• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Author of 'Pedophile's Guide' Arrested on Obscenity Charges

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kev316 said:
Um, try reading. I actually research prior to posting. I didn't realize I was suddenly on your schedule. And again, whatcha hiding? You sure have an awful lot of pedophile love.
Click to expand...

OH of course I do. I use USDOJ studies to prove my point, you use what the **** is that anyway?

Nobody is talking about curing pedophiles, we're talking about sex offender recidivism. So stick with me here. Prove me wrong or bow out like a man. Your attempt at changing the subject was noted, though.

How do you explain the millions of pedophiles that NEVER act out? HMMMMMM??????????
 
Demon of Light said:
I do not know anything about this prayer room. I knew it was a rhetorical question, I was just point that it was a dumb rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

Okay, maybe it was a dumb rhetorical question. But you take my meaning, right? In this country, somewhere around a third of our daughters are molested every day. We are finding out our sons had it no better. I know these former kids, and it destroys them inside and out, slowly, over time. Recovery takes a lifetime. Every day you have to keep your head in recovery, and it gets really really old.

The prayer room is what Fox News liked to call the Mosque at Ground Zero. It was never a mosque or at ground zero, but this is what they called it. Now, many conservatives feel that the first amendment rights of Muslims should not apply because they are all terrorists, or so they say. I just find it ironic that so much debate over the rights of a pedophile, while pining for first amendment rights be taken from folks that have done nothing. Muslims died in the towers that day, too.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
OH of course I do. I use USDOJ studies to prove my point, you use what the **** is that anyway?

Nobody is talking about curing pedophiles, we're talking about sex offender recidivism. So stick with me here. Prove me wrong or bow out like a man. Your attempt at changing the subject was noted, though.

How do you explain the millions of pedophiles that NEVER act out? HMMMMMM??????????
Click to expand...

Um, junior, I gave you the source of a recent study. Pedophiles and sex offenders are two different things. I'm sorry this is too complicated for you, but I thought you were a semi-adult. Ciao -
 
dontworrybehappy said:
OH of course I do. I use USDOJ studies to prove my point, you use what the **** is that anyway?

Nobody is talking about curing pedophiles, we're talking about sex offender recidivism. So stick with me here. Prove me wrong or bow out like a man. Your attempt at changing the subject was noted, though.

How do you explain the millions of pedophiles that NEVER act out? HMMMMMM??????????
Click to expand...

DOJ? Sorry, that's one of the three branches of the centralized Federal Gubment the Bubbas want destroyed. You really shouldn't quote them. Makes you look more hypocritical than you already do.

For the record, silly boy, this thread is about pedophilia and morphed in to the right's hard-on for protecting him via the first amendment.

So, they haven't caught you yet, huh?
 
Kev316 said:
So f*cking a 7 year old girl is a moral issue? Seriously? Oh my effing God. Your good Christian upbringing teach you that?

You people are looking for loopholes to save a pedophile? Btw, that rape I mentioned is the story of the teenage girl that lives next door. Alcoholic mother, raped at age 7. You fundies wanna give that rapist a pass if you can find a loophole? WTF?
Click to expand...

Kev, what happened with your neighbor is certainly a tragedy. As for "proximity to child abuse" being a qualifier, I will put forth my credentials in that Megan Kanka, the namesake of "Megan's Law", was a student in my youngest's Elementary School in NJ at the time, lived a mile from me, and her body was dumped in Mercer County Park, a large park across the street from where I lived at the time. I now live in Florida, and as I mentioned earlier, Grady Judd is my County Sheriff. He is the Sheriff who, from Florida, issued the arrest warrant for Phillip Greaves, resident of Pueblo, Colorado. The "jurisdiction" relies on the mail-order purchase of one book, shipped to Florida. :roll:

All you folks bitching about some here seeing this as a "freedom of speech" issue, and in fact chastising those who don't want this jerk Greaves locked up, etc., are being near fully blind to the facts here. As heinous as you may think this is, and as much as you might despise this jerk Reaves, have you pondered why only one county in the U.S. issued an arrest warrant ? His home state did not. The feds did not. So rather than bitch at some of us pointing out the obvious, that this is far from a slam dunk violation of any law, why not consider the issue before us, which is the Law, or lack of the Law, by which this man is guilty of "breaking the law".

