. Because they were right. The legal principals at stake were far more important than which group it happened to be protecting at the moment. And that was the entire point of this essay, the substance of which you do not dispute. If NAMBLA loses that case on those grounds, the legal precedent will go on to damage anti-abortion protesters and churches and civil rights groups before long. Once the precedent is set whereby an organization that advocates changing the law can be held legally responsible for the actions of those who choose to break the law, there are no limits on what groups can be burned by the ensuing fire.

  11. #11 Lynnie
    May 20, 2004

    Ed, why do you even bother to respond to her ludicrous remarks? She should do her homework before she comes here and says such stupid things.

  12. #12 Ed Brayton
    May 24, 2004

    Oh, I bother to respond because I’m just not capable of letting nonsense go unchallenged, especially on my own page.

  13. #13 T.M. Wright
    June 16, 2004

    Lots of people were, and are, absolutely livid about the ACLU’s defense of NAMBLA: crimes involving sex are, in the eyes of most people, among the worst crimes committed, and crimes involving sex and children are the very worst. How in the name of all that’s holy, people ask, could the ACLU defend such crimes, and the criminals who commit them?

    Clearly, Ed has given us the facts of the case: clearly, the ACLU is defending only NAMBLA’s right to advocate changes in the law; the ACLU, itself, isn’t advocating such a change.

    And Karen–invest in a dictionary.

    T.M. Wright

  14. #14 Mike Egan
    February 19, 2005

    NO! Protecting children from harm, especially from a sexual/predator/terror group like NAMBLA is fundamental to true democracy in which the people must be protected from all harm.

    To use the “KKK” argument is weak because even the KKK has limits and are unable to practice the way they did 45-55 or 100 years ago!

  15. #15 Sal
    September 15, 2005

    SIMPLE GOSPEL PRESENTATION

    I am only the delivery boy; this is God’s wonderful message of the Gospel you are considering. I hope these next few moments looking at these truths will change your life for time and eternity.

    1. Admit your spiritual need. We are all sinners…people don’t always like that title. The one word that defines all sin is the Greek word “harmatia” which means “to miss the mark.” What is God’s mark? Jesus said, “Be perfect as My Father in heaven is perfect.” Unless a person is perfect, he has missed the mark; therefore, he is a sinner. Romans 3:23 states “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

    2. What is the result of sin? In Romans 6:23 we read “The wages of sin is death…” Every one of us has missed God’s mark. Every one of us falls short of being perfect. We are getting only what we deserve, and we are bringing judgment upon ourselves. One thing we need to remember is that God never sends anyone to hell. We send ourselves there by rejecting His truth.

    3. Since we can never measure up to God’s standard on our own, God has reached out to man. We cannot solve the problem of sin, but God, who is perfect, can and has. He has become a bridge for us. John 3:16-17 states “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” In Romans 5:8 we read, “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

    4. If a person acknowledges that he is a sinner, and he accepts the promise that Christ is the solution, he is at a crossroads. Either the person must reject God’s solution and accept the consequences, or he must accept Jesus Christ as his Savior. What must a person do to accept this gift? Simply receive it! Matthew 11:28-30 states “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

    5. His invitation is clear. We must come to Him. All that remains is a response. In Romans 6:23 we read “…the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” What do we have to do to receive that gift? Take it! Revelation 3:20 states “Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with me.” Jesus stands at the door of your heart and knocks, seeking entrance into your life. John 1:12 states “For as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the children of God.”

    If you would like to receive Jesus Christ into your heart and life right now, pray a prayer something like this from the sincerity of your heart…Dear Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner. I believe you died for my sins. Right now, I turn from my sins and open the door of my heart and life. I receive you as my personal Lord and Savior. Thank you for saving me. Amen.

    If you just prayed that prayer and really meant it, Jesus Christ has now taken residence in your heart! Not only that, but he has forgiven you of all your sin. The Bible tells us, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). God also promises, “As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.” (Psalms 103:12). Your decision to receive Christ also means that you are now going to Heaven one day. That’s a lot to be thankful for! You need to take some practical steps to grow strong spiritually: read the Bible, pray, and go to church.

    When considering a church to attend, it is important that the church reads from the scriptures of God’s Word (the Holy Bible). We do not lean on our own understanding, but God’s plan for our lives. Be certain that the church that you attend follows solid biblical principles. There are many churches today that are compromising the Word of God in an effort to offer a “feel good” ministry, so no one would be offended and to maintain church attendance. It is human nature to be attracted to the path of least resistance. If your are not being fed the word of God by a particular church, you need to find one that does.

