RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn?

RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

luckydog1 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 10:44:33 AM)
If you want to live in a society that locks (but he is not being locked up) people up because of how they think(no because of his actions)....there are plenty of dictatorships to choose from. Here in America, we believe in due process, the rule of law, and the Constitution as the highest law of the land. the Constitution.... "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Where in there do you see that parents are not allowed to protect thier children?

LaTigresse -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 10:53:31 AM)
Before I read through all of the posts I am going to add my 2cents worth........before I act like an old lady and forget what I wanted to say... As someone already mentioned about creating a website to discuss illegal activities. I think to create something with the obvious INTENT of promoting an illegal activity is probably still not exactly legal. There may be loopholes but it would be dicey. And yes, I know that much of BDSM is in many areas illegal but .........come on. Lets not take that route. Try proclaiming from the rooftops that you wish to kill the president. I am pretty sure that might get you convicted of a crime and tossed in the can. Some might say "well YEAH but that's because he is the president!!" I don't feel a crime against a child is any less criminal myself. Actually my personal opinion is that hurting the child is far far far farrrrrrrrrrrrr worse........but that is just me.

daddysprop247 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 10:53:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Hum.. there's this taboo on pedophiles I hate. They're attracted to minors, so they're all rapists, right? Yeah, some of them resort to that after many years of sexual frustration, but what of the ones who never violate the rights of another? "Pedophile" does not imply "rapist". One thing I truly hate the Bush administration for was, a while back, passing a law that made animated porn depicting minors the same as actual child porn, punishable by the same heavy sentences. Such porn was a great thing for pedophiles! They could get their jollies off without any minor ever being involved. They would have a safe outlet for their sexual urges that would prevent the sexual frustration that might lead some to molestation/rape. I believe the law was passed under the theory of, "We're just encouraging them to be pedophiles." This strikes me as a similar, with regards to homosexuals, "We're just encouraging them to be gay." As though it's a choice. \ thank you. this attitude of equating pedophile to child rapist has always infuriated me as well. and this is coming from someone who was molested from 5-12. a pedophile is someone who is exclusively, or near exclusively, attracted to prepubescents. much the way a heterosexual can be defined as someone attracted to those of the opposite sex. yet people don't automatically label all straight males as rapists...that's just as logical as painting all pedos as child molestors. i also think that anime depicting minors, or live action porn starring people of legal age playing the roles of minors, could serve as a perfectly healthy release for people with those urges, and would do far more to prevent the unlawful acting out on those urges than to encourage.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 11:02:50 AM)
CuriousLord, you raise a good point. Actually that law was ruled unconstitutional in 2004 by the US Supreme Court. The court basically said that because there is no actual victim, the art does not fall outside the bounds of the first amendment. The court also recently ruled COPA (Child Online Protection Act) unconstitutional as well.

kittinSol -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 11:13:17 AM)
It's pretty obvious to me that people who are attracted to little children suffer from a psychological disorder. A great majority of them were assaulted/abused/molested during their childhood. Their sickness is often a direct result of this. Instilling a two-tiers justice system isn't only morally wrong, it will definitely make them more likely to withdraw into the underground where they can plot and plan their fantasies. I don't think scaring them off by attempting to 'preempt' on their actions is going to do an iota of good. On the contrary, I fear it will encourage a feeling of victimisation among them.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 11:14:32 AM)
quote: So if a neo-Nazi creates a website that says that he wishes death to all jews, a jewish person can go to a judge and demand a restraining order? I never see that kind of thing happening, but there are tons of hate sites out there that promote violence yet they are allowed to stay on the net. Practically every defense attorney, and even a few prosecutors, that has been on television has said this court ruling is unconstitutional. Our justice system is not designed to prevent crime. And it certainly is not designed to police thought. It is supposed to deliver justice and rehabilitate. Which means it only comes in play AFTER a crime takes place. And that is what makes our system so unique compared to the rest of the world. And it is one reason why it is the best and most fair system in the world. I don't recall any racist groups being issued restraining orders either. I don't keep up with every court case in the United States, so it wouldn't surprise me if that has been attempted before. It would certainly make a good precedent if it has. There have been racist groups that have been successfully sued for inciting criminal acts that were carried out by others. I understand the reasoning behind those that are against this. However I can't help but remember the case of Joseph Edward Duncan. He was the guy that brutally slaughtered an entire family in Idaho in order to kidnap two young children. He molested both, then murdered the young boy in a park before being caught with the girl later. This man had been posting in an online blog for a considerable amount of time. Someone should have been paying attention to this scumbag before he was allowed to do this. At the very least, these kinds of people should be declared mentally deficient and a danger to the public. We used to lock people like that up in institutions before they blew a gasket and acted on their deranged fantasies. I do not agree with the notion that the legal system should only become involved after the fact. This man should be watched and his movements should be scrutinized by the public.