Being a disgusting puke is not against the Law. At every threshold of violation of God-given rights will be situations and examples that might make you want to wretch. It is not the fault of the posters who point this out.
 
Ikari said:
Nice propaganda and appeal to emotion. Care to make a logical argument instead?
Click to expand...

dontworrybehappy said:
Which is why emotion should never override logic. A law should never be passed to "right" a past "wrong" or revenge an act. That is why the Adam Walsh Act has been proven unconstitutional in many states, and is being challenged in many othes. Sorry AS, I am totally against you on this one. Just as I am against the Patriot act which was passed on emotion and not logic, this is too. I think Florida will lose, and lose a lot of money, on this. They will be made fools of.

The man wrote a book. I can write a book on anything I want to, protected by the first amendment. No book has ever caused someone to commit a crime, it is an inanimate object. The person commits the crime, not the book.

What if a child molester says that the show "America's Got Talent" made him do it when he saw a child perform on stage? You gonna go after AGT? Or, since you don't see much connection, AGT is ok? See where this goes? It's a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Actually - it seems that I'm the only unemotional one in this entire thread - and at this moment I'm still unemotional and can discuss it logically and soundly with you.
But my post wasn't actually in response to the OP - but more so to others who were being emotional.

If you'd like to know my view on the op in a very unemotional way it's really very generalized:
"Anytime someone authors or produces a work that instructs another on how to commit an illegal act that person risks liability and scrutiny which is compounded if a recipient of their work actually acts on the knowledge given to engage in illegal activity - and possibly will face charges depending on the severity of the crime or action being suggested or encouraged and enabled.

If one such person doesn't want liability and scrutiny - and to possibly be found aiding and abedding (among other things) perhaps they should think twice."


......
Now - if you're worried about logic VS emotion - you should be fine with charges being brought against the author in question.
You should support this going to litigation.
After an intensive period of investigation, discovery, and pre-trial procedings there will be plenty of time to research vairous sources and actually discover the extent of his intentions and possible knowledge and own actions.
Then, in a court of law, he should have his chance to prove his innocence. His lawyer will argue his case, the opposing lawyer will argue his view - and a jury will convene and judge.

This is how our legal system does work - this is the purpose of it.

There's a vast series of checks and balances within the legal system designed to minimize the cost of litigation, to speed up the process, and to make it fair and thorough so, hopefuly, if one is *not* guilty - they will be found as such.

Then the judgment - whatever it may be - will stand unless there's a fault in the functioning and application of law - in which case he might be able to appeal the ruling, if it's not in his favor.

If you're worried about logic then you should at least expect the course of law to be properly upheld throughout the duration of this situation.

If you're truly confident that he has committed no wrongs - then him going to court over this issue shouldn't be that big of a deal. It might lead to a landmark case in favor or your view you're holding.

So - since we've dawned our Vulcan ears - isn't a chance to prove one's innocence in court when accused or suspected of a foul the logical solution to this situation?
 
Last edited:
Mr. Invisible said:
Ok, check it.

While I love freedom of speech and encourage it, there are limits. For example, you can go and talk about killing, but you take it to a different level when you are serious and talk about actually killing a person or a group of people.
Click to expand...

Nope. Things like The Anarchist Cookbook and The Poor Man's James Bond have been legal for quite some time, and have withstood assault from people trying to ban them. It's the same thing. They tell of all sorts of illegal things, including deadly deadly traps and the like. Self-defense manuals can have lethal moves, etc. It is just that in this case it happens to be pedophilia and people react emotionally to it. But if you look at other information which can convey dangerous or "deadly" information, it's all been legal and upheld to scrutiny for a long time. There is no emotionless argument which can damn the likes of this book while adhering to previous rulings and other legal books which contain dangerous or "deadly" or illegal information
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Kev, what happened with your neighbor is certainly a tragedy. As for "proximity to child abuse" being a qualifier, I will put forth my credentials in that Megan Kanka, the namesake of "Megan's Law", was a student in my youngest's Elementary School in NJ at the time, lived a mile from me, and her body was dumped in Mercer County Park, a large park across the street from where I lived at the time. I now live in Florida, and as I mentioned earlier, Grady Judd is my County Sheriff. He is the Sheriff who, from Florida, issued the arrest warrant for Phillip Greaves, resident of Pueblo, Colorado. The "jurisdiction" relies on the mail-order purchase of one book, shipped to Florida. :roll:

All you folks bitching about some here seeing this as a "freedom of speech" issue, and in fact chastising those who don't want this jerk Greaves locked up, etc., are being near fully blind to the facts here. As heinous as you may think this is, and as much as you might despise this jerk Reaves, have you pondered why only one county in the U.S. issued an arrest warrant ? His home state did not. The feds did not. So rather than bitch at some of us pointing out the obvious, that this is far from a slam dunk violation of any law, why not consider the issue before us, which is the Law, or lack of the Law, by which this man is guilty of "breaking the law".