    God bless you in your new walk…

  16. #16 Nate
    September 22, 2005

    I searched a bit to find something on the types, names and contents of NAMBLA pamphlets, which I was only able to find one. Although it is wierd that these people are so proud of thier beliefs but they are scared to publish thier beliefs on the internet. The one that I found will suffice for me to prove that NAMBLA supports and advocates breaking the law, not just “changing the law”
    NAMBLA’s pamphlet titled, ” “The Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships” tells men where to go to have sex with boys, when to leave America when one gets caught, and how to rip off credit card companies to finance thier escape. Let’s break that down.
    Where to go to have sex with boys…a felony no matter where you go in these great United States. Now I know it’s not a crime to tell someone where to go to commit a felony, but I’m not done yet.
    When to leave America after you get caught…telling these parasites when to leave after they get caught commiting a felony. Still not totally black and white illegal, but trust me the kicker is coming up.
    How to rip off credit card companies to finance thier escape…finally breaking the law, here is fraud, but not only is this fraud it is a huge “sadwich” of Aiding and Abetting the fraud is just the special sauce.
    Now simply publishing this crap is against the law, there is no gray area, these people are Jackels, the ACLU is the cancer that is rotting away at our country, and the liberals who support and defend them are guilty by association.
    If only I had the power to judge these skidmarks I would, and harshly. Forutnately for good people (unfortunately for the evil ones) I can’t, but there is one who can and who will, and he set up a group in hell called IEDWLTHSWPTWDT ( Incredibly Endowed Demons Who Love To Have Sex With Pedophiles and Those Who Defend Them) and they are just salivating waiting for that Judgement Day. Repent you sinners, once you die no amount of prayer can help you.

    Nate Gray

  17. #17 Ed Brayton
    September 22, 2005

    Nate-

    You’re missing the point of the ACLU’s defense of NAMBLA completely. They aren’t defending NAMBLA’s advocacy of breaking the law, they are defending the legal principle of specific responsibility – the responsibility for illegal acts rests with the person who commits the crime, not with someone else who advocates committing that crime. Just as you do not bring up the editors of High Times magazine on charges because a person gets caught with possession of pot, or why you don’t arrest someone who says it’s okay to kill abortion doctors when someone else kills an abortion doctor. You arrest and charge the person who committed the crime, not someone else for advocating it. I think it’s perfectly okay for someone to break the law by not wearing their seat belt, or by smoking pot if they want to. I’ve said so many times. That doesn’t mean that I get ticketed when someone else gets caught doing those things. If I did those things, I’d get ticketed.

    There is such a crime as aiding and abetting, and it’s possible that someone could make a case against NAMBLA for that if your portrayal of what is in that pamphlet is accurate. But the case in which the ACLU is involved is not a criminal case for aiding and abetting, it is a civil case which seeks to hold them financially responsible for a specific crime for which the people who actually did the crime are already in prison. It’s quite a different case to prove that they are responsible for a specific crime when the people who did the crime are already imprisoned and there is no evidence that they directly aided and abetted that crime.

  18. #18 mBasil
    October 9, 2005

    I think the larger point of all of this is that the Marxist scumbags at the ACLU have many, many cases they could pursue yet they chose this one.

    Legal issue or not, a group that advocates raping children should be hung out to dry. Let NAMBLA fend for itself. The ACLU didn’t have to take this case. There would be no slippery slope on this one and everybody knows it.

    The ACLU made a bad decision to take this case.

  19. #19 Ed Brayton
    October 9, 2005

    mBasil:

    I think I’ll use this comment to play a little game. The game is called “Count the Logical Fallacies.” Let’s begin.

    I think the larger point of all of this is that the Marxist scumbags at the ACLU have many, many cases they could pursue yet they chose this one.

    I count two here. The first one is called “poisoning the well”. Rather than engage the argument that either I or the ACLU has made for their position in this case, you call them outlandish names in order to make people think that they’re bad people. But the validity of their position in this case is not dependent upon whether they are or are not “Marxist scumbags”. And since I’m the one that wrote this post defending their policy and I, as a libertarian, am the furthest thing from a Marxist, it’s completely irrelevant.

    The second is what I’ll call the “desperate speeders fallacy”, because it’s the kind of thing that speeders say when they’re given a ticket – “The police have murderers and rapists out there to get and they’re spending their time writing me up for going 10 over.” But in this case, it’s even more wrong because it doesn’t deal with the central argument it intends to respond to, which is that the legal principle at stake is an extremely important one regardless of whether the particular group involved is vile or not. If that legal principle could be used to infringe on the liberties of less vile groups, then the defense is warranted.