LaTigresse -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 11:16:21 AM)
I've been thinking about this thread and yanno, there just isn't an easy answer at all. It is all frustrating shades of gray.

ChainsandFreedom -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 11:40:32 AM)
what an ambigous case.... He hasn't commited a crime, and for some reason public postings of where to commit crimes about children isn't conspiracy, but he's got a restraining order.... Personally, I think the first amendment, private security, and common sense should be allowed to do their jobs here. The guy's been all over the new-as as of late: What kind of parent is letting their weak and vulnerable young wander around a mall in crowded southern california alone anyway? what kind of a water-park rent-a-cop or admissions kid can't be shown a picture of his face and simply told to bar him from entering? why can't newspapers and PTA parents just post pictures of his face and his intent on every telephone pole and front page so people know to be wary? why can't people just boycott his employer? ostricisation is a historically effective form of community enforcement.... I've heard that in NY, you have to have a charge against someone to get a restraining order, but if thats not the case in CA and nobody ever complains about Restraining order abuse, why is this such a bad thing? its such an obviously good reason to use one, and its not like there isnt a hearing to grant one...

cyberdude611 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 12:22:26 PM)
Well again I think we are trying to solve a very large problem with a legal system that isn't designed to solve it. I was reading a study that said that 80% of all sexual abuse on children is committed by someone in the child's own family. In other words, it isn't just the creepy man down the street or the stalkers on the inernet. It is also Uncle Joe or Aunt Jane....or even mom or dad. And no law is going to prevent that kind of abuse. The best line of defense is parental responsibility. You need to teach your kids about the dangers of the real world and of the internet. What may be common sense to you might not be for a child.

came4U -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 1:02:23 PM)
on the P word: these people may or may not act upon their impulses. It is obvious that this guy has and is continuing to do so. Closet P's may live their whole lives NOT initiating any Mr. Bad-touch (occasionally a Ms) and leave it only to fantasy (thus a civilized person who adheres to not only the law but to the physical crisis that 'any inappropriate touching to a minor is without consent'). But, to be charged with such offense, (even if not yet convicted of such offense) have an order to remove himself from the presence of his need to be told, via a judge to remove himself from any illness-provoking temptations in case of emotional or physical injury of the 'lil' is not unfair justice at all. Not to mention that to continue (through public access websites) to discuss the very topic with contempt for his order to avoid such 'temptations' for a REASON, is slap-in-face to the public and downright breaking of his restraining order. If one has an order to avoid 'substance abuse', this law prevails that one 1. avoid the use of alcohol 2. not be in an establishment that serves alcohol 3. cannot purchase or carry alcohol. Sure you can talk about alcohol, even how much you miss it, but that 'bottle' is inanimate, a THING, and not it's fault. Why is this different, yet the same? Must you even ask? As comparing it to LaTigress, utterance of a threat is just that, punishable by law, written or spoken. We know we shouldn't mention from any rooftop that we have the urge or will to cause anyone death. It just happens that voicing that about a president is merely treated (unfortunately) with more fanfare than if some nut threatened his boss in the same manner. The laws are proposterious in that the average person is less protected perhaps than the president because of his status, but that is another topic on 'how fast a police force assembles for a president vs, average Joe.' lol Just as in this case, he is publishing to others about possible scenerios on how to 'find' his prey (that he has been ordered to be of total removal from). That is as good as planning to solicit, or conspiracy to commit (in US law). Losing his rights? The very 'lil' that he has been obviously been observing have the right to be justly defended BEFORE attacked maliciously (by him or his friends). To me, he is guilty of conspiracy and uttering threats.

BIllCT -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 1:40:44 PM)
The right to free speech is a primary in our country and constitution, and anyone who refuses that right or tries to take it away lives in the wrong place if they are in The USA!