Being a disgusting puke is not against the Law. At every threshold of violation of God-given rights will be situations and examples that might make you want to wretch. It is not the fault of the posters who point this out.
Click to expand...

Points well taken. As another qualifier, I was the victim of childhood sexual abuse at age 11, by a 17 year old pig, and I am probably much too close to this. I can only say this: It utterly destroys lives from the inside out. Seriously, that's all I can say.

If you have noticed, there is one more disconnect for me here. The people demanding 1st amendment rights for this person (okay, fine), are the same people screaming about eliminating the 1st amendment rights they disagree with. I don't get it and that's where I go crazy. From Islam to Wikileaks, there is no consistency in their logic. Ugh.
 
Kev316 said:
The people demanding 1st amendment rights for this person (okay, fine), are the same people screaming about eliminating the 1st amendment rights they disagree with.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Wheter I agree with the information or not, I will defend the rights and liberties of the individual regardless of cost and consequence.
 
Ikari said:
Incorrect. Wheter I agree with the information or not, I will defend the rights and liberties of the individual regardless of cost and consequence.
Click to expand...

Lol... Painted with too broad a brush. Sorry. Should have said, "Often, these are the same people..."
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If you'd like to know my view on the op in a very unemotional way it's really very generalized:
"Anytime someone authors or produces a work that instructs another on how to commit an illegal act that person risks liability and scrutiny which is compounded if a recipient of their work actually acts on the knowledge given to engage in illegal activity - and possibly will face charges depending on the severity of the crime or action being suggested or encouraged and enabled.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of books that describe how to commit heinous crimes...from Agatha Christie murder mysteries, to Nabakov's Lolita, to the 9/11 Commission Report, to the Bible. Should they all be banned?

Aunt Spiker said:
If one such person doesn't want liability and scrutiny - and to possibly be found aiding and abedding (among other things) perhaps they should think twice."
Click to expand...

That has quite a chilling effect on freedom of speech. No one should have to think twice about exercising their constitutional rights due to intimidation from the government or other citizens.

Aunt Spiker said:
Now - if you're worried about logic VS emotion - you should be fine with charges being brought against the author in question.
You should support this going to litigation.
After an intensive period of investigation, discovery, and pre-trial procedings there will be plenty of time to research vairous sources and actually discover the extent of his intentions and possible knowledge and own actions.
Then, in a court of law, he should have his chance to prove his innocence. His lawyer will argue his case, the opposing lawyer will argue his view - and a jury will convene and judge.

This is how our legal system does work - this is the purpose of it.
Click to expand...

No, that's not how our legal system should work. If the facts of the case are not in dispute, but the accused person is not guilty as a matter of law, then the charges should never be filed in the first place.

Aunt Spiker said:
If you're truly confident that he has committed no wrongs - then him going to court over this issue shouldn't be that big of a deal. It might lead to a landmark case in favor or your view you're holding.
Click to expand...

Except this isn't really an area of law that is in dispute; you are simply on the wrong side of it. There have ALREADY been landmark cases in favor of freedom of speech (see: Brandenburg v. Ohio) and the Supreme Court is not likely to continue to revisit the issue on a case-by-case basis when they've already made their position pretty clear.
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
Being a disgusting puke is not against the Law. At every threshold of violation of God-given rights will be situations and examples that might make you want to wretch. It is not the fault of the posters who point this out.
Click to expand...

That's what this thread is all about, basically. People have a right to make bad choices, but breaking a law, no. I can write a book about how to murder. Am I going to be arrested to? Are you saying that child abuse is worse than murder?
 
MaggieD said:
This isn't merely being on the wrong side of public opinion on an emotionally-charged issue. This is being on the wrong side of the law.

