quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Why do think that setting a precedent for paedophilia is akin to setting a precedent across the board: what is comparable to this? Can you give an example of this "eventually somebody stops you for the belief that you might someday do something"? What do you have in mind, Sinergy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

He is guilty of inciting a crime, however; paedophiles with children will lead to one outcome, but whether or not you believe that to be a crime in itself is your call.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Cyberdude i posted this before.

"There where a case where a clansman was convicted for advocating violence. When the appeal reached the high court it was dismissed, setting a precedent for action where "Free Speech" was likely to incite criminal behaviour. "

The Clansmans lawyers appealed on the grounds of free speech. The Supreme Court ruled as above. So the Government are not powerless to act if it appears he is inciting criminal behaviour.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FYIinFL

I am curious how many of the posters who argue for Jack and his site as well as other pedophiles have young children or grandchildren.

Seattle-Area Pedophile Has 'How-to' Web Site for Men Seeking Little Girl Activities

quote:

"I guess the main thing is I just think they're cute, a lot cuter than women. I admit there is kind of an erotic arousal there," McClellan said.

quote:

But he said while it's OK to look, it's not OK to touch, given the many state laws in place to protect children against that. "I know it sounds kind of crazy, but there's kind of a code of ethics that these pedophiles have developed and what it is ... the contact has to be completely consensual, no coercion, if you're going to do it," McClellan said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


The acid test, here, is this: what would you do if this bloke was letting paedohphiles know that there are large groups of children in an area where you live and your children play? Would you be as quick to defend the rights of paedophiles to roam where your children are?, or would you want protection for your child? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

The point stands.

a) A bloke advertising to convicted rapists.
b) A bloke advertising to convicted paedophiles.

Tough decisions have to be made now and again; the balance between civil liberties and responsibility to society is one we grapple with every day through the rule of law: this is nothing new. It boils down to where you're prepared to draw the line, including making your decision and standing by it.

I don't support the rights of a man to advertise to convicted paedophiles that there are large groups of children in an area for him to chase his desires; particularly as the evidence suggests paedophiles can't resist the temptation, and, consequently, it is a matter of when, rather than if. Yes, it could set a precedent for pre-crime arrests in other areas, but I personally would take that risk because of the details of this particular case.

I think it's fair to say that paedophilia is a one-off scenario, in my mind anyway, unless someone can provide some similar examples. As said, if it was your children?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FYIinFL

I am curious how many of the posters who argue for Jack and his site as well as other pedophiles have young children or grandchildren.

You seem to misunderstand our objections, FYIinFL.  I am opposed to pedophilia.  My arguments here revolve around the institution of a police state in our country, based on the idea that we should proactively stop crime before it happens.  It is a fundamental idea our Constitutional system is based around; innocent until proven guilty.  He does something reprehensible, however, he has not done anything illegal.

It is a slippery slope.  We stop him before he does something, eventually somebody stops you for the belief that you might someday do something.  Who do you think will come to protect your rights when that happens?

This might clarify things for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Before you attack me, I want to point out that I am doing something proactive with my life to end the cycle of violence against people.

What have you done lately to stop this, apart from promoting a witch hunt against a man who has not broken the law?

Sinergy

edited for verb tense issues

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

The point stands.

a) A bloke advertising to convicted rapists.
b) A bloke advertising to convicted paedophiles.

Tough decisions have to be made now and again; the balance between civil liberties and responsibility to society is one we grapple with every day through the rule of law: this is nothing new. It boils down to where you're prepared to draw the line, including making your decision and standing by it.

I don't support the rights of a man to advertise to convicted paedophiles that there are large groups of children in an area for him to chase his desires; particularly as the evidence suggests paedophiles can't resist the temptation, and, consequently, it is a matter of when, rather than if. Yes, it could set a precedent for pre-crime arrests in other areas, but I personally would take that risk because of the details of this particular case.

I think it's fair to say that paedophilia is a one-off scenario, in my mind anyway, unless someone can provide some similar examples. As said, if it was your children?

