Thought Police? Where is the line drawn?

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

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

Message

cyberdude611 -> Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/6/2007 10:29:08 PM)
I dont 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 towards 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 dont 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 dont 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?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/6/2007 10:34:12 PM)
Sadly, I think this... This scenario is so perfectly the test case they want to enforce more control. The guy under discussion is basically indefensible in polite society. It's so perfect, I suspect it's a set-up deal. We are so fucked by this shit.

Satyr6406 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 12:12:26 AM)
Heya, Cyberdude! Actually, to my mind, the government has been policing thoughts (and inventing thought crimes) ever since most states okayed "hate crime legislation". Look, like it or not, in a free country, I'm allowed to hate anyone I wish to. I don't think that's a very smart way to go through life but, it is my right. As long as I don't act upon that hate, what's the problem? A few years ago, I maintained a website on which we discussed "news of the day". In JAN 2,000, I did an article on the things John Rocker had said and how he got, beat up for speaking his mind. The man threw a baseball. What the hell do I care if he liked people with purple hair? Sure, he didn't go to jail over it but, I remember that there were quite a few people that wanted him there. I swear, sometimes, I just don't get it. (Link to the aforementioned article is available upon request) Peace and comfort, Michael

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 12:55:01 AM)
You don't have to be convicted of a crime to have a restraining order issued against you. I can go in to court and request a restraining order on anyone. All I have to do is show that I have a legitimate reason to fear that person. If this guy is openly talking about his attractions to minors and listing events where fellow pedophiles can search for victims, then that sounds like a perfectly good reason for issuing a restraining order. This man is not being convicted of a crime or locked up in jail. He is simply being told to stay away from certain people.

Satyr6406 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 1:21:24 AM)
As a survivor of molestation, I hate to sound like I'm defending a self-proclaimed pedophile but, if his movements are restricted, isn't he, in effect, "imprisoned"? Isn't the court setting this guy up to become a criminal? Can you really enjoy free movement while NOT being within 30 yards (90 feet) from any and all children? Doesn't this edict almost automatically mean he has to give up amusement parks, public parks, beaches, sporting events, (the list goes on) etc.? Peace and comfort, Michael

cyberdude611 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 1:28:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou You don't have to be convicted of a crime to have a restraining order issued against you. I can go in to court and request a restraining order on anyone. All I have to do is show that I have a legitimate reason to fear that person. If this guy is openly talking about his attractions to minors and listing events where fellow pedophiles can search for victims, then that sounds like a perfectly good reason for issuing a restraining order. This man is not being convicted of a crime or locked up in jail. He is simply being told to stay away from certain people. 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.

came4U -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 1:40:28 AM)
Yes, it would have specific wording to not be near, alone, or communicate with anyone under sixteen. This includes, malls, beaches, parks. If one comes to ask him directions, he is to RUN not WALK the other way. So, he BEST just be in self-exile, as he deserves. I am positive his order would have the wording similar to not being of close proximity OR situations that would involve any activities where the 'lil' are likely to be involved (or similar wording), which would enable courts to hopefully set a statute in the case of discussions of his vile thoughts via internet. It should be no different than if he used federal mail services to send birthday party attendance lists to his sicko friends. I don't think a case law like this one (such violence towards lil ones) would be used any further into policing politics etc. If this ammendment passes, good. The other attempts to remove political rights can be an apple orange scenereo later on and doubtful they would stand up as strongly as this particular crime.

MissMagnolia -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 1:52:51 AM)
Quote "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. and McClellan claims he has done nothing wrong, does not encourage any illegal activity, and has broken no law. Most legal experts agree. " What about if someone decided to create a website devoted to the production of bombs suitable for terrorist use. The creator hasn't made any bombs, he is just telling the public how they can be made and where to purchase the ingredients and how good it would be to make them. He hasn't broken any laws. Would the government have a problem with him and/or the site? Personally, I think paedophiles should be strung up by the bollocks and disembowelled. They should have no "rights". I, on the other hand, have the right as a parent to keep my UM's safe.

Satyr6406 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 2:07:53 AM)
I've read a few of these responses and I've changed my mind. I think ANY website that even hints at illegal activity ought to be taken down. If there's even a chance that someone could misintepret the information that a website provides, we should abolish that website. I suggest we start with any website that advises people where to meet others that are interested in assaulting other human beings. LOL! Peace and comfort, Michael

