Curley v. NAMBLA

Curley v. NAMBLA was a wrongful death lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2000, by Barbara and Robert Curley against the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represented NAMBLA and was successful in getting the suit dismissed.^[1] The Curleys continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members and NAMBLA Steering Committee members.^[2][3] The Curleys dropped the lawsuit in 2008 because the plaintiffs had only one witness prepared to testify that NAMBLA somehow incited one of the convicted criminals but a judge ruled the witness was not competent to testify.^[4]

According to columnist Wendy Kaminer, the case highlighted censorship of unpopular speech about sexuality and the "widespread biases about a supposed link between homosexuality and pedophilia" as children are more likely to be preyed upon by heterosexuals in their extended families.^[5][6] The case heightened the gay communities disassociation with NAMBLA and even appearances of supporting pederasty (attraction to adolescents after they enter puberty) and pedophilia (attraction to prepubescent children), a division that was even present in NAMBLA as to their public image and publication(s) content.^[7] The case also nearly brought the death penalty back to Massachusetts.^[8]

Background

Barbara and Robert Curley's 10-year-old son Jeffrey was the victim of a 1997 kidnap, rape and murder by two men, Salvatore Sicari, twenty-one, and Charlie Jaynes, twenty-two.^[9] Jeffrey was a latchkey child and knew Sicari who lived only a block away, the two men befriended Jeffrey taking him on car rides to dinners.^[10] They offered to replace his recently stolen bicycle with a new one for sex but the boy refused and Jaynes killed Jeffrey in the car's backseat.^[11] Sicari confessed to his part in the murder but insisted Jaynes was the killer, NAMBLA literature and a membership card was also found in the backseat of the car and in Jaynes' apartment.^[12][13] Both were charged and found guilty of child molestation, kidnapping and murder.^[14]

Lawsuit

According to the Curleys' $200 million suit, NAMBLA's "adult-child sexual relationship" propaganda, including Jaynes' viewing the group's website, caused the violent predatory behavior and urge to have sex with and rape young male children.^[15][16] Proving the incitement is difficult given the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution standards that govern words in any medium.^[17] At the time the Internet was much less popular so the point rested on the courts viewing the Internet as such a different media as to warrant a different legal standard.^[18] Despite claims, the website had no erotica, conspiracies to rape or incitements to violence.^[19] In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the US Supreme Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In September 2001 summary judgment was declined because Brandenburg doctrine "does not foreclose liability 'on any set of facts that might be shown'" as to incitement just by NAMBLA's publications, meetings and website.^[20] The Curleys ultimately dropped the lawsuit in 2008 because they only had one witness prepared to testify that NAMBLA "somehow spurred" Jaynes to commit crimes but a judge ruled the witness was not competent to testify.^[21]

References

1. ^ Deroy Murdock on ACLU & NAMBLA on National Review Online
2. ^ US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-10956-GAO BARBARA CURLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION, et.al., Defendants, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS March 31, 2003 [1]
3. ^ Plaintiffs' amended complaint and jury demand, May 16, 2000.
4. ^ Saltzman, Jonathan. Curley family drops case against NAMBLA, The Boston Globe, April 23, 2008
5. ^ Wendy Kaminer, pages 79-80.
6. ^ "Rights and Wrongs; Uncommon Ground; Out of Print" CNN transcript, air date January 7, 2001.
7. ^ Benoit Denizet-Lewis, pages 164-175.
8. ^ Wendy Kaminer, pages 79-80.
9. ^ Louis B. Schlesinger, page 26.
10. ^ "Rights and Wrongs; Uncommon Ground; Out of Print" CNN transcript, air date January 7, 2001
11. ^ "Rights and Wrongs; Uncommon Ground; Out of Print" CNN transcript, air date January 7, 2001
12. ^ Louis B. Schlesinger, page 26.
13. ^ "Rights and Wrongs; Uncommon Ground; Out of Print" CNN transcript, air date January 7, 2001
14. ^ Jay Robert Nash, page 732.
15. ^ Wendy Kaminer, pages 77-79.
16. ^ "Rights and Wrongs; Uncommon Ground; Out of Print" CNN transcript, air date January 7, 2001
17. ^ Robert M. O'Neil, page 73.
18. ^ Robert M. O'Neil, page 73.
19. ^ Wendy Kaminer, page 78.
20. ^ E. Gabriel Perle, page 8-13 (2008 Supplement)
21. ^ Saltzman, Jonathan. Curley family drops case against NAMBLA, The Boston Globe, April 23, 2008

• Benoit Denizet-Lewis, American Voyeur: Dispatches from the Far Reaches of Modern Life[2] - Simon and Schuster, 2010.
• E. Gabriel Perle, , Mark A. Fischer, John Taylor Williams, Perle & Williams on publishing law[3] - Aspen Publishers Online, 1999.
• Jay Robert Nash, The Great Pictorial History of World Crime[4] - Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
• Louis B. Schlesinger, Serial offenders: current thought, recent findings[5] - CRC Press, 2000.
• Robert M. O'Neil, The First Amendment and civil liability[6] - Indiana University Press, 2001.
• Wendy Kaminer, Free for all: defending liberty in America today[7] - Beacon Press, 2002.