Sorry, I should have been more clear: that’s a feature of the upcoming Office 2007. I’ve got a preview copy.
Nice, coherent argument, honestly. Try this, though:
First, children are taught to regard adults in their lives as authority figures. Not the old man from down the street who walks by wearing a trench coat and going “nyuh nyuh” under his breath, of course, but doctors and nurses, teachers, policemen (in most places), baby sitters, second-degree relatives (grandparents, uncles and aunts, and so on).
And this is wise, because an adult taken at random is far more likely to stop the six-year-old who decided to escape parental care and go on an adventure like in the movies, than he is to be an active pervert.
But having trained a child to respect adult authority, you then have to decide where the child gets autonomy, and teach that to the kid. Otherwise he’s dominated by the same unquestioning obedience to authority that’s expected of him in other contexts. One of the more vivid memories from my earlier childhood was of Dr. George constantly sticking lubricant-coated cold things up my bottom. I presume they were thermometers, some sort of pediatric stool-sampler gadget, and suppositories, as I was chronically mildly constipated as a small child. But I trust the point – I was expected to hold still and let the doctor do this uncomfortable thing to my bottom – conveys the point there.
Now, I personally find absolute age-of-consent laws to be absurd. And I have seen some real injustices resulting from them. But in practice they do something useful. Typically, the number of 21-year-olds who are factually incapable of giving informed consent who are not either institutionalized or in a group-home situation is probably minimal. Likewise for 18-year-olds. But at 16, there is a small but appreciable number of teens who are still too immature emotionally to reasonably give consent. Move it to 14, and the number is far higher. Note that at both ages, there is a population capable of giving consent, but another which is not. Move that age to 12, and the percentage capable of informed consent plummets, and to 10 and it becomes vanishingly small. I suspect that if some intelligent lawmakers decided to revise the Age of Consent laws to state that an informed-consent-by-minor defense is legal, but the burden of proof is on the alleged perpetrator and his victim to demonstrate that it was consensual, non-coercive, and informed, a lot of the “unfair” cases would be eliminated and the law used to punish the actual trauma-causing child molestors.
I’ve twice read accounts of people sodomized as pre-schoolers, and the mixture of physical and psychological problems which resulted. There is no punishment adequate to fit that crime. But then I run into situations like this one, described to me by the older partner, whom I know from another board: A 19-year-old young man and a 13-year-old boy, neighbors all their lives, both of whom discovered they were gay, and the younger has always looked up to his older neighbor friend. They’re in love now, and with every intention to make it lifelong. Celibate until the younger one reaches the age of consent – at the insistence of the older one, who has no interest in breaking the law, despite of course feeling desire for his young boyfriend, and who is deathly afraid of misusing the boy he loves in some way that will have bad consequences psychologically for the kid down the line. The younger one wants the relationship to be sexual as well as romantic, is quite clear on what he is choosing and its consequences, and can articulate his limits; he’s highly offended by the law. His parents, by the way, know and approve of the relationship, being aware of the moral fiber of the 19-year-old, the friendship-grown-to-romantic love they share, and the potential for hurt to their son as an out gay teen. I honestly cannot see that relationship as in any way pedophilic or harmful.
Getting back to the general rant here, though:
-
“Child pornography” can mean a variety of different things. For example, pictures taken at a nudist camp are included in the definition in some jurisdictions. Granted, the idea of pictures of preteens being penetrated is something that turns my gorge. And the idea of pedophile photographers conning kids at puberty into showing off their new-and-improved body parts is probably pretty reprehensible. But take a look at the laws. I find it truly fascinating to find that the U.K. law actually provides that pictures of fully clothed children can under some circumstances be deemed child pornography.
-
“The War on Anything” does not justify the abrogation of guarantees of rights, including those in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments which have functioned quite well to ensure that the criminal justice system does its job without being unduly trammelled or overreaching itself to convict on suspicion alone. I don’t care whether your pet cause is drugs, terrorism, kiddie porn, or whatever: stop being short-sighted.
-
Anyone who believes that Alberto Gonsales or his employees would not use the information they seek for purposes other than the stated reason for wanting it, has a terribly idealistic concept of human nature. Even if Mr. Gonsales himself and 90% of his staff are sincere in what they say (which I frankly doubt), I can guarantee that someone is going to abuse that trust, quite soon and quite flagrantly, as soon as it is given. And that abuse will, quite properly, be concealed from the public as “part of an ongoing criminal investigation.”
