why would an organization defend nambla, a pedophile group against the family of a murdered10 year old boy?
typical emotional rhetoric that obfusciates the facts.
the aclu has always said every group - even nambla - have a right to speak and have representation in court. the aclu doesn't defend "nambla" - only their "rights" as guaranteed by the constitution.
even the most heinous murderer or rapist gets to have medical treatment and his/her day in court - as it should be.
in 1982, the aclu, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the supreme court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography."
the case is...: new york vs ferber, 458 u.s. 747 [color=#6699cc]it can be found here
that isn't a first amendment issue - that is a first amendment as it applies through the fourteenth amendment issue.
not the same thing. that ruling merely states that individual states have the right to impose their own standards on what they feel is acceptable and that this right is not trumped by the 14th amendment to the us constitution.
nothing more. nothing less.