[Cool Teen Sites]
Volume 11, Issue 24. October 20, 2000
Speaking of
by Wendy Kaminer
PERMANENT ARCHIVE TO PREVENT LOSS OF ARTICLE
From: (http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/24/kaminer-w.html)
Three years ago, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley was
abducted, sexually assaulted, and murdered by two men, one of whom was
allegedly a member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association
(NAMBLA), founded in 1978. Both of his assailants, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore
Sicari, are now serving life sentences for murder. They have also been found liable
for Jeffrey's wrongful death in a civil suit that ended in a symbolic $328 million
damage award to the Curley family. But according to Jeffrey's parents, Robert and
Barbara Curley, Jaynes and Sicari were not solely responsible for their son's
murder. They blame it also on NAMBLA and have filed a $200-million
wrongful-death suit in federal court against the group, seven of its alleged members,
and its Internet service provider.
Some have compared this case to the successful 1999 lawsuit against anti-abortion
activists who maintained an alleged "hit list" of abortion providers, or to
recent
lawsuits against white supremacist groups, like those filed by the Southern Poverty
Law Center against the Klan. These cases, however, involved much more than
claims about offensive or allegedly inflammatory rhetoric. The case against
anti-abortion activists was essentially about stalking: The defendants were found
liable for intentionally threatening and terrorizing abortion providers. The Klan cases
involved claims that Klan members were involved in violence. Even so, these
lawsuits trouble many free-speech advocates.
The case against NAMBLA is even more tenuous and mostly reflects abhorrence of
its ideology. Unpopular speech, especially unpopular speech about sex, is regularly
blamed for sexual violence and "deviance." Pornography causes rape, according to
antiporn feminists. Sex education causes teen pregnancy, according to their
counterparts on the right. NAMBLA's advocacy of "man-boy love" causes
homosexuality and violent predatory behavior, according to the Curleys' lawsuit.
"Prior to joining NAMBLA, Charles Jaynes was heterosexual," their complaint
alleges implausibly. Because he was exposed to NAMBLA's propaganda, Jaynes
"became obsessed with having sex with and raping young male children." The
apparent theory of the lawsuit is that Jeffrey Curley would be alive today if only
NAMBLA did not exist. The complaint claims that "immediately prior" to the
murder, "Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's Web site at the Boston Public
Library."
The absurdity of these claims makes it difficult to take them seriously. But this
lawsuit has already had serious chilling effects on speech. NAMBLA's Web site was
shut down after the suit was filed, although, as far as I can tell, it contained clearly
protected speech and included no endorsements of violence. I can't swear that I've
seen the complete Web site, but viewing copies of what purportedly appeared on
the Internet at the time of the Curley murder, I found no incitement to violence and
abuse, no evidence of a conspiracy to rape and murder young boys, and not even
any erotica. Mostly the site consisted of traditional political advocacy.
NAMBLA strongly opposes age-of-consent laws in the belief that they are
arbitrary, simplistic, and a violation of the rights of minors as well as adults. It
expressly condemns "sexual abuse and all forms of coercion," believes only in
"mutually consensual relationships" between men and boys, and stresses that it
"does
not provide encouragement, referrals, or assistance for people seeking sexual
contact." The Web site included the sayings of respectable writers and academics
(Oscar Wilde, Allen Ginsberg, Dudley Clendinen, and John Money), a rather dry
discussion of "positive and beneficial experiences" between adults and minors,
and a
list of journal articles on sexuality as well as some sophomoric poetry. Maybe some
people found this titillating, but all in all, the NAMBLA Web site seemed a lot less
incendiary than the Bible.
NAMBLA's bulletin is more likely to offend: The issue I've seen included a story
about man-boy sex that could qualify as soft-core porn--but nothing sanctioning,
much less encouraging, violence and abuse. Of course, some may believe that any
erotica involving minors is an invitation to abuse, or statutory rape, at least. But if
stories involving sexually active minors were not protected by the First Amendment,
Lolita would be illegal (along with numerous TV shows and movies). In fact,
Nabokov had predictable trouble finding a publisher for his controversial book; but
even if Lolita were construed as an endorsement of statutory rape, it would remain
protected speech. For speech to be prohibited, it must have a clear, direct,
immediate, causal relationship to violence or other unlawful activities. Mere
advocacy of violence is legal; only incitement to violence--intentionally provocative
speech that is likely to result in immediate unlawful action--can be prohibited.
Still, the Curley lawsuit is hard for civil libertarians to ignore. Jeffrey Curley's
murder
was horrible and readily exploited by advocates of repressive legislation. (It nearly
brought the death penalty back to Massachusetts.) The civil suit against NAMBLA,
aimed at censoring unpopular speech about sexuality, reflects widespread biases
about a supposed link between homosexuality and pedophilia--a link denied by such
mainstream organizations as the American Medical Association and the American
Psychological Association. (Children have more to fear from heterosexual predators
within their extended families.)