When embeciles can't see the difference between an issue of free speech and one's right to teach others how to molest children, it's time to pack it in.
Click to expand...

It's less effective when you misspell imbeciles.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
That's what this thread is all about, basically. People have a right to make bad choices, but breaking a law, no. I can write a book about how to murder. Am I going to be arrested to? Are you saying that child abuse is worse than murder?
Click to expand...

I would say yes, child abuse is worse than murder on many levels. Murder is one and done; sexual abuse is the gift that keeps on giving - every day of your life 'til you die with a brain that's been put through a blender. People have no idea... Seriously, no idea what these people go through their entire lives.
 
What people don't realize, is that as soon as they say, "I was molested as a child, so this hit's close to home" or "Just wait until your child gets molested and we'll see if you change your mind" it actually negates any opinion they may have as biased and making a law based on emotion. That is not how our laws work. You need neutral 3rd party people to make laws, because as the Adam Walsh Act has shown, making laws as revenge against past wrongdoings always ends up being unconstitutional in the end, or not in the best interest of society. Nobody here, and I checked carefully, said that this book was a good idea or the right thing to do. (one said it was ok because you can learn how to protect your kids by reading it) They are simply saying he has the RIGHT to publish it.

You can't be all "for the constitution" for some, and not for others. If he's not a criminal, and has committed no crime, you MUST keep the constitution at the forefront of your mind. Republicans have proven that they can put emotions first, before the rights of citizens. It's sad, really. Watching one segment on fox news talk about sex offenders proves my point. What political person would stand up and say "no, this sex offender law is wrong."? Well, none. Which is why any law to "get tough on sex offenders" gets passed blindly and without much thought. And with the stroke of a pen, hundreds of thousands of lives are changed forever, sometimes years, or DECADES after the fact. That would be why the Adam Walsh Act is being found unconstitutional. If a sex offender agrees to 10 years on the registry and 2 years in jail, for instance, you can't, 5 years later, suddenly pass a law that says he must register for 25 years or life. If he can't go back and re-plea, you can't re-sentence him. Fortunately, even sex offenders do have rights. At what point do you let an 18yo who had sex with his 16yo gf whom he later married live his life? At what point do you finally say you've paid back your debt to society?

Id love for some of the conservatives on this forum to answer that question.

Kev316 said:
I would say yes, child abuse is worse than murder on many levels. Murder is one and done; sexual abuse is the gift that keeps on giving - every day of your life 'til you die with a brain that's been put through a blender. People have no idea... Seriously, no idea what these people go through their entire lives.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you'd rather be killed than raped? Do you even realize what you're saying? Something that ends a life isn't as bad as something that doesn't. It's that exact mindset that sets a precedent for stupid laws to be passed. And victims choose to be victims forever. Just ask a girl who was raped and is continuing her life and not letting it get to her. It's a harsh thing to say, but I know people who were raped and are living their lives. They say themselves that a rape victims chooses to be a victim for the rest of their lives, they can move on if they want. It's harsh, but it's true. No, they don't choose to be raped and rapists should be put away for a very long time, but victims have a responsibility to themselves to put it behind them and move on. I've had some awful things done to me as a child, and I forgave those people and moved on. Do I still think about it? Yes. Do I let it make me a victim forever? No. That's a personal choice. Some people can't put it behind them, and it's not their fault at all. And those people are the ones I truly feel sorry for because they are letting the rapist win.

I just want to let people know that not all sex offenders are rapists or child molesters. Some are romeo/juliet type offenders and some are people who pee behind a bush and are caught. Sex offender does not automatically equal rapist, by any means.
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
Kev, what happened with your neighbor is certainly a tragedy. As for "proximity to child abuse" being a qualifier, I will put forth my credentials in that Megan Kanka, the namesake of "Megan's Law", was a student in my youngest's Elementary School in NJ at the time, lived a mile from me, and her body was dumped in Mercer County Park, a large park across the street from where I lived at the time. I now live in Florida, and as I mentioned earlier, Grady Judd is my County Sheriff. He is the Sheriff who, from Florida, issued the arrest warrant for Phillip Greaves, resident of Pueblo, Colorado. The "jurisdiction" relies on the mail-order purchase of one book, shipped to Florida. :roll:

All you folks bitching about some here seeing this as a "freedom of speech" issue, and in fact chastising those who don't want this jerk Greaves locked up, etc., are being near fully blind to the facts here. As heinous as you may think this is, and as much as you might despise this jerk Reaves, have you pondered why only one county in the U.S. issued an arrest warrant ? His home state did not. The feds did not. So rather than bitch at some of us pointing out the obvious, that this is far from a slam dunk violation of any law, why not consider the issue before us, which is the Law, or lack of the Law, by which this man is guilty of "breaking the law".

