oh... you mean there are limits and boundaries to "free speech"... you mean the idea of "free speech" already comes with substantial limitations?

jeez... from listening to you guys "defend" your points, one would think there wasn't any limitations on what people can say and cant, when, where, about what, etc.

again... you dodged the point. the New York Times is going to call you a pedophile in tomorrows issue. according to the arguments of you and others here, thats "free speech" that should be protected... because afterall, according to you, you have to defend the worst of the worst.

Again there would be a victim and a lie. However they do as well as many other news outlets make people guilty in the press by saying alleged pedophile and then continuing on with the story of how I allegedly raped a child. Do you not get the point of victim and thought crime?

Or wait should everyone in Hollywood who has made films about teens as well as children having sex (audio, visual, as well as textual do to closed caption etc) be convicted as well?

We will not agree and I understand that. I would never do anything close to what this person is doing and I find them sick and vile. However I do happen to understand more than your giving me credit for.

you are reaching. its a simple obscenity case. nothing to do with a newly fabriated idea of convienence called "a thought crime"

a fucking nutjob was writing child rape fantasies down and selling memberships for other pedophiles to read and enjoy them. sorry... but in this case so far.. society says "no".

should hollywood be convicted of xyz? who knows? we're not talking about hollywood producing films about child rape fantasies that target pedophiles. if they did and came under the same pressure as this person, i think only a fucking moron would express any degree of shock or surprise.

and again... you keep ignoring the simple point that all speech is not protected, nor should it be.

There is nothing simple about an obscenity case ever.

Im 43 how old are you? This is a made up story not someone calling someone a rapist in a newspaper big difference. If it wasnt for protecting speech and people protecting the speech others hated. We would all be doing something different for a living. To think its all cut dry is having tunnel vision.Here is some interesting stuff for you to read http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...ngedbanned.htm

what part of "up until the point that it plainly affects another person's right to life, liberty, or property" did you not understand?

And freedom of speech is just that. While it includes speaking up against the government (and that could, arguably, the the most important protection we're afforded in the constitution in regards to expression rights), it's not limited to that one application. :2 cents:

i'm 37 and i don't care. i could care less if this person goes to prison for whatever sentence the judge and jury gives her. i could care less because i believe in the system as a whole and in the idea that it functions quite well and has for a long time. its not perfect, nor will it ever be... and no other legal system is either but this case is not something totally unexpected or out of left field. and she didn't write child rape stories for me, for my family or in defense of my purported rights. she wrote child rape stories to attract pedophiles.

you can go on forever about history, rights, constitution etc and at the end of the day, any moron would know that she was on very thin ice and any attorney would have demanded she stopped what she was doing because of the obvious legal risks. she is being prosecuted for obscenity and you know what?.. its NOT on the front page of global news for a reason... because no one cares about a person doing something like this, no one wants to defend it and few will try.

you can't extrapolate from such extreme arguments/examples to deduce that this industry wouldn't exist without people like this clown. thats just not true and its not provable. you can argue all day long that people have to fight... fight for everything and argue all day long that without those fights nothing good will happen or that the sky will fall and that doesn't change the fact that the laws DO already exist.. these issues have been to court and just because something odd popped up that the law doesn't happen to address, doesn't mean that the earth will fly off its axis if everyone doesn't get agressive and "fight" for someone they don't agree with doing something they feel is wrong.

how do you know that a pedophile that joins a pedophile site to read pedophile stories isn't more likely to act out and rape a child? do you primarily watch asian porn and honestly have no true desire to fuck an asian?

for your argument to stand, you would have to argue that isn't a reasonable risk... which you can't.

Again... freedom of expression up until the point that it affects another person's right to life, liberty, or property.

Exploitation of minors, in any sense, would be a violation of their rights to liberty.

The conception of the idea, however... personally, I'm not sure that can or should be legislated.

what if the site in question was an instruction manual on how to abduct, rape and kill a child? step by step... how to do it, where to find the best children, how to lure them, sexual techniques, how to cover your tracks, how to dispose of the body, how to be prepared for various legal defenses etc etc.


... AND what if that site had 72,000,000 members?

no reason for concern?

none?

absolutely none?

they can just rely on the "bit torrent defense"


besides... its just "written word" and doing anything about it would be legislating "thought crimes"

Ahh you kids, read Larry Flynts life story. What he did was very very extreme for his time.

My argument stands fine. Aside from the associated slander and libel issues, pedophilia was not part of our (you&I's) discussion until now.

I was retorting to your argument regarding someone calling me (or anyone) a "rapist or pedophile and printing that in a magazine or newspaper"...please stop mixing the issues.

Let me rehash for you: My point was that if someone libels me, they're affecting my right to liberty, and so their expression should be limited. Then I went on to say that freedom of expression is not constitutionally limited to speaking out against the government, as you stated it was.

As I said, I think my argument is fine... as you've refuted neither point.... but injected something else instead.



On the issue that you injected here, however, I honestly don't know. As I just said in response to Alex, I don't think expression should be legislated - but rather action should.

People should not be punished for wanting to commit a crime, or even saying that they wish to commit a crime... they should only be punished when they actually commit a crime, imho.

Check the issue in California right now about the site owner who talks about pedo behavior, best places to view little girls and so forth.

Concern, hell yes.

Concern? certainly.

Right to censor? I'm not so sure.

Again I will say what bothers me about this case is its the written word,thought crime is a slippery slope folks.I mean are there no real scumbags left doing real things to children to arrest? I think that would be more important then going after some chick with very fucked up thoughts.Bookmark this thread they get a conviction on this next will be extreme bondage stories and they will work their way up.

i think thats a reasonable answer. to me, a reasonable person would step back and say "hmm... there might be a problem here, we need to take a closer look at this"

but a reasonable answer to me is not the clear, black and white one that most people reflixively adopt which is usually "nope... don't care. dont touch it.... Oh, issues? not interested. risks? don't care. let them do what they are doing no matter what and no matter what the consequences, potential consequences or harms might be".... all because their real issue is with authority in general and not with protecting the innocent.




and... to clarify Tony, there is no such thing as a "thought crime" - no one is being prosecuted for thinking something. no one is saying you can't think something. there is no law prohibiting you from thinking something. they are being prosecuted for creating obscene materials and distributing them. whether you agree that its obscene or not is another story... but don't make it something its not.

This is not about rights to create the speech. Read the article and the prosecutor says she could write these and give them to her neighbors. But she is being brought up on these charges strictly because she profitted from them. Thats the logic that fails.

I dont think community standards of obscenity is a smart way to go. It's old, it's pre-internet. Define the boundaries where it's simple at least.

Going after the written word is considered a thought crime. It's thoughts not real.
Here is another of those no thinking kids:

If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. . . . We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And once again are there no more real CP producers for them to go after, pieces of shit that actually abuse children?
This isnt about CP its about wanting to set precedent.

jesus.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

With Tony's quote and yours, the irony is funny. Unless the word play joke was meant then it still is funny.

I think that case is different because he is actually telling people how to commit a crime. Similar to telling someone how to make Meth or where to buy drugs in the neighborhood.

Still, even that is tough to prosecute. Would it then be a crime if I mentioned where the hookers in the area hang out? Or discussing what type of gun is more powerful?

Ultimately I think free speech has to prevail until an action is commited. It sucks, as I think everyone here would love to have these sick perverts castrated for doing this. But it's one of the consequences of having a free speech society. The positives however far outweigh these rare cases.

i remember when they first indicted her.. what bull shit. what if you wrote fantasy stories of getting raped ? there are tons of those out there..is rape obscene? how about killing someone? is the fantasy of killing someone obscene? how about fantasy of killing hundreds ? is that obscene ? how about a fantasy of killing hundreds of children, is that obscene ? i have a hard time understanding how anything written can be concluded as being obscene.

Ohhhhhhh killing someone? Why no, thats NEVER going to be obscene. You can catch a blurb for the news at 10am with dead bodies on it after all.
My theory is that it's ingrained through religious texts down through the ages.

Death/killing = Normal (even god does it).

Sex/lewdness = Evil. Pure evil.

Let's talk about something written, rather than actual porn. What about, say, rape fantasies?

There are shitloads of women who have rape fantasies or read about them. (just google "bodice ripper")

Surely, you'd agree with me that the very idea that these women actually want to be raped in real life is utterly insane?

The written word has been prosecuted under obscenity laws in various countries for centuries - it is nothing new.

There are records of prosecutions for "dirty books" about 50 years after Caxton invented the printing press. In the 19th century there was an upsurge of "gentleman's novels" and these were considered "obscene".

In the mid/late 70's in Europe the law were raiding a certain warehouse every Thursday afternoon with the specific aim of seizing pulp US produced "novels" which were being shipped in and considered obscene. There was plenty photo/video porn in the warehouse, but that was of no interest.

Can see cases where "words" can be obscene (tho depends on what definition exists for obscenity in whatever jurisdiction) in current times, tho this probably needs to be viewed as an overall product and question the intention of the publisher/writer.

A prosecutor could adopt the "weak arguement" with a mild novel or article and claim obscenity falls within a "scale" - at one end of the scale is grossly obscene material and the other end is mildly obscene. It could be possible to obtain a prosecution on fairly mild porn since, either way on the scale - it is still obscene. (Seen a few successful prosecutions for mild content based on that "scale" concept). But, generally - unless a book/article was grossly offending the finer sensibilities of a nation, - would think any prosecution would be weak.

