Quick response from Oyez:
The shorter version is that the Court said that this particular manner of speech was within constitutional bounds.
STAGE 2, this thread is not about NAMBLA. Nor is it about free speech per se. It is about actions and relevancy of the ACLU. Like them or not, they have advocated many issues that pertain to your everyday life:
1964: In Escobedo v. Illinois, raised the question of exactly when the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel began. The court held that suspects had a right to an attorney when in custody and when the questioning became accusatory. The ruling brought the "standards of due process into the previously hidden world of the police station."
1966: Miranda v. Arizona. The ACLU stated that a "suspect in custody had not only a right to a lawyer but also a more fundamental right not to incriminate himself or herself." The Supreme Court's decision enunciated the now-famous Miranda warning. Police were required to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.
1969: In Tinker v. Des Moines School District, opened up a new body of constitutional law involving the rights of students. The ACLU represented three students who wore a black armband to school to protest the war in Vietnam. The Supreme Court held that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
1969: In Street v. New York, the Supreme Court held that flag burning was protected symbolic speech, and that Street, who was represented by the NYCLU, "did not urge anyone to do anything unlawful" but was engaged in "excited public advocacy."
note bene: It is precisely because of Judicial activism (see Griswald (1965) and Roe (1973) - also ACLU cases) That the theory of Judicial restraint, via Original Intent came into being. This was also the time that the ACLU proposed the "living document" theory.
1971: Times v. United States, the Supreme Court allowed the papers to continue publishing their stories [the Pentagon Papers], holding that "the dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the wide-spread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information."
1973: In Frontiero v. Richardson, the Supreme Court ended a U.S. military policy that gave the husbands of servicewomen an automatic dependency, whereas the wives of servicemen had to meet a dependency test.
1975: In Goss v. Lopez, held that students had a right to oral or written notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence against them, and an opportunity to rebut the charges. Further, students had a "legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause."
1975: In O'Connor v. Donaldson, Donaldson had been institutionalized for fifteen years. "He was not dangerous and had received no medical treatment." The Supreme Court ordered his release and "awarded him $20,000 in damages, establishing the principle that nondangerous persons could not be confined against their will."
Now, having posted everything I have posted on the ACLU, I will give a quick opinion: I don't like them. But, and this is important, this is not to say they haven't made significant contributions to our rights. One can recognize this and even applaud their actions, without agreeing to their positions on everything they do.
So the Court voided Ohio's Crime Syndication law. Branden got a pass!
The shorter version is that the Court said that this particular manner of speech was within constitutional bounds.
STAGE 2, this thread is not about NAMBLA. Nor is it about free speech per se. It is about actions and relevancy of the ACLU. Like them or not, they have advocated many issues that pertain to your everyday life:
1964: In Escobedo v. Illinois, raised the question of exactly when the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel began. The court held that suspects had a right to an attorney when in custody and when the questioning became accusatory. The ruling brought the "standards of due process into the previously hidden world of the police station."
1966: Miranda v. Arizona. The ACLU stated that a "suspect in custody had not only a right to a lawyer but also a more fundamental right not to incriminate himself or herself." The Supreme Court's decision enunciated the now-famous Miranda warning. Police were required to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.
1969: In Tinker v. Des Moines School District, opened up a new body of constitutional law involving the rights of students. The ACLU represented three students who wore a black armband to school to protest the war in Vietnam. The Supreme Court held that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
1969: In Street v. New York, the Supreme Court held that flag burning was protected symbolic speech, and that Street, who was represented by the NYCLU, "did not urge anyone to do anything unlawful" but was engaged in "excited public advocacy."
note bene: It is precisely because of Judicial activism (see Griswald (1965) and Roe (1973) - also ACLU cases) That the theory of Judicial restraint, via Original Intent came into being. This was also the time that the ACLU proposed the "living document" theory.
1971: Times v. United States, the Supreme Court allowed the papers to continue publishing their stories [the Pentagon Papers], holding that "the dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the wide-spread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information."
1973: In Frontiero v. Richardson, the Supreme Court ended a U.S. military policy that gave the husbands of servicewomen an automatic dependency, whereas the wives of servicemen had to meet a dependency test.
1975: In Goss v. Lopez, held that students had a right to oral or written notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence against them, and an opportunity to rebut the charges. Further, students had a "legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause."
1975: In O'Connor v. Donaldson, Donaldson had been institutionalized for fifteen years. "He was not dangerous and had received no medical treatment." The Supreme Court ordered his release and "awarded him $20,000 in damages, establishing the principle that nondangerous persons could not be confined against their will."
Now, having posted everything I have posted on the ACLU, I will give a quick opinion: I don't like them. But, and this is important, this is not to say they haven't made significant contributions to our rights. One can recognize this and even applaud their actions, without agreeing to their positions on everything they do.
..I said not ALL Christian leaders did go along..and I was including those in German occupied territories..and no, the Nazis pretended toward christian beliefs but all along was bent towards unmistakable paganism....and I'm going back to the mid 30s when the party seized full power of the state, not just during the war...of the rest, they sat silently by or were fully in approval...