Being a disgusting puke is not against the Law. At every threshold of violation of God-given rights will be situations and examples that might make you want to wretch. It is not the fault of the posters who point this out.
Click to expand...

Give him a fair trail.. what else can we say or expect at this point? The law with stand or collapse on it's own under a fair trial. But how fair or unfair he was treated by Florida doesn't minimize the fact that his book is appalling, and yep.. some of us are just plain offended by the material of his book... too offended by it, that we can't complain about Florida. This man's attempt to make pedophilia more mainstream and acceptable is more appalling than what Florida did.

It's kind of hard for some of us to get angry at Florida or even bother with that side of debate because of the other issue at hand. I can get over Florida's actions, however right or wrong.. let their actions go to trial with this man, but I can't get over people trying make pedophilia mainstream or more acceptable.
 
Dezaad said:
It is obviously false that the stuff Assange released would have been released by other sources. Are you just making things up as you go along?
Click to expand...

No it's not false. Investigative reporters purposely go out and look for people that will give them confidential and/or secret information. Weather ALL of the things that were released would have been is certainly debateable. But it would be inevitable that some were.

Dezaad said:
That aside, name someone specific who has demonized assange and also given this loser a pass. Without someone specific, there is no chance for hypocrisy. And even if you find an example, why are you mentioning it to me?
Click to expand...

Kandahar has spoken out against Assaunge and in this thread he has defended this guys freedom of speech. As for why am I mentioning it to you, it is because you did say that the information that was probably in that book could be found else where. I used your post. So while it was directed at you it wasn't really DIRECTED at YOU. Know what I mean?

Dezaad said:
And finally, the situations ARE different, with different consequences. I am not certain how I feel about either case, but it is at least conceivable that I will decide one should be protected and the other, not.
Click to expand...

You're right, the situations are different. One is literally about screwing kids, the other is about trying to get transparency through the government via leaking information.
 
Kev316 said:
I would say yes, child abuse is worse than murder on many levels. Murder is one and done; sexual abuse is the gift that keeps on giving - every day of your life 'til you die with a brain that's been put through a blender. People have no idea... Seriously, no idea what these people go through their entire lives.
Click to expand...

I don't get these arguments. No one is promoting child molestation. No one is saying it should be legal. However, in the context of books and what is and isn't allowed; there are plenty of books which instruct and inform about a multitude of illegal activities. These have always stood to criticism on the basis of first amendment rights. That's all there is really to it. We can all be as disgusted as we want about the information and topic this book talks about. But is it really illegal? Particularly when compared to other books and media out there? It's not, it's well within the already defined boundaries of the 1st, it's all been challenged and beaten before. The only difference here and the multitude of other books promoting illegal activities is that in this case we're all saying "OMG, child rape" and letting emotion overrule emotion.
 
SheWolf said:
but I can't get over people trying make pedophilia mainstream or more acceptable.
Click to expand...

No one is. This is an emotionally charged and quite frankly down right stupid comment.
 
Kandahar said:
There are plenty of books that describe how to commit heinous crimes...from Agatha Christie murder mysteries, to Nabakov's Lolita, to the 9/11 Commission Report, to the Bible. Should they all be banned?
Click to expand...

This is a pointless part of the argument - we're not debating whether his book should have been banned.
And to use the history of books that have been banned is futile in this case - Where's Waldo was banned in many schools and libraries because of some boobs on a cartoon figure. . . so that's no precedence to follow. . . and I've heard various stories of the Bible being banned - Madonna's book 'Sex' was banned from some stores - and so on. . .So according to those examples - yes - a book should be able to be banned based on content. . . but that is not the issue being debated.

That has quite a chilling effect on freedom of speech. No one should have to think twice about exercising their constitutional rights due to intimidation from the government or other citizens.
Click to expand...

The question, here, is if encouraging pedophilia is actually a constitutional right - or if it's obscenity. You cannot determine that and neither can I right now - we don't know enough to make that call. All you know is that he wrote a book about how to do it - and that's all I know, too.

