Under a 2003 child-pornography law, Congress empowered federal agents to arrest anyone for advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting material in a manner that is “intended to cause another to believe” that the material is illegal child pornography. The law applies even if the underlying material isn’t actually child pornography.
US Solicitor General Paul Clement says the law, a section of the Protect Act, is a carefully calibrated effort by Congress to safeguard children from sexual exploitation by targeting those who would traffic in child pornography.
Critics say the law is a vague and over-broad regulation of free speech that threatens to establish the federal government as a kind of thought police. They say the government should punish illegal conduct, not controversial – or even repulsive – thoughts and fantasies. In addition, they say the law could chill artistic, literary, scientific, and other forms of protected speech.
Thinkers only, please. Those with knee-jerks should pad their chins before reading.
Is child-porn law too broad? | csmonitor.com
I can’t bring myself to protect anyone’s rights who gets off on (even) the idea of molesting children. If they want to spend their finite time on this earth focusing on that, they can use their imaginations or draw themselves pictures. The officers were on that particular blog for a reason.
Then again, I’m a clinical social worker so I know first hand where all the “harmless” fantasizing leads.
I’m an ex-cop, ex-counselor, and my wife is an MSW. I know where it leads, too. But I also know where emotional, panicky law enforcement leads — to punishment of people who need treatment rather than incarceration. Prosecutors cannot be trusted to deal with politically sensitive issues carefully, nor can police. It is not a black and white issue. You, as a social worker yourself, should know that. I do not advocate dealing with aberrant behavior lightly, but if people could be incarcerated for their thoughts — even their desires — we would all have been locked up long ago for one reason or another.
Hmmm. Tough. Tough. Tough one.
(Compounded by the length and intensity of the day’s patients AND your admonition against reactivity, lol.)
I’m no lawyer (married one, divorced one, enough said and apologies if you are or were one which I have a hunch isn’t far off the mark but, hey, I can be wrong at times) and cannot speak legalese but I will say this:
Injuring someone through my behavior–self-defense or defense of another excluded–is uncomfortable in my Tao. (There are layers of meaning, many ways to draw discriminating lines to define “injuring”, “behavior”, “self-defense” and “defense of another”.)
I say these words from a three dimensional perspective.
If someone chooses to participate in an activity and it is consensual, so be it. Not my karma or job to police or judge.
(There are layers of meaning in “consensual”.)
I say these words from a three dimensional perspective.
Zen version:
3D and someone’s hurt in the doing, not the receiving? No.
2D? Whaddya kiddin’ me? What’s real? (lol) Legislate that muthuh, why doncha.
We now return you to normal broadcasting.
No, I’m just an over-educated ex-cop and -drunk with delusions of reality.
I suspect the undercover officer was pissed off because the other guy took him for a ride, then busted him. We used to call that kind of arrest “mopery with intent to loiter.” I call it a bad arrest.
Pingback: My Ghillie » Is child-porn law too broad?