Police blotter: Open Wi-Fi blamed in child porn case

TalkBack 34 of 34:: « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Here's the problem...: In my life since the mid 70's I have been accutely aware of a multitude of groups
rallied under the save the children banner, progressively lobbying and successively
seeing increasingly extreem, and constitutionally questionable laws, on to the
books.
Now, while the abuse of children is, undeniably a serious issue warrenting action...
The best the government has been able to do is give us a few people, mostly men,
viewing or perhaps collecting, images in the privacy of their own homes. Which
prior to 1976 was not even a crime. I agree with the assertion that the viewing of
the images being a furtherence of the abuse, is a crock.
Photographing a murder and viewing or sharing the images is not tantimount to
recommiting the murder, which by they way is something you can do all day and
night without fear of retribution.
These images are indeed evidence in a crime. However it is a waste of taxpayer
money, (namely my money since I'm a taxpayer.) to bother with the meaningless
little viewers, or small time traders. If you want to impress me, bring me the head
of the creator. I couldn't care less what people masturbate too in privacy.
Further more my understanding is that in a vast number of the cases the images
come out of what was the east block, and up until recently, Japan or other parts of
asia. Places where the laws were at the time or are now, who knows I dont keep up
on international law, different in respect to images of minors.
Now there are those that would suggest demand drives creation... Bullocks. How
many of you have filmed yourselves with your significant other? What demand
based motivation did you have exactly? Truthfully, whether on film or not, the
existence of persons wishing to view said material has little if any bearing on the
willingness of some people to bring harm to children. The only real effect I can see
that filming the abuse has on the crime, it makes it easier to prosecute, so umm,
yay?
In one of the replies to this story some one suggested that the first amendment
should protect viewing of these images. While a shaky arguement, I suggest that
protection of the first amendment from abuse by radicals, requires protecting
even highly offensive material, enter the rose red trial. If you dont know about it,
google it.
What worries me is 'next' year. See this year it is pictures. But they are also trying
to prosicute 'virtual' cp. For instance, child avitars on Second Life from Linden
Labs. Are ADULT people roleplaying children in sexual conduct? Yeah thats what I
hear, dont know don't play the game. Is it offensive? Well thats a matter of opinion
but kudos to Linden for not folding at the first signs of preassure over it.
How about Nifty? The largest repository of Gay erotica on the net. It has specific
catagories for adult child and adult teen stories. As well as other acts which are
illegal in most jurisdictions. What happens when the law now extends, thanks to
the rose red case, to allow the government to come after persons reading and or
creating these stories.
And that is the crux of the problem. Where does it stop? 'Well it's just pedophiles.'
Ok yeah but what about when it's lesbians, couples with more than ten years
between them, people who have more than one partner a year, etc. etc. I'm sure in
1975 the pedophiles thought, 'it'll never pass'. But it did.
I always quote the german priest... or more accurately, misquote him.
When they came for the Jews I did not speak up, I am not a jew...
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up.

Thats the rub on free speech. It's not a matter of protecting 'good' speech. It's a
matter or protecting the most vile, hateful, disgusting, offensive, inhuman speech.
And dont say, "Well thats different, in the stories no one was harmed." Like I said
before they are already going after Rose Red, who by the way falls in to the vile,
disgusting, hateful, inhuman catagory. They are also working hard to outlaw
'virtual' kiddie porn. Both are examples of no child being harmed in the making of
this .
Pedophiles are the pariahs of the past 30 years. Before that it was blacks,
homosexuals have had their moments of "Society is going to hell in a handbasket
and the **** packed the picknic."
Honestly I'm not here to protect pedophiles rights to abuse or harm kids. I'm
'whiping the horse on the lets get the child abusers' band wagon. However I am
speaking out in favor of my own rights, my right to privacy >sic< (can we say
illusion) and my right not to roll over and give up my rights because I have
nothing to hide. I'm here to protect my right to own 'The Blue Lagoon' without fear
of being on some list. Or the fear it'll fall under the illegal catagory because of the
strong sexual (and incestuous) overtones coupled with the nudity of children. I
dont actually own the movie but it was the first thing that came to mind.
My point, and I do have one. Is that they are continuing to move the line back.
They are consitantly getting more and more radical with what they define as
criminal. Some one some where needs to put a foot down and say stop. Some one
has to realize that with great freedom comes the responsibility of taking the good
with the bad. For instance, it's good that I can say these things. However it is bad
that I can say these things. I'll let you decide how that applies.; Posted by: backwards Posted on: 10/20/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use