Just a couple of quick points after I register my complete disgust with NAMBLA.
First point is that advocating illegal activities and lawbreaking is different than advocating for a good-faith change in the law. Theoretically, almost all free-speech justifications that I studied would not allow for the advocacy of illegal activities under the umbrella of protected speech. I believe this is the justification for making “conspiracy” a crime in and of itself.
I could be wrong on this, as keeping down my nutrition kept me from looking into it, but I thought NAMBLA was devoted to pursuing such man/boy relationships.
Now, as to the ACLU, they’ve done a lot of important stuff in the past. However, of late they have been noticably absent (or worse) from the debate over certain campus harassment and hate-speech codes. It seems to me that if they really cared so much about freedom of expression, they should fight in the utmost to protect actual debates about ideas in the places that are supposedly the prototype for the “marketplace of ideas.” Just my $0.02.