Take the issue of pornography *for adults - by adults* as an example. . . even the Justices couldn't determine *exactly* what was obscene and *exactly* what was not - they just gave a generalized view on it: if someone's deemed to be "obscene" then it is not protected under the 1st Amendment.

You cannot presume that EVERYTHING is protected - because everything is NOT protected.
And it is, therefor, up to a judgement of the jury in a trial to determine this on a case-by-case basis.

No, that's not how our legal system should work. If the facts of the case are not in dispute, but the accused person is not guilty as a matter of law, then the charges should never be filed in the first place.
Click to expand...

If you disagree with our system then that's your issue. But that IS how our system DOES function right now.
And that's, then, the purpose of a trial - to determine the facts of the case and the resolve of the issue in question. You cannot determine guilt or innocents without an investigation and a trial - etc etc. It just doesn't work that way.

Some might be assuming guilt
Others might be assuming innocents.
The only way to determine which one it is - is to have a proper trial with official procedings and make a legal call.

You're accusing people of letting their *feelings* cloud their judgment - and it seems that, since you *feel* like our judicial system is wrong and you *feel* like he should be innocent - then you are also letting your *feelings* govern your view.

And there is no landmark case in this exact situation to refer to, either. This is a first in this exact area. Other cases are vaguely close - but not quite like this. Thus, it's just common sense to permit it to procede - it might not proceed very far, it might proceed quite a ways. Who knows. He might be found innocent of the charges or he might be found guilty.

But it's actually illogical to *not* follow through with the natural course of law when someone has been accused of a crime - and when there has been proper preliminary 'evidence' to necessity a charge being filed - and a judge has examined the preliminary evidence and felt it was compelling enough to proceed legally.

Except this isn't really an area of law that is in dispute; you are simply on the wrong side of it. There have ALREADY been landmark cases in favor of freedom of speech (see: Brandenburg v. Ohio) and the Supreme Court is not likely to continue to revisit the issue on a case-by-case basis when they've already made their position pretty clear.
Click to expand...

You wanted an appeal to logic - yet you're specifically not doing so.

You cannot automatically throw someone in jail without a trial.
And you cannot automatically assume someone's innocent purely because what they're accused of doesn't seem like a problem *to you personally*

So - you want an appeal to logic? Then prove it by supporting a trial in which the accused is given a fair chance at justice.
 
Ikari said:
Nope. Things like The Anarchist Cookbook and The Poor Man's James Bond have been legal for quite some time, and have withstood assault from people trying to ban them. It's the same thing. They tell of all sorts of illegal things, including deadly deadly traps and the like. Self-defense manuals can have lethal moves, etc. It is just that in this case it happens to be pedophilia and people react emotionally to it. But if you look at other information which can convey dangerous or "deadly" information, it's all been legal and upheld to scrutiny for a long time. There is no emotionless argument which can damn the likes of this book while adhering to previous rulings and other legal books which contain dangerous or "deadly" or illegal information
Click to expand...

I had a copy of the anarchist's cook book... I bought the anarchist's book at a local and major book store.. it's not that hard to find and it's kind of a cult classic. You don't have to go to a black market or hunt it down on the internet.. half the stuff in the book has been debunked or doesn't work, and the explosive stuff is extremely unsafe to try and written in a manner that is difficult to understand...

It's still kind of fun to read, but this pedophilia book isn't in the same category. I would put the anarchist's cook book more in category of the Communist Manifesto.. both of them thought violence was acceptable to bring political change. You can pretty much run into angry people who think violence is acceptable on DP or any political forum.. It's not that radical or dangerous IMO...
 
dontworrybehappy said:
What people don't realize, is that as soon as they say, "I was molested as a child, so this hit's close to home" or "Just wait until your child gets molested and we'll see if you change your mind" it actually negates any opinion they may have as biased and making a law based on emotion. That is not how our laws work. You need neutral 3rd party people to make laws, because as the Adam Walsh Act has shown, making laws as revenge against past wrongdoings always ends up being unconstitutional in the end, or not in the best interest of society. Nobody here, and I checked carefully, said that this book was a good idea or the right thing to do. (one said it was ok because you can learn how to protect your kids by reading it) They are simply saying he has the RIGHT to publish it.