    Legal issue or not, a group that advocates raping children should be hung out to dry. Let NAMBLA fend for itself. The ACLU didn’t have to take this case.

    This is called a “red herring”. The ACLU is not defending NAMBLA, they are defending the legal principle. The fact that it involves NAMBLA is entirely incidental, just like they will defend free speech rights whether it involves a Christian minister preaching on the street, a satanist on a college quad, or the KKK. In all three of those situations, what they were defending was free speech, not the specific group. The same is true in this case.

    There would be no slippery slope on this one and everybody knows it.

    This is commonly called the “fifteen million frenchman” fallacy. You don’t attempt to make a logical argument here, you just claim that “everybody knows it”. But that simply isn’t true. If you don’t think that legal precedents can and are turned around and used against unintended groups, I would suggest that you are quite ignorant of history. And if you don’t think this precedent would be used specifically against anti-abortion groups in lawsuits against them when an abortion doctor is killed, you should take a look at the lawsuits that have already been filed using the RICO statute against anti-abortion groups. Once the legal precedent is established, there is no way of preventing it from being used against other groups.

    Come back when you have logical arguments to make rather than just inflammatory rhetoric.

  20. #20 mykdavies
    October 13, 2005

    Good use of ‘logical fallacies’ to cut through the rhetoric!

    I found this site through a Google search for the ACLU/NAMBLA case, and I’m very impressed by the clarity of your defence of this case.

    What I don’t understand though, is what’s happening in the case itself — it seems to have been hanging around since 2000 or so, but I’m having trouble finding a good summary and timeline — do you have any pointers for me?

  21. #21 Ed Brayton
    October 13, 2005

    mykdavies wrote:

    What I don’t understand though, is what’s happening in the case itself — it seems to have been hanging around since 2000 or so, but I’m having trouble finding a good summary and timeline — do you have any pointers for me?

    Honestly, I haven’t kept up with it at all. I have no idea what’s going on with it. Sorry.

  22. #22 RhymeCon
    March 14, 2006

    Not being an attorney I don’t have an opinion on the legal issues. But if it’s true they worked pro bono for NAMBLA but not for OPPOSING (in other cases) the Boy Scouts, then ACLU has shown their true colors and are, as charged, scumbags.

  23. #23 V
    September 2, 2006

    I wonder if the ACLU would defend me if I made a pamphlet called “TIME TO KILL: A Users Guide to how to plan an attack on there headquarters, now with new colored maps to prominent ACLU members homes!” Would that be any different than “Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationships”. That clearly shows NAMBLA’s conviction to molesting children. The ACLU’s reasoning on this is wrong. Does anyone here believe that even one of NAMBLA’s members isn’t a pedophile or worse?

    Anyone on this earth whether they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Agnostic would find what NAMBLA does deplorable evil. In some instances there is an absolute right and wrong, and this is one of them. Some feel that laws are more important than human lives. I pity people who are so uncaring for the most innocent among us. These absolutist views have blinded its members. These are human beings we are talking about not Nonconceptual ideas. They are so blind to see that they are aiding an organization to exist, an organization whose members continually seek out to rape and murder young boys and girls. Does anyone believe that the Founders would agree?

    What if I formed an organization called oh I don’t know NAAKA (North American ACLU kill association” in which we advocated the changing of laws to kill ACLU lawyers. Then one of our members after reading “”Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Safe in ACLU/killing Relationships” actually killed an ACLU member. But we were just advocating the change of the laws…now you can see how ridiculous this all is. I don’t think the ACLU would defend us.

    The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes’ possession, which contained ”photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys, and stories about boys being molested”, are protected speech under the Constitution. You know just what the Framers had in mind. The material does not ”urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,” ACLU attorneys wrote.
    NAMBLA’s members act as if they are a legitimate organization but there not.
    The only way they derive pleasure is from the destruction of the most innocent among us, our children, our light.

    Their wolves in the skin of sheep they’ve brought about there own hell and they will take you with them.

  24. #24 Ed Brayton
    September 2, 2006

    V-

    You’re conflating two different issues. Whether NAMBLA should be allowed to put out material like that is a separate question from whether that material makes them legally liable for the actions of someone who reads them. I agree with you that such material is vile and disgusting. But that doesn’t mean that they should be legally liable for what someone else does. The person who committed the crime is liable for their own actions. They weren’t children doing what they were told, they were adults who made their own choices. And they were convicted (thank goodness) and I hope they never get out of prison. But holding someone else responsible for their actions is still constitutionally dubious. That does not mean, however, that such material may well be illegal under a different statute.