-
The initial rant, though humorous, has a definite point. A police agency has the right to hold child pornography, illegal drugs, etc. – the things illegal for the general public to possess – under very specific circumstances: they’re evidence required for the prosecution of an offender. It does not have carte blanche to have a drug stash or a kiddie porn collection for whatever use it chooses to make of them. Mr. Gonsales’s motives may have been of the best in holding that meeting and making that presentation, but he’s as guilty of being a purveyor of kiddie porn as the late, incarcerated proprietor of Naked Kiddies dot com.
Since the airborne dikebuilder’s brain appears to be nonfunctional, I will attempt to provide him with something called “thinking.”
Okay. The World Wide Web can be used for the dissemination of nasty stuff. Therefore the World Wide Web must be closely policed by government officials to eliminate said nasty stuff.
Email can also be used for the same purpose. So the government should be allowed to read our email. If you disagree with this, you are in favor of child porn.
Once that avenue has been closed, there is always physical mail, i.e. the post. Horrible people can take horrible pictures, put them in envelopes, and send them to one another. In order to cut off this route, the government must be allowed to open and read all of our regular mail. If you disagree with this, you are in favor of child porn.
Once that method of distribution is unavailable, the kiddie diddling scum will be forced to hand-deliver their smut to one another. In order to organize their meetings, they will need some means of communication. Since web pages and mail (e and snail) are already being monitored, they’ll start telephoning one another. Therefore, the government must be allowed to listen to our telephone calls, in order to intercept messages in which pedophiles establish meeting times and places. If you disagree with this, you are in favor of child porn.
Let’s see, what have I missed? Oh yes. It’s still possible for bad people to meet face to face, deliver a spoken message to one another, and then meet somebody different and pass the spoken message to somebody else, and thereby distribute information by a person-to-person network; thus may the pedophiles learn about one another and organize gatherings at which child porn may be made available. Therefore, each and every one of us will be assigned a government agent, who will listen to everything we say and observe everyone we meet, lest we engage in child-porn-related activities. If you disagree with this, you are in favor of child porn.
And yet, it is still conceivable that the bad people will attempt to circumvent even this level of enforcement, and consider means by which they can target our children and attack the moral fiber of our great country. So, because each of us a government agent already looking over our shoulder anyway, it will be a trivial matter to have that agent ask us every five seconds: “What are you thinking about now? How about now? What are you thinking about right now? You aren’t thinking about child porn, are you? How about now? Are you thinking about it now?” If you disagree with this, you are in favor of child porn.
And then, finally, our children will be safe.
Right?
Regarding NABLA’s website and its potential for getting someone fired, an excerpt from my employer’s Internet Use Policy (bolding mine):
[quote]
Are there any activities explicitly forbidden?
Yes. Employees may not use Department Internet services, including e-mail, for the following purposes during working or non-working hours:[ul]Pursuit of private commercial business activities or profit-making ventures (e.g., employees may not operate a business or pursue non-Federal employment activities with the use of the Department’s computers or Internet resources).
[li]Engagement in matters directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group, or activity to support political fund raising. [/li]
[li]Engagement in any prohibited direct or indirect lobbying. See the Lobbying Policy. [/li]
[li]Use that could generate or result in an additional charge or expense to the Government. [/li]
[li]Unauthorized creation, downloading, viewing, storage, copying, or transmission of sexually explicit or sexually oriented material. (In certain circumstances, such as during the conduct of administrative investigations, this activity may be authorized.) [/li]
[li]Participation in or encouragement of illegal activities or the intentional creation, downloading, viewing, storage, copying, or transmission of materials that are illegal or discriminatory. [/li]
[li]Use of Government e-mail addresses in a manner that will give the false impression that an employee’s otherwise personal communication is authorized by the Department. An employee may not use his/her title or the name of a Commerce office when using Government e-mail for personal communication, because that might imply the communication is official. If a personal e-mail or other electronic message could be misunderstood to be an official communication, a disclaimer must be used in the message (e.g., “The following message is personal and does not reflect any official position of the United States Department of Commerce.”). [/li]
[li]Engagement in unauthorized charitable fund raising (see the Broadcast E-Mail Policy) or soliciting volunteers to raise funds. [/li]
[li]Engagement in any activity that would bring discredit on the Department or would violate any statute or regulation.[/ul] [/li][/quote]
Given that the court of public opinion says NAMBLA encourages an illegal activity, anyone caught with that site in their history will be in very hot water.