First off it doesn't take a website to know where kids hang out. Pools, Mall, schools, parks, theaters, arcades, bus stops. etc... So, I fail to see how he could be informing anyone of but the most blatantly obvious and easily attainable information. A active pedophile that is going to act on his urges would have no problem hunting down hotspots for kids. So, the guy is to be convicted for posting the obvious, and easily attainable information. That strikes as obsurdity. It would be like convicting a person of arson for advertisting where the local gas stations are. It's pointless because arsonists will already know where to get gas. And pictures of kids are everywhere already, unless he is taking naked pictures or panty shots, the world is full of pictures of young kids. Any advertisement circulation typically has some young girls in it. So, I fail to see the physical action of taking pictures as being illegal, either.

I don't think pedophiles are one off occurences either that can have a specific law against them. If your assumption is that their sexual urges are an innate part of their being and they can't help that urge, well that is all sexuality. Though I'd disagree with the can't resist part. There is no uniqueness involved there, just an abnormal targeting of sexual desire. So, there is absolutely no difference between someone that has rape fantasies or violent fantasies, etc... (both illegal sexual acts, that are innate parts of their sexual desires), and a pedophile, because the desire will always be there. So, if your law outlawing desire to perform illegal acts went through it would have to equally apply to the other illegal sexual actions as well. So, most of the people on this site would be criminals even if they only talked of a desire to do something illegal sexually.

I'd love to kill every pedophile on a personal level, but as far as the law goes, it can not be enforced in any rational manner, given the context of what a pedophile is(innate desire to perform an illegal sexual action), and not at the same time target other groups that have a desire to perform an illegal sexual action.

Just think of it, all the daddy-daughter bdsm relationships, they'll be in jail. No, jury will see the difference, if judging on the basis of desire instead of action. People with rape fantasies, could be convicted with rape. People with Torture fantasies, could be convicted of discussing them, as if the actual crime had occured.

It's not doable, it would be another example of a path to hell paved with good intentions. I don't question the intentions are good, it just could not work within our framework, without changing the basis of it as others have pointed out.

quote:

First off it doesn't take a website to know where kids hang out. Pools, Mall, schools, parks, theaters, arcades, bus stops. etc... So, I fail to see how he could be informing anyone of but the most blatantly obvious and easily attainable information. A active pedophile that is going to act on his urges would have no problem hunting down hotspots for kids. So, the guy is to be convicted for posting the obvious, and easily attainable information. That strikes as obsurdity. It would be like convicting a person of arson for advertisting where the local gas stations are. It's pointless because arsonists will already know where to get gas. And pictures of kids are everywhere already, unless he is taking naked pictures or panty shots, the world is full of pictures of young kids. Any advertisement circulation typically has some young girls in it. So, I fail to see the physical action of taking pictures as being illegal, either.

I don't think pedophiles are one off occurences either that can have a specific law against them. If your assumption is that their sexual urges are an innate part of their being and they can't help that urge, well that is all sexuality. Though I'd disagree with the can't resist part. There is no uniqueness involved there, just an abnormal targeting of sexual desire. So, there is absolutely no difference between someone that has rape fantasies or violent fantasies, etc... (both illegal sexual acts, that are innate parts of their sexual desires), and a pedophile, because the desire will always be there. So, if your law outlawing desire to perform illegal acts went through it would have to equally apply to the other illegal sexual actions as well. So, most of the people on this site would be criminals even if they only talked of a desire to do something illegal sexually.

I'd love to kill every pedophile on a personal level, but as far as the law goes, it can not be enforced in any rational manner, given the context of what a pedophile is(innate desire to perform an illegal sexual action), and not at the same time target other groups that have a desire to perform an illegal sexual action.

Just think of it, all the daddy-daughter bdsm relationships, they'll be in jail. No, jury will see the difference, if judging on the basis of desire instead of action. People with rape fantasies, could be convicted with rape. People with Torture fantasies, could be convicted of discussing them, as if the actual crime had occured.

It's not doable, it would be another example of a path to hell paved with good intentions. I don't question the intentions are good, it just could not work within our framework, without changing the basis of it as others have pointed out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

But you see, NG... the way our legal system works is that all laws must apply to all equally.