cyberdude611 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 2:14:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U As comparing it to LaTigress, utterance of a threat is just that, punishable by law, written or spoken. We know we shouldn't mention from any rooftop that we have the urge or will to cause anyone death. It just happens that voicing that about a president is merely treated (unfortunately) with more fanfare than if some nut threatened his boss in the same manner. The laws are proposterious in that the average person is less protected perhaps than the president because of his status, but that is another topic on 'how fast a police force assembles for a president vs, average Joe.' lol But you see, he has not made any threats to anyone. There only thing here is a potential threat that society is predicting. And that doesn't fly in a court of law. And again, this is a tricky area of the law. Look at that kid that shot up Virginia Tech. For years that kid was writing poems, stories, and plays that were extremely violent to a point many of his teachers became very concerned. They showed the stories to the administrators and they just shrugged their shoulders...why? It's free speech and he never made a direct threat to anybody or to the school. Same deal with the Columbine boys... That's unfortunately one of the disadvantages of living in a free country. And to tell you the truth....I'd rather have this system than fascism. I've studied history, and I've talked to people who have lived under oppressive regimes and unfair legal systems and not only did they never solve any of these problems we have when it comes to crime....but they had much less freedom. Crime has been a problem for society since the dawn of civilization. And that probably wont ever change.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 3:08:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I don't know if any of you have been following this story but it may actually turn into a big 1st amendment battle. In California, there is self-proclaimed pedophile named Jack McClellan who has a website that discusses his sexual attraction to little girls and informs other pedophiles of events in the area where children will be in attendance. This past week a judge in California issued a restraining order that orders him to remain at least 30 yards from all children even though he has not been convicted with any crime and has not made any advances to wards children. But many parents claim the man is a ticking time-bomb and should be removed from the streets. McClellan claims he has done nothing wrong, does not encourage any illegal activity, and has broken no law. Most legal experts agree. Now I don't agree at all with this man's beliefs or sick thoughts...but he has not been convicted of any crime here. It looks like the government is trying to police thought. And even though these thoughts may be disgusting to the vast majority of society, I don't feel as though the government has a right to police those thoughts. Because where do we draw the line? Today, that line might be pedophilia. But what happends if 10-20 years down the line the government suddenly says that certain political thoughts should be illegal? Anti-government thoughts should be illegal? Or maybe some guy gets elected that thinks BDSM and porn sites should be illegal because it might be offensive to society? Sites linked to homosexuality or the theory of evolution could be offensive as well to many people. I think it is a really dangerous slippery slope. We pride ourselves as being the most free country in the world. But lately the only thing I've been seeing over the past several years are moves either by society or the government to make more restrictions in the name of safety and security. And it is becoming very alarming. Anyone have any opinions or thoughts on this? thees are the things that make me angry this person needs to be put away for a very long time. but the cushy people will go has not done anything he has rights OK THIS IS FOR THE STUPID PEOPLE. IF SOMEONE WAVES A GUN IN YOUR FACE AND TELLS YOU THEY ARE GOING TO SHOOT ARE YOU GOING TO STAND THERE AND GO SURE point of it being people need to get their head out of the but syndrome and do the right thing stop something before someone gets hurt but you know we have this cushy society that says he has rights too We need to take stance and say this is not ok and unacceptable. just my point of view

domiguy -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 3:14:37 PM)
I read about this guy on MSN....and then you could cast a vote as to if you think that any action should be taken....I voted that "no action should be taken"..I was surprised..The majority of the respondents felt that some sort of pre emptive strike was in order. Thank God for the ACLU....and under dawg.

Stephann -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 4:26:19 PM)
I suppose I should clarify my position. I'm not suggesting a pre-emptive strike is in order. I'm saying that the local officials have been placed in an awkward position; do nothing, and they're seen as weak on child molesters. Go on the offensive, and be seen as nazis. Personally, I believe law works a good 95% of the time. The other 5% becomes the responsibility of the community; either to create a law that specifically bans his website, or to trace his site (an easy task) and pay him a little visit. In the Marines, we called it a 'blanket party.' Stephan

Joseff -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 5:00:01 PM)
There's only one thing I can add to all this. This man has painted a huge red target on his chest. He now lives under a microscope, and will never get a chance to hurt any child (I pray). Joseff

farglebargle -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 5:00:09 PM)
Davy, Davy Crockett King of the wild frontier... Kilt him a bar When he was only three... The best defense for children, is teaching them that it is their duty to kill their attacker at the earliest opportunity. Those responsible enough to carry firearms, certainly should. NO girl or woman should EVERY leave the house unless armed.

came4U -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/8/2007 12:34:34 AM)
niceee, a blanket party. hehe it is simple, his restraining order should have the basics that he should not be communicating with or on/about subjects of lil ones. He is just as guilty if he were holding binoculars and watching a schoolyard from outside his 30 yard distance restriction. Using a website to translate his urges is inappropriate and legally breaking/breaching his bail. If he wants to discuss his urges, he should do so with a lisc. professional psychiatrist. NO excuse for what he is doing., legally or morally.

pahunkboy -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/8/2007 9:22:35 AM)
on the one hand this guy should next be shocked by his postings.... BTW in some states if you are acaught "parking" you are in the list!!

came4U -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/8/2007 12:09:38 PM)
what if we park on this guy's head? Sign me up for that list [:)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875