However, advocating that the age of consent laws be thrown out and children be made free to engage in sex with adults is not an illegal activity. It may be a particularly disgusting activity by most people’s standards, to the point that a large number of folks, including Flying Dutchman and several staff here, find it beyond the pale. But it’s legal to advocate that the laws be changed. The same principle as permits the President to call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage permits the NAMBLA gang to advocate their stance on the laws. And (I haven’t checked their site in over a year) to the best of my knowledge they nowhere advocate illegal activity, just that the law be changed to legalize their perversion. (This is why the ACLU infamously defended them in one lawsuit – they were exercising their right to advocate a change in the laws, not illegal acts.)
Actually, while in this case I do think NAMBLA promotes sex with underaged children, this is an important distinction to make. Not everyone who advocates legalization of drugs wants to promote drug use. There are a ton of pro-lifers who certainly don’t want to promote abortion.
But NAMBLA does not encourage illegal activity. They encourage changing the law, not breaking the law.
Why do you think that? Can cite a specific instance of them promoting any illegal activity?
I think you mean pro-choicers.
When a liberal is metaphorically kicking your ass you whine about how they’re ‘supposed to all about tolerance and stuff’, don’t you?
-Joe
Then how do you explain the actions of Peter Mezler and articles that appeared the NAMBLA Bulletin while he was the editor? (warning: PDF)
The Bulletin has stated cited that the Philippines is a popular destination for sex tourism by pedophiles and Mezler has visitied the Philippines, where he allegedly had sex with boy(s). (page 13)
The Bulletin has also offered “stark advice on how best to manipulate children into sexual contact.” (page 15)
Mezler once wrote a Bulletin article entitled “Entrapment of the Month”, in which he offered advice on how to counter techniques used by law enforcement officers to capture pedophiles. (pp 35-36)
Even if were true that they’re not encouraging breaking the law, that’s not how they’re perceived and perception is all that matters here.
I said “I think”, it’s just my opinion. I probably should have made it clearer. I’m not trying to put forth a serious claim that it’s actually true.
Yeah, that was a mistake.
I’d have told him to stop the projector and informed him that I needed to call my lawyer to protect myself now that he’d gotten me involuntarily exposed to his illegal kiddie porn show.
Jesus gave the moneychangers in the Temple a hard time. Polycarp gives domestic enemies of the United States Constitution a hard time. So, yeah, I can see a similarity.
None of the information in that PDF cites a single example of encouraging breaking the law. What Melzer wrote was informational only and is not illegal.
So one political group should be held to different standards because of perceptions based on ignorance?
Advice on how best to manipulate children into sexual contact and how to avoid getting caught while doing so isn’t encouranging breaking the law? What color is the sky on your planet?
We’re discussing the public perception of people who visit their site.
No it is informational only. It is not illegal. If you think it is, what law is it breaking?
You can even right a book telling people how to commit murder. See - Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors by Rex Feral.
And that perception is based on ignorance. This site is supposed to fight ignorance, not surrender to it.
I don’t know about the legality, but I find it morally repugnant, contrary to my company’s expectations of ethical behavior, and I’d fire anyone on the spot viewing the filth. I’m in an at-will employment state. My decision would stand. Any other questions on how it could lead to job loss?
And that decision could apply to visiting any website you don’t like. You could fire them for going to the DNC’s website.
Yes, he could. But, barring other factors, he probably wouldn’t, and the same is true for the vast majority of other offices. By way of contrast, virtually every workplace enviroment in the country is going to take exception to its employees browsing NAMBLA’s website. If your employer monitors internet usage, then it is almost guaranteed that you will get in trouble for visiting that website. I suspect that NAMBLA itself would advise you not to visit their website at work, as they are more aware of anyone else of the massive societal disapproval towards their agenda. Now, is this fair? Maybe not, but that’s entirely seperate from the issue of wether or not NAMBLA’s website is safe for work. Clearly, it is not, and the moderators here have labelled the link as such. If you want to argue that society should not disapprove of pederasts, knock yourself out. But that has no bearing on the decision to label that link as NSFW. It is absolutely not safe for work, and that’s not something that’s going to be changed by debate in this thread.
Realistically, no. Not for apparent unethical conduct. Not if I wanted to keep the respect of my coworkers. Not if I wanted to be able to live with myself.