cyberdude611 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 2:09:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMagnolia What about if someone decided to create a website devoted to the production of bombs suitable for terrorist use. The creator hasn't made any bombs, he is just telling the public how they can be made and where to purchase the ingredients and how good it would be to make them. He hasn't broken any laws. Would the government have a problem with him and/or the site? Yes and currently that is illegal because of the Patriot Act. And again I and many other people have a very serious problem with that law and believe it is unconstitutional and should be discarded. No better example than Jose Padilla who committed no crime but is being held as an "enemy combatant." For years he has been denied his constitutional rights to a speedy trial and his right to council. Obviously the government doesnt want to take that case to trial because they know they have no case against him. Just more evidence of the police state we are becoming.... quote: Personally, I think paedophiles should be strung up by the bollocks and disembowelled. They should have no "rights". I, on the other hand, have the right as a parent to keep my UM's safe. What you are suggesting is that we try to kill a fly with a grenade. Sure you might kill that fly but you are also going to blow up your own house in the process. Yes, we have a lot of pedophiles out there that are endangering children. But I think as a civilized society we have a better way of dealing with these people than turning into savages and torching the Constitution in the process. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U I don't think a case law like this one (such violence towards lil ones) would be used any further into policing politics etc. The other attempts to remove political rights can be an apple orange scenereo later on and doubtful they would stand up as strongly as this particular crime. It can't work that way. I advise you to read the 14th amendment. All laws must apply to all people equally. In other words... it is unconstitutional to make special exceptions for groups of people that society chooses to dislike. Again, I'm defending the constitution here... Not this pedophile's beliefs. If you want to live in a society that locks people up because of how they think....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.

MissMagnolia -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 2:30:53 AM)
"What you are suggesting is that we try to kill a fly with a grenade. Sure you might kill that fly but you are also going to blow up your own house in the process. Yes, we have a lot of pedophiles out there that are endangering children. But I think as a civilized society we have a better way of dealing with these people than turning into savages and torching the Constitution in the process." You asked for opinions and thoughts, they are mine. Anyone who sexually abuses children isn't civilised, therefore shouldn't be accorded civility. Children have a right to a safe upbringing, paedophiles violating them shouldn't have rights. "Yes and currently that is illegal because of the Patriot Act. And again I and many other people have a very serious problem with that law and believe it is unconstitutional and should be discarded." It's a US law, not an international law and therefore not enforcable in other countries.

came4U -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 2:43:22 AM)
I am referring to the non-existent internet laws that need to be adjusted to be used as someone being 'just as liable' to such activities as it pertains to snail mail. This guy would not be allowed to have such conversations via federal mail so why shouldn't laws go further to remove access to his discussions or picture /location of children swapping with other sickos?

Stephann -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 3:57:27 AM)
Briefly, Consider the public outcry, if he was caught holding twenty minors of the local city in his basement, and using them in illegal manners. There is no way for the city to win here; there would be twenty civil suits on their hands, for failing to prevent the clear and obvious threat the man was posing. The legal standard in civil court is very different from criminal. What should be done, is this man should be sued, in civil court, for the suggestive content of his site by child advocacy groups. He won't go to jail, but he'd be left so broke he couldn't so much as buy a camera. Stephan

CuriousLord -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 7:11:05 AM)
A point to consider is.. at what point is it premeditation to commit a crime?

SoftKajira -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 7:21:28 AM)
I agree with Stephann. And I also somewhat agree with MissMagnolia. I'm totally biased on this subject I'll admit so I see no problem with the restraining order, it is probably not enough, the man is sick. The sad thing is, many people have never been convicted of a crime, that does not mean they have never committed one, he's probably molested some little girl in his family or something, and never been reported or caught, it happens everyday.

farglebargle -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 7:37:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 I've read a few of these responses and I've changed my mind. I think ANY website that even hints at illegal activity ought to be taken down. If there's even a chance that someone could misintepret the information that a website provides, we should abolish that website. Illegal in what jurisdiction. e.g. What's lawful in New York might not be lawful in Utah.

CuriousLord -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 7:44:11 AM)
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.

Satyr6406 -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 9:09:29 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. I have been saying this very thing since the law went into effect. What do we care if some guy gets his jollies whipping his skippy to over-age models, dressed up as under-age people? I can't help but think that if we allowed this, some people wouldn't REALLY act upon these urges. Peace and comfort, Michael

Real0ne -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 9:28:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 I suggest we start with any website that advises people where to meet others that are interested in assaulting other human beings. LOL! Peace and comfort, Michael Fucking hilarious!!! great post man! I am totally against pre-emptive crime "prevention". People actually think that is the way a free society is supposed to operate? Hey some people can be dispicable there is no doubt but in a free country i agree that one must commit a crime before action can be taken, otherwise this country turns into a living prison for everyone.

SoftKajira -> RE: Thought Police? Where is the line drawn? (8/7/2007 10:43:59 AM)
I don't believe they are all "rapist" per se. I don't agree that some of them resort after years of sexual frustration either, I have seen to many child molesters in my time, way to many, not necessarily actually raping a child but touching a child is not much better. So I don't want a pedophile anywhere around my children, regardless of if they "never did anything to a child before" I won't be the one to take that chance. As far as animated porn.. I agree, it might do some good if it hadn't been classified the same. I'm all for something that would deter those urges and that seems pretty harmless. I definitely don't believe that it would encourage someone to be a pedophile, if they are, then they are and they can stay far away from me and mine. 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.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875