ACLU and NAMBLA God Bless ACLU?

Question

Here is a simplified version of what I understand. I will not be offended by corrections

ACLU didn't support NAMBLA in any criminal proceedings, it filed a friend of the court to argue against one specific constitutional item. A boy-lover murdered a boy and NAMBLA's only connection was the child molester had been to their website and downloaded some of their papers. As much as that disgusts us it's part of living in a free country. If they can't talk about loving boys you can't talk about loving Jesus. The law doesn't know the difference.

There was no one to sue for damages so lawyers being what they are searched for someone they could sue. The found NAMBLA Except NAMBLA didn't have anything. So the lawyers charged all the board members were guilty of the boys murder and they should be allowed to sue for damages (sue each board member)

Up to this point Board members had always been protected from lawsuits - this would change America in a bad way the fact the courts let it proceed was troubling, because this is how you set new precedents. If your daughter gets 'brainwashed" by church just sue the board members, if you husband dies after following the advice of the American Heart Association, sue the board members etc etc. ACLU did us all a huge favor and had to take the heat of assisting this vile group.

Who else would have protected your church board members if not the ACLU were any of these new right wing legal association willing to jump in for NAMBLA?

Answer 1

The ACLU is a ridiculous organization dedicated to complicating the lives of the people they feel owe them something.

Answer 2

well, what you are talking about is a standard corporate liability issue, called "piercing the veil".

you only frame it with a controversial group, but the issue itself is not controversial - I am sure it is taught in any basic business class in any community college where incorporation of small businesses is covered.

without a link to an actual citation of the case you discuss, and given the potential for emotions on the groups allegedly involved, I will leave it at that.

but basically, the matter is routine routine routine. probably covered every day in every small claims court, only comes up here (if the case is real) because someone with deep pockets was looking for notoriety, and they found some attorneys willing to make their deep pockets more then a little shallower.