reggie gets it right... almost

[Guest jizzdepapi]

thought i'd start a new flame-free thread on this one.

 

reggie recently shared a story about a man who had never had any sexual contact with children but because writings about sexual fantasies involving a child/children were discovered on his computer he was prosecuted.

 

reggie asked if i agreed that this was censhorship, not prosecution of a crime.

 

he's right; it's not a crime, it's censorship. he made me worry about it because i, like many posters, are concerned about sexual abuse and violence directed against children in our society.

 

a common reaction to a situation like the one stated above might be to condone the actions of law enforcement. but, damn that John Ashcroft; impinging on civil liberties—even in the face of "fake" wars on terrorism (ah, the flaming starts) and wars on child-molesters—is always wrong.

 

so, i thought about this conundrum a lot. to boot, several posters also brought up the age of children as a signifcant factor. and that brought to mind something that's been brewing in my noggin for quite a while.

 

think about how our criminal justice(?) system handles killing. perpetrators are charged with crimes varying in severity according to intent and other factors—from negligent homicide to manslaughter in several degrees to murder in several degrees. in some states, a suspect can additionally be charged with a hate crime or conspiracy.

so let's use the same sort of system for determining culpability of "child-molesters." the goal, in my mind anyway, is to protect children and society from sexual violence but not to prosecute individuals who haven't harmed and aren't about to harm children.

it's not my business—or the government's—to examine or censor people's sex fantasies or lives unless such behavior results in the commission of a crime. i would be wary of a person who had written some seemingly innocent fantasies involving children and might think he/she was likely to molest a child in the future but i don't really know that. if such fantasies become evident in the investigation of a crime i think they should be treated as only circumstantial evidence of little significance; by themselves, they shouldn’t lead to prosecution as they aren’t criminal. at the same time, as these kinds of fantasies—with or without kiddie porn—might often lead to discovery of a suspect in an actual crime of violence or molestation, they should be treated seriously and warrant further investigation.

there’s obviously a big difference between having sex with a six-month child or one ten-years-old or sixteen-years-old. that’s where i think there should be a variety of charges employed by law enforcement. if there’s an iron-clad case against an infant or a young child who is clearly forced into having sex with the perpetrator i think this should be the “murder in the highest degree” situation, in which i have no problem with jailing someone and throwing away the key; clearly, children and society need to be protected from this individual.

 

in the case of post-pubescent “victims,” i think a range of factors ignored by law enforcement need to be taken into account. commission of a crime with use of or threat of violence should always be treated as a serious felony. since there’s such a high rate of recidivism among sexual offenders, i still have no problem with life in prison as the appropriate sentence. as above, i think children and society need to be protected.

 

in other cases involving post-pubescent “victims,” i think the court needs to wake up to reality. as we all know, there are “child-adults” who purposely attempt to seduce adults. the criminal justice system needs to keep this in mind while deciding whether to prosecute or determining charges against other suspects. absent employing violence, i don’t think it’s a crime to have sex with an older teenager-young adult(?) who willingly seduces an adult or consents to a proposition by an adult. since there is so clearly no interest on the part of the criminal justice system to reform in this area, I could live with a system which indicted adult “criminals” in this are with misdemeanors, to be removed from their permanent records.

 

that’s my take. thanks, reggie, for making me think about this.

 

now, on another thread, we can discuss letting out all of the non-violent drug offenders so we can make room for all the sexual predators in our society.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>reggie asked if i agreed that this was censhorship, not

>prosecution of a crime.

>

>he's right; it's not a crime, it's censorship.

 

I agree. Reg and I have, er, disagreed on other threads, but he's absolutely right about this point.

 

>it's not my business—or the government's—to examine or

>censor people's sex fantasies or lives unless such behavior

>results in the commission of a crime. i would be wary of a

>person who had written some seemingly innocent fantasies

>involving children and might think he/she was likely to

>molest a child in the future but i don't really know that.

>if such fantasies become evident in the investigation of a

>crime i think they should be treated as only circumstantial

>evidence of little significance; by themselves, they

>shouldn’t lead to prosecution as they aren’t criminal. at

>the same time, as these kinds of fantasies—with or without

>kiddie porn—might often lead to discovery of a suspect in an

>actual crime of violence or molestation, they should be

>treated seriously and warrant further investigation.

 

This reminds me of the story of a janitor named Henry Darger, who died and left a small apartment crammed with hundreds of obsessive and disturbing watercolors of little girls. These were the illustrations for his book, "The Story of the Vivian Girls, in what is Known as the Realms of the Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinnian War Storm, Caused by the Child Slave Rebellion," a single-spaced, typewritten novel over 15,000 pages long. After his death he was lionized as one of the most remarkable of the "Outsider Artists." His art has been shown in many museums and galleries, including a retrospective at the Museum of American Folk Art.