But for many people, facts about child abuse are less compelling than their visceral
reaction to NAMBLA's support for adult-child sexual relationships. NAMBLA is
highly vulnerable (and the Curleys' lawyer, Lawrence Frisoli, reportedly plans to
demand its membership list during pretrial discovery). Virtually no group of people is
more unpopular; even some attorneys generally sympathetic to First Amendment
claims have shied away from any association with NAMBLA; the organization is
now represented by the Massachusetts ACLU.
NAMBLA has, however, found one unlikely defender--Jeffrey Curley's father, a
primary plaintiff in the case. Robert Curley was previously represented by attorney
Harvey Silverglate, a Massachusetts ACLU board member and First Amendment
absolutist, in a dispute with the City of Cambridge over mandatory diversity training.
He is surprisingly sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit: "I really do
have a lot of respect for them," Curley told The Boston Globe. "They are very
consistent in who they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have
over the years. They have a lot of courage."
It's too bad that courage is required to defend this case, when a simple appreciation
of freedom of thought and expression should do. Unfortunately, the fundamental
principle underlying the First Amendment--the protection of "offensive,"
unpopular
speech--is not widely embraced. Speech with much more artistic value than anything
found on the NAMBLA Web site is regularly banned in our nation's schools.
Recently, a high school teacher in Jacksonville, Florida, was prohibited from
introducing his students to Allen Ginsberg's groundbreaking poem "Howl."
Considering current demands for censorship--of video games, rap music, and other
material that supposedly corrupts America's youth--it wouldn't be hard to garner
support for banning the advocacy of man-boy sexual relationships.
The notion that pubescent children could enter into consensual, mutually beneficial
sexual relationships with adults seems absurd to me, but so do a lot of ideas I don't
share--like a belief in reincarnation, the Resurrection, creationism, or the spiritual
wisdom of Oprah. If only sensible speech were protected by the First Amendment,
we'd live in a very quiet nation indeed. ¤
Wendy Kaminer
Speaking of Man-Boy Love
To the Editors:
After reading Wendy Kaminer's "Speaking of 'Man-Boy Love,'" [November 20, 2000],
I wondered if she would have written
a similar defense of a group that advocated decriminalizing rape, gay bashing, or wife
beating. The National Man/Boy Love
Association (NAMBLA) is not an avant-garde artist like Vladimir Nabokov or Allen Ginsburg.
It is a political advocacy group
that works to normalize and decriminalize sexual predation.
The fact that NAMBLA does not explicitly encourage violence or coercion is not the point.
A sexual relationship between an
adult and a child is inherently coercive, because the child lacks the maturity to consent
to a sexual relationship.
The value-neutral defense of First Amendment absolutism begs the question, Why is speech
worth protecting at all? If we
cannot "prove" that the advocacy of child abuse degrades our social mores and
weakens taboos that might otherwise restrain
sick individuals, neither can we "prove" that controversial works of high art
enrich the human spirit or provide any net gain to
society that outweighs the offense they may give. By scoffing at the notion that there
could be a link between NAMBLA and
pedophilia, Kaminer trivializes all speech.
Kaminer writes: "The notion that pubescent children could enter into consensual,
mutually beneficial sexual relationships with
adults seems absurd to me, but so do a lot of ideas I don't share--like a belief in
reincarnation [or] the Resurrection." Leaving
aside how insulting it is to compare advocacy of sex crimes to a belief in the Gospel,
there is a crucial difference. Reasonable
people could disagree on matters of religion. But a society that looks at child abuse and
says "Chacun à son gout" is not
tolerant. It is callous.
Jendi Reiter, Esq.
New York, NY
Wendy Kaminer Responds:
Of course I would defend the right to advocate decriminalization of rape, wife beating, or
gay bashing. I defend the right to
advocate anything, because freedom of speech depends on our willingness to distinguish
between mere advocacy and actual
incitement to violence.
But I've seen no evidence that NAMBLA advocates child abuse. The plaintiffs in the Jeffrey
Curley case have been unable to
identify any statements made by NAMBLA that allegedly led to Curley's murder. As
far as I can tell, the group argues against
violence or coercion in sexual relationships but argues for the decriminalization of
statutory rape, in the belief that
age-of-consent laws are intolerably arbitrary. I think statutory rape laws are
necessary, because conferring upon minors a right to consent to sex holds great potential
for abuse. I imagine that a lot of 15-year-olds today are engaging in consensual sex (as
they did when I was a teenager). Statutory rape laws are sometimes unjustly applied: An
18-year-old boy who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend can be prosecuted for
statutory rape and end up in a sex offender registry for the rest of his life. I suspect
if NAMBLA were a group of heterosexuals advocating the repeal or reform of statutory rape
laws, it would not be so
universally condemned.
Finally, I did not compare religion to child abuse. I was making the point that our own
individual views about the merits or
dangers of any idea (or the collective view of the majority) should not determine its
legality. (If we did suppress ideas because
of their suspected link to violence, I could make a case for suppressing various religious
beliefs.)
"Every idea is an incitement," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed;
if you assume power to suppress one idea because it might inspire people to action, you
assume power to suppress all ideas. And I prefer people armed with arguments to people
armed with guns.