It's hard to evaluate any obscene article unless the specific items are laid out on a table for examination and range of other factors come into play. Not least of these are the current standards of acceptance in a society. There is no point in attempting to prosecute material where a jury will likely return a not guilty verdict.

why wouldn't they want to be raped? i dont fantasize about ideas that i find repugnant. i fantasize about girls that get me sexually excited that i imagine myself having sex with. people fantasize about things they want to imagine themselves doing.

say i fantasize about asian girls for example... obviously it should go without saying that "fantasy" would also include a set of parameters that are unspoken... i.e. the girl is clean, not morbidly obese, has all her teeth etc. a girl might fantasize about rape, but i can guarantee you that anyone who would have that fantasy would think about it in a very specific context and within very specific parameters.

i don't think any psychologist is going to support the notion that fantasizing about raping a child has anything at all to do with sex or is purely sexual no more than recurring fantasies about raping a child is about spring fashion. we are not talkign about "sex" or sexual acts between consenting adults (no matter how distasteful we might find them to be) in this case - we are talking about the crime of pedophilia... .i.e. sex with pre-pubescent children which is a crime which more often than not will destroy their lives and scar them forever assuming they don't off themselves of OD before adulthood.






soooooo




consider my previous example....


a site explains how to stalk, rape and murder children
it explains how to dispose of the bodies
it explains how to beat the law
it explains how to clean up DNA evidence
it explains how to beat the system to get away with it everytime.


now assume that site has 75,000,000 active members who are "just paying 39.95 to read about how to rape and kill children" which many here have backed themselves into a corner and are forced to defend it because "it isn't illegal"... and my favorite "now you are talking about a thought crime" which sounds like something from a shitty sci-fi book.

the question then remains... what do you do? nothing? wait for the body count? hope that you can start connecting dead/raped children to this site and THEN do something? where do you draw the line, start getting concerned and start thinking "hmmm.... maybe this sort of speech, just isnt acceptable under any circumstances... maybe it leads to a place that NO ONE should be going"


my point is simply that lines are continually drawn and redrawn to define boundaries based on need and existing circumstances, not based on 300 year old ambiguous and vague ideas that cannot possibly address every potential circumstance to the end of time.

are you saying it should be illegal to learn online how to use a gun ? thats insane.. what if you tell someone: if you put your hand around a persons neck and squeeze hard for long enough the person will expire.. are you at fault for aiding a murder.. i think not !
your comparison is not proper..

sexual fantasy can and often includes other emotions such as fear, pain, control, pleasure, etc.

I agree!!!

People fantasize about things that they want to imagine themselves (or others) doing. Not necessarily about things they actually want to do.

In the case of the women fantasizing about rape, my guess would be that they like the idea of the fantasy as a fantasy, but most probably do not like the idea of that fantasy as a reality.

I'll give another example. I know a chick who is somewhat hot but absolutely psycho. Occasionally, I fantasize about her, yet I wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole in real life. In fact, I've actually rejected her dozens of times.

Or think of guys who imagine their wife getting gangbanged, even though they would probably divorce her if it actually happened.

Or think of the guy who images killing his asshole boss, yet doesn't go through with it.

Or imagine the kid who imagines being a famous rocket scientist, yet never actually starts studying in class.

They're FANTASIES, not reality. Someone who watches Saw and enjoys it probably won't suddenly start cutting people to pieces. The girls who write Harry Potter slash fiction probably don't actually want to watch Harry get buttfucked by Snape.

Honestly, do you even understand the concept of fantasies?

Hell, in the past week alone I've probably fantasized about over a dozen highly illegal things - including, but not limited to, severe acts of violence, depraved sexual acts, being turned into a cyborg, being a ninja, and even a full-blown nuclear war. None of these I actually want to be involved in in any way in real life. (except for the ninja one, anyway)

Ok, so basically, you're saying that you only have very boring fantasies.

As for the rape fantasies... what you fail to realize is that one of the parameters, and a rather important one at that, is that it's a fantasy, and not reality.

We are not talking about "the crime of pedophilia" (which isn't a crime - child abuse is a crime, being sexually interested in children is not), we are talking about people FANTASIZING and WRITING about it.

In the same way, robbing a bank is a crime, fantasizing about it is not. Shooting the neighbour's dog is a crime, fantasizing about it is not. Overthrowing the government and establishing yourself as dictator is a crime (up until you change the constitution, anyway), fantasizing about it is not.

First of all, at this very moment, there are sites online detailing how to make, for example, nuclear bombs, pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs, poison gas, molotov cocktails, etc. And yet, it is fairly safe to walk across the street.

Second, your example makes no sense at all. Yes, it would be cause for concern - mostly because it assumes a hole in law enforcement the size of Jupiter. If such holes existed, that would be a big problem, and our first action would probably be closing the damn holes.

Third, your example isn't about fiction (fantasies) but about an actual manual. You're basically comparing "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" to a guide on how to set up your very own meth lab.

And my point is simply that you're trying to draw the wrong boundaries based on ideas that have more to do with disgust than with rationality.

Yes, these stories are probably quite disgusting. That does not mean that they actually cause harm, and certainly not that they should be forbidden because they're "offensive" (obscene).

It's absurd. "I know it when I see it." Such bullshit.