 

Wherever one stands on the issue of whether people who write their fantasies should be subject to police scrutiny, s/he will probably find support as well as difficulties for his/her position in this artist's story. He's a sticky case because he was mentally ill (functionally schizophrenic, according to the article I'm linking to below). He is also now thought to have been a genius.

 

http://users.rcn.com/outpost/darger/index.html

[Guest regulation]

I'm right? You guys agree with me? About what?

 

All I did was ask whether jizz has any problem with prosecuting someone for keeping a written record of his own sexual fantasies involving children. I referred to a case that was prosecuted in Ohio last year in which those are the facts. I didn't say anything about a computer -- none was involved in this case -- and I didn't say that the defendant had never had any sexual contact with children.

 

More important, I didn't say that I was for or against such a prosecution, so I see no occasion for you guys to agree or disagree with me. I mentioned this case as an example of a situation in which child pornography is created without any illegal sexual contact with actual children. The question is, is child porn objectionable even when there are no actual children involved? If so, why? Who is harmed when a man does nothing other than make and keep a written record of his own sexual fantasies, whatever they may be? If his fantasies involve something illegal, doesn't prosecuting him mean we are penalizing him for something he might do rather than something he actually did? Is that acceptable?

 

I sometimes think some of the posters on this site suffer from a kind of dyslexia which causes them to look at a post and see something quite different from what is actually written there. That certainly seems to be the case with Thunderbuns, who in the other thread on this issue implied that I am both a pedophile and a member of the Moral Majority. The point I made in my conversation with him was neither than child porn is good nor that gay porn is bad -- merely that there is a certain irony in a situation in which someone comes to a gay porn site to express his approval of censorship of child porn but to express alarm at the prospect of censorship of gay porn. Is that really so hard to understand? Seems simple to me.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>The point I made in my conversation with him was

>neither than child porn is good nor that gay porn is bad --

>merely that there is a certain irony in a situation in which

>someone comes to a gay porn site to express his approval of

>censorship of child porn but to express alarm at the

>prospect of censorship of gay porn. Is that really so hard

>to understand? Seems simple to me.

 

Guess I am missing something here. I have to disagree with your take on this.

 

My aceptance of censorship for child porn comes from a personal belief (shared with many others in the world - I would like to say most others, but know I would be attacked for making sweeping statements) that the act of having sex with a child, and any depiction of same is reprehensible.

 

However, other gay porn, while still still disgusting to some people, is generally considered, in these enlightened days, to be acceptable.

 

I see no irony here, and would ask you the same question. "Is that really so hard to understand? Seems simple to me"

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest regulation]

>My aceptance of censorship for child porn comes from a

>personal belief (shared with many others in the world - I

>would like to say most others, but know I would be attacked

>for making sweeping statements) that the act of having sex

>with a child, and any depiction of same is reprehensible.

 

So to you there is no difference between the act and a depiction of it -- even one that does not involve any actual children?

 

>However, other gay porn, while still still disgusting to

>some people, is generally considered, in these enlightened

>days, to be acceptable.

 

I'd be interested to know what your statement that gay porn is "generally considered . . . to be acceptable" is based on. Every poll I've seen says that most Americans find the idea of gay sex just as disgusting as you say you find child sex.

 

>I see no irony here, and would ask you the same question.

>"Is that really so hard to understand? Seems simple to me"

 

I don't find that hard to understand now that you've said it. But that is not what you said before. Instead of making that simple point, you said you think the FBI ought to check my computer. Why did you say that?

[phage]

>The question is, is child porn objectionable even when there are no

>actual children involved? If so, why? Who is harmed when a

>man does nothing other than make and keep a written record

>of his own sexual fantasies, whatever they may be? If his

>fantasies involve something illegal, doesn't prosecuting him

>mean we are penalizing him for something he might do rather

>than something he actually did? Is that acceptable?

 

I have a horrible memory so I may be confusing real life with ‘Law and Order’ or something, but wasn’t a college student prosecuted for writing a rape fantasy about another student and posting it on the Internet? I seem to remember that this case was special because he identified a specific female and that turned it into a threat, but it seems similar and equally specious. Perhaps it’s a more important distinction than I think it is.

 

I don’t understand how they could prosecute writing anything down for your personal consumption. The fantasy exists. I wouldn’t think that merely writing it down makes one more or less likely to act on it. And your point is well taken. Even if it does, we don't prosecute people when they have actual affiliations, stated beliefs and participate in activities that make them more likely to commit acts of terrorism. Why would it be acceptable to prosecute someone for any kind of sexual fantasy?

 

You can’t say anything that isn’t consistent with the “protect the children” mantra without being called a pedophile, but I doubt they would prosecute someone who had rape, torture and mutilation fantasies. (Unless that wasn’t a ‘Law and Order’ episode.)