You can't be all "for the constitution" for some, and not for others. If he's not a criminal, and has committed no crime, you MUST keep the constitution at the forefront of your mind. Republicans have proven that they can put emotions first, before the rights of citizens. It's sad, really. Watching one segment on fox news talk about sex offenders proves my point. What political person would stand up and say "no, this sex offender law is wrong."? Well, none. Which is why any law to "get tough on sex offenders" gets passed blindly and without much thought. And with the stroke of a pen, hundreds of thousands of lives are changed forever, sometimes years, or DECADES after the fact. That would be why the Adam Walsh Act is being found unconstitutional. If a sex offender agrees to 10 years on the registry and 2 years in jail, for instance, you can't, 5 years later, suddenly pass a law that says he must register for 25 years or life. If he can't go back and re-plea, you can't re-sentence him. Fortunately, even sex offenders do have rights. At what point do you let an 18yo who had sex with his 16yo gf whom he later married live his life? At what point do you finally say you've paid back your debt to society?

Id love for some of the conservatives on this forum to answer that question.



Ok, so you'd rather be killed than raped? Do you even realize what you're saying? Something that ends a life isn't as bad as something that doesn't. It's that exact mindset that sets a precedent for stupid laws to be passed. And victims choose to be victims forever. Just ask a girl who was raped and is continuing her life and not letting it get to her. It's a harsh thing to say, but I know people who were raped and are living their lives. They say themselves that a rape victims chooses to be a victim for the rest of their lives, they can move on if they want. It's harsh, but it's true. No, they don't choose to be raped and rapists should be put away for a very long time, but victims have a responsibility to themselves to put it behind them and move on. I've had some awful things done to me as a child, and I forgave those people and moved on. Do I still think about it? Yes. Do I let it make me a victim forever? No. That's a personal choice. Some people can't put it behind them, and it's not their fault at all. And those people are the ones I truly feel sorry for because they are letting the rapist win.

I just want to let people know that not all sex offenders are rapists or child molesters. Some are romeo/juliet type offenders and some are people who pee behind a bush and are caught. Sex offender does not automatically equal rapist, by any means.
Click to expand...

Number 1, I'm not a conservative, so you can throw that one out. Number 2, I was under the impression this man has been charged with a crime. Number 3, I only answered for myself on the murder over childhood rape question, no one else. Neither you, nor anyone else, has a right to deny me this position. Number 4, the man has his rights to the legal system. I deny this to no one. And finally, my ugly childhood is mine. Only another sexually abused child can understand this. Like only a battered woman can really understand a battered woman. But I am one of the fortunate ones. I had help available later in life and utilized it.

As for the differences between "sex crimes," I know what they are and I make the distinction. I'm not talking about "sex crimes." Tell you something else, too: A woman whom is raped has help. More often than not, a child suffers silently, unable to quite make out what has happened. For boys it's a double edge sword - an awful event culminating in orgasm. And what happens when the girl is a child? You think she's sane, processing Uncle Joe stickin' stuff in her? Or daddy? Uh uh. It's too much.

I don't think you understand the magnitude of the problem. You wanna know why the hell we're so dysfunctional in this country? At least a third of our adults are the walking wounded, shame and guilt tearing them apart from the inside out. Girls become women with tons of men issues, boys become men with a ton of women's issues. What happens when those women have boys and those boys have girls, eh?

Their fundamentalist churches exacerbate the problem by giving those same wounded people the "authority" to force their women and children in to submission. Then the cycle starts anew.
 
Last edited:
Kev316 said:
Points well taken. As another qualifier, I was the victim of childhood sexual abuse at age 11, by a 17 year old pig, and I am probably much too close to this. I can only say this: It utterly destroys lives from the inside out. Seriously, that's all I can say.

If you have noticed, there is one more disconnect for me here. The people demanding 1st amendment rights for this person (okay, fine), are the same people screaming about eliminating the 1st amendment rights they disagree with. I don't get it and that's where I go crazy. From Islam to Wikileaks, there is no consistency in their logic. Ugh.
Click to expand...

I don't personally think there is anything wrong with your reaction given what you have been through... I also think you are brave to put it out there like that.
 
Ikari said:
Incorrect. Wheter I agree with the information or not, I will defend the rights and liberties of the individual regardless of cost and consequence.
Click to expand...

What about defending your community and society from people reading that book and then sexually abusing children in your community?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom