Look, if you guys want to look at the REAL thought police, you should check into the Mike Diana/Boiled Angel case in Florida. This guy published a comic zine and was arrested and convicted for obscenity. The zine was clearly offensive, but not obscene because it does make legitimate social commentary (it has redeeming social value). However, the Florida courts sentenced him to a variety of egregious terms of probation, including a total prohibition on him drawing anything whatsoever. This is clearly unconstitutional, since the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits prior restraint.
I won’t post the links but you can easily find him on your on by Googling to “Boiled Angel.”
It might be interesting to read what could be the statute he was charged with violating. I believe it is this one:
The name seems to be something of a misnomer - it was illegal for him to even create the journal. Although the prosecution might have been innovative, the law already existed. They only had to decide to use it.
(1) Actually, you are supposed to be charged and tried based on what YOU DID or DID NOT DO, not on that behaviorally, someone says that “based on other’s track records, it’s safe to assume this was intended.” (Hmmm… I need to get rid of this ton of nitrate fertilizer and these 4 barrels of diesel fuel…) However, such things MAY be considered as evidence and pointed out to a jury.
(2) From liebfels’ post it looks like we have a law that bans from the git-go the very existence (whether in the hands of a known registered pervie or of John Q. Doper) of anything that even appears to depict a minor in an “obscene” context, even if it’s 100% spun-out-of-whole-cloth fabrication not shared with anybody. And that applies to everyone, not just convicted sex offenders – they just get a worse sentence. The enthusiasm of the DA over being able to prosecute on these grounds based on written-word material IS disturbing.
(3) Opal, as far as we know, is a legal adult
(4) In any case, there is precedent that makes it VERY likely that his original parole conditions included that he NOT do anything of this sort even in private. He must have known that as a “convicted sexual predator” – and he may have, like many people, been badgered into a guilty plea to avoid being charged with even worse stuff and at least qualify for parole – he was subject to having his life gone over with a fine-tooth comb.
(5) This guy has rolled over and pleaded guilty on both the original and this case thus diminishing his appeal chances. Either the man can’t afford even semi-conscious legal counsel orthere IS something really, really bad behind his not putting up a fight.
Great post liebfels.
Presuming that is indeed the statute in question:
The purposely vague word choice of “material” is a bit spooky to me, but it appears as though they did have the evidence of him committing the crime. In which case, this is simply a free speech issue. And if one is on parole, one may not be enjoying the same rights as everyday citizens. If he were not on parole, I would expect a challenge on constitutional grounds.
I will venture the guess that the defendant “rolled over” and left the evidence around because he had a sense that he needed to be locked away to prevent these crimes.
Okay, that’s just screwed up. Writing a fictitious tale with something like that is illegal? I wonder when they’ll try to push for fictitious accounts of murder being just as bad as the real thing. Sheesh…
Sterra, I can’t believe that treatment does not discourage writing down your fantasies to treasure later.
Barring the fact that I have no clue whatever what I am talking about, don’t offenders at least learn the equivalent of saying “Stop” out loud every time they start finding themselves fantasizing about sex with children? You know, sort of the Dale Carnegie/positive thinking kind of thing.
Or is my Christian belief that the thought is as bad as the deed distorting my understanding? I think people can control their fantasies, and should. I can’t believe writing down descriptions of doing whatever you are trying to stop doing is going to help you stop doing it.
Are alcoholics encouraged to not daydream about getting drunk?
I think the fantasies are morally wrong, even if never followed up on. Not necessarily illegal, at least not for someone with no history of attacking children (although I am betting the more you think about raping that little eight-year-old down the block, the more likely you are to try it), but at least immoral.
Or is that too much of a hijack?
Regards,
Shodan
When I read my way down the thread, I found myself getting more and more confused with this issue. Technically this man did nothing wrong. In Toronto a while back, this guy was going to trial for painting pictures of little kids. I even think they were in galleries (if someone can correct me on this, i welcome them because my memory is a bit sketchy). I don’t think that he was ever convicted of this. He wasn’t, however, previously convicted of Child Pornography charges. . .
Thought number one, writing out his feelings could be viewed as therapy so as he doesn’t ACTUALLY exploid a child. In which case, the journal is therapeutic and almost necessary. I’m no psychologist mind you.
THought number two, in order to protect children, we should be proactive rather than reactive. If there is reason to believe that he will, in the future, exploid a child, then he needs to be removed from society (in some capacity, my idea is intense therapy in the appropriate institution)
Either way, I believe that Jail was the wrong way to go and will in no way solve his problem and won’t do anything to remove whatever urges he may have for when he is back in society.
Brian Bunnyhurt, is that you? Long time, man.[sup]1[/sup]
Anywho. This is a really interesting situation. All those involved on the government side did the right thing, but I believe that the result was wrong.
The probation office and police acted properly on finding the journal - for the probation office, the journal was very likely (as Batz pointed out), a probation violation. For the police, they reasonably feared that the journal recounted actual events. So the arrest was proper.
The prosecution was proper, as it fit within the language of the statute liebfels cited.
And the judge properly imposed the sentence, as there was a violation of statute and a guilty plea.
However –
let’s look at the theory behind child pornography laws. Kiddie porn depicting actual children (films, photos, etc.) falls outside First Amendment protection on the theory that the act of filming the child harms the child. Hence, it is not speech, but action, that is the violative act, and the First Amendment does not come into play.
Kiddie porn that does not depict actual children, such as fiction, falls outside First Amendment protection because it will create a market for actual depictions of children, thus creating demand for actions harming children. Thus, again, the First Amendment does not come into play.
But here, no additional demand was created. The guy who wrote it already had his urges towards kiddie porn/child molestation, so writing it down for himself didn’t change anything. And, since it was not disseminated to other sickos, it did not create demand by others.
So, to my mind, the law is overbroad and is unconstitutional. There is no showing of harm here. Whether the guy writes down his thoughts or not, he still has them. In essence, the guy was sent away for being a sicko, not for doing anything. While I can certainly sympathize with that, I can’t support it.
DDG, I think if we allow police and prosecutors to make assumptions, we are on dangerous grounds. After all, isn’t that what racial profiling is?
Sua
[sub]1[/sub] Mods, I’m not accusing jamesblan of sock-puppetry. His assumption that those who disagree with him are rabid conservative Christians just reminded me of BB. Protect me from my allies.[/sub]
It does my heart good to see that the majority of Dopers are clear on the difference between thought and action.
This case is an outrage.
stoid
[Moderator Hat ON]
jamesblan, I cannot fathom how you could have possibly thought your post was acceptable for this forum. You do NOT call your fellow posters “fuckers” or “self-righteous sluts” or “motherfuckers” here. You WILL behave with a modicum of civility and self-restraint while in GD. Clear?
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Eli Langer’s paintings depicted children and adult males in sexually explicit positions.
http://newswatch.cprost.sfu.ca/pcc/langer.html
http://www.media-awareness.ca/eng/med/home/advoc/cdeceli.htm
Sua: Yes, but racial profiling is only an example of one of the “bad” assumptions. However, police and prosecutors DO make good assumptions, all the time. Sometimes it’s just sensible. When they find a body, they assume that someone must have benefited from the death and they ask themselves, “Cui bono–who benefits?” Based on past experience, they assume that the murderer is probably the spouse, the S.O., someone the victim knew. It gives them a starting point.
If a murder suspect takes to his heels, they assume that “flight is evidence of guilt”.
They assume that when you pointed a gun at someone, you intended to pull the trigger. When they find 100 lbs. of cocaine in your house, they assume you’re intending to sell it to someone else. When they find a printing press for counterfeit money in your basement, they assume you’re going to use it to print money, and they assume that you’ll then put the fake money in circulation.
So. I’m not saying their assumption that child molesters are always going to “share” materials is good or bad, because I don’t really know enough about it. I’m just saying that that’s the law enforcement mindset, and I think it was deeply stupid of this guy not to realize it.
Screw civil rights and innocent-untill-proven-guilty, we’ve got to stop these “pervs,” just think of the children!!
Since when is it right to charge someone because of something they might do? Not probably will do, but might do. “Think of the children” lines do a wonderfull job of making emotions overwhelm common sense, and that’s not a good thing.
Hmm… And while we’re at it, we’d better start banning depictions of fictional murders, because it might create more urges to see murders, and more people might commit murders to do so! Better get rid of chases and speeding in movies, stories, etc, since then people might start wanting to do that now, too! Guess the First Amendment only protects perfectly-acceptable points of view. Anything controvertial is bad for society (What’s newspeak for only thinking “good” thoughts? I lost that new dictionary…)
Sorry, but it just seems a little absurd to make that jump. This must be another one of those “think of the children” exceptions, though… :rolleyes:
If you’re a pedophile, you’re a pedophile. Reading something that depicts children sexually, especially if you wrote it yourself, is not going to turn anyone.
— G. Raven