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>I have a horrible memory so I may be confusing real life

>with ‘Law and Order’ or something, but wasn’t a college

>student prosecuted for writing a rape fantasy about another

>student and posting it on the Internet? I seem to remember

>that this case was special because he identified a specific

>female and that turned it into a threat

 

It sounds like you're thinking of that case here in NYC where the guy met the woman on AOL and she claimed that he tied her up and tortured her. He was convicted and last year the conviction was overturned.

 

He had written explicit emails to her telling her what he wanted to do and blah blah blah, and they were entered as evidence in the trial.

 

The judge didn't allow some evidence in about the woman because she was the victim and there was a big brouhaha in some of the press because the evidence showed that the woman was as twisted as the guy.

 

From what I read about it, my impression was that they were both twisted but that the woman was unbalanced.

 

Informatively yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Merlin]

Several years ago Congress, purporting to act pursuant to its authority to regulate commerce among the states, enacted a statute making it illegal to even possess child pornography. The primary reason was that making possession illegal was necessary because of the difficulty of controlling production and transmission, just as possession of drugs is criminalized as necessary to prevent their production and transmission. The reasoning works in the case of child pornography involving photographs, since actual children are involved and exploited. Criminalization of possession may be necessary as a way to prevent transportation in interstate commerce. Critically, the US Supreme Court, during the liberal Warren Court days, held that hard, photographic, pornography is not protected by the First Amendment because it has no "redeeming social value".

When the case of the author's possession of his own writings reaches the court different issues will be raised. Since no actual child is involved, the social harm is more tenuous, but the court will hold the determination of Congress controls since there is no redeeming social value. The government will argue that criminalization of possession is necessary to prevent interstate transmission. Will the court may hold that evidence of intent to transmit is necessary,

[Guest regulation]

>I have a horrible memory so I may be confusing real life

>with ‘Law and Order’ or something, but wasn’t a college

>student prosecuted for writing a rape fantasy about another

>student and posting it on the Internet?

 

I'm not aware of that case.

 

>I don’t understand how they could prosecute writing

>anything down for your personal consumption.

 

According to the Times article I read, Ohio makes it a crime to possess child pornography even if one does not sell or distribute it to others in any manner. The law's definition of child porn is broad enough to include a diary of one's own fantasies.

 

 

> The

>fantasy exists. I wouldn’t think that merely writing it

>down makes one more or less likely to act on it. And your

>point is well taken. Even if it does, we don't prosecute

>people when they have actual affiliations, stated beliefs

>and participate in activities that make them more likely to

>commit acts of terrorism. Why would it be acceptable to

>prosecute someone for any kind of sexual fantasy?

 

I don't know. But I find it ironic that the same person would visit a gay porn site to express agreement with Aschroft's prosecution of people who enjoy child porn and express alarm at the prospect that he will now turn his attention to gay porn. We are told that gay porn is now "acceptable." If that is so, there is no reason for anyone to worry that government will censor it. If that is not so, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to applaud the censorship of the type of porn that others enjoy.

[Guest Merlin]

My best guess is that the USSC will hold that since the case involves both the right of privacy and the First Amendment, and comes very close to thought control, and has no clear social harm, it cannot be criminalized by Congress unless there is a showing of intent to transmit to others. With such evidence, the broad authority of Congress to regulate commerce will probably trump the right to privacy and freedom of speech and the press, since child pornography has no redeeming social value. It is wrong to blame Ashford for this. The child pornography law was enacted by a Democrat Congress responding to liberal pressure to criminalize under Federal all forms of abuse, and it was a liberal Court which held that the First Amendment may not apply when there is no redeeming social value. Ashford has the duty to enforce the law.

[Guest regulation]

>My best guess is that the USSC will hold that since the case

>involves both the right of privacy and the First Amendment,

>and comes very close to thought control, and has no clear

>social harm, it cannot be criminalized by Congress unless

>there is a showing of intent to transmit to others. With

>such evidence, the broad authority of Congress to regulate

>commerce will probably trump the right to privacy and

>freedom of speech and the press, since child pornography has

>no redeeming social value.

 

There seems to be some confusion here. If you are talking about the case I mentioned in which a man was prosecuted for the contents of his own personal diary of sexual fantasies, that prosecution was brought under Ohio's child porn law and has nothing to do with Congress or the Attorney General. The defendant pleaded guilty in return for a reduced sentence, so he will not be able to appeal unless he seeks to withdraw his plea and succeeds in doing so.

 

If you are talking about the arrests announced by Ashcroft, those arrests involve a network of child porn users who were sharing material across state lines, which is exactly the conduct Congress sought to regulate. Unlike the Ohio case, these arrests involve images as opposed to mere writing and distribution to others as opposed to possession for private use. Legally, the two situations are quite different.