Editor's note: I posted the following comment to the letter to the Editor published today (December 13, 2006) by the Hampshire Gazette. Bill Ames, a respected former educator (and city council member?) wrote with respect to the recent news that police had busted Ron Garney for the possession of child pornography in his home. Bill questioned whether or not it the mere possession and viewing of child pornography in the our own homes justifies the government’s intrusion into our privacy. In other words, whether or not it should be criminal to possess and view child pornography in the privacy of our own homes, for if it was not criminal, then the government’s prosecutorial power to conduct such “search and seizure” missions would be unjustified.
I believe the production of child porn should be illegal. As much as I disagree with society’s obsession with protecting children these days, I do agree children that young are bereft of the exposure and life experience (and rights, even if they do have the exposure and life experience) necessary for them to have a meaningful choice in the matter of being involved in the production of pornography.
But I commend Bill Ames for his courage to speak out. Historically, we might be surprised to learn how much in other societies, from the Greek and Roman to whatever, sex with and between minors (and related pornographic imagery) was accepted as perfectly legitimate. So, too, was gladiator fights, etc.
There seems to be a lot of debate about whether or not violence in movies, television, video games, etc. causes more violence. There are also websites where for free or for a fee I can see graphic images of actual beheadings. For example, go the website for radio jockey, Michael Savage, at
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html. The “actors” in the actual beheadings no doubt have been abused and their participation is involuntary. So, there are a lot of abusive “productions” - both commercial and non-commercial – that we are free to view in the privacy of our homes. Undeniably, they espouse and celebrate social and political ideas and viewpoints that are highly offensive and threatening, just like child pornography does, but they are ideas and viewpoints of a social and political nature, qualifying for first amendment protection.
This morning I happened to be in a conversation with a dyed in the wool, politically correct feminist lawyer and a news reporter. Perhaps it should not have come to me as a surprise, but it did, that both of them believed it wrong to criminalize the mere possession of and viewing of child pornography in the privacy of one’s own home, however sick and abhorrent it seemed to all of us.
Bill, you are not alone.
Yours/AC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
At last! It is refreshing and encouraging to see this particularly unpopular opinion appear in the open for a change.
I have long felt that, on a pure privacy principle, the possession of ANY picture on ANY subject, provided it wasn't requested, traded, paid for or self-produced, should not be regarded as a criminal act in itself.
I believe that, if decriminalised, the private viewing of ANY material can act as a "safety valve" for those people who have urges that modern-day western civilisation deem abhorrent.
It is clear to me that pedosexuals do not choose their orientation, and many would, if able to turn off their feelings, would do so, for an easier life, if nothing else.
To quote from an online forum on the subject: "If sex with children is my heroin, then child erotica is my methadone.."
I don't think any western government is going to embrace the idea of decriminalising child pornography, but such a brave and radical step would not only save thousands of families ruination through fathers being incarcerated and even commiting suicide, it would actually decrease the instances of genuine child-abuse.
The "safety valve" argument for porn has long been debunked:
http://nopornnorthampton.org/2006/08/02/porn-myths-porn-is-an-outlet-or-safety-valve-for-men-who-might-otherwise-do-bad-things.aspx
http://nopornnorthampton.org/2006/12/20/some-porn-hard-to-distinguish-from-training-for-pedophiles-explicit-language.aspx
http://nopornnorthampton.org/2006/08/02/porn-myths-porn-is-a-private-experience-that-works-for-me-dont-restrict-it-or-make-me-feel-bad-about-it.aspx
http://nopornnorthampton.org/2006/08/15/porn-and-sex-offenders.aspx
http://nopornnorthampton.org/2006/12/17/robert-jensen-pornography-influence-on-sex-offenders.aspx
Just so everyone knows- had Attorney Brooks not fired me I would have quit over this indefensible argument. Seriously, Peter, yr now defending child abuse? Ok, here's WHY this argument is asinine.
!) The material in question documents a crime.
@) The material in question normalizes abuse.
#) The material in question is a record of abuse that will never go away even if the perps are caught.
$) Children cannot give meaningful consent.
%) Even ownership of such material provides a market for the material in question.
PWNED.
Catch you on the flipside, sweetheart.
Porn and child molestation are closely linked. The following comes from http://www.ccv.org/Power_of_One.pdf (page 4):
Louisville, Kentucky, Police Department in 1984 reported that pornography was used in two-thirds of the child molestation
cases over a ten-year period. The Los Angeles Police Department showed similar findings in 1991.
The California Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Obscenity and Pornography has stated that police officers who were interviewed reported that they never arrested a child molester who did not have pornography in his possession. A Los Angeles Police Department investigation studied over 40 child molestation cases during a five-month period and interviewed
more than 100 victims and suspects. Pornography was found to be present in every case.
Interesting set of comments to this post. I really do not know if the safety value argument is valid or not. I think most credible studies are relatively inconclusive as to whether or not child porn, adult porn or violent television shows and movies act as a safety values or instead stimulate abuse and violence – I suspect for some people they are safety values and for others stimulants to such behavior.
But anonymous made other points, too, that merit attention. In particular the notion that pedophiles do not choose their orientation. Would pedophilia be something akin to alcoholism? If so, while never cured of their orientation, then could pedophiles become “recovering pedophiles” as there are AA members who become “recovering alcoholics? I really do not know.
I do know that I don’t buy NPN’s argument that, just because police find all or virtually all sexual predators posses porn that therefore if you posses porn, then you must be an abusive sexual predator. The vast majority of the millions and millions of women and men who possess adult porn I think would take great exception to that. Why then should we rush to judgment that all those men and women who posses child porn have become abusive sexual predators, etc.? Keep them away from relatively defenseless children? Yes, absolutely. But sentence them as sexual predators by virtue of merely enjoying child pornography? No.
Most telling is how NPN and Mr. Pell fail to discern the difference between an argument for free speech, on the one hand, and an argument to justify child pornography, on the other. My argument was the former, not the latter. In the very first paragraph of this post, I made clear my position that the production of child pornography should be illegal, and ended the post with a comment about how it seems sick and abhorrent.
Nonetheless, an anonymous reply to my post above, The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes back!” at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/law-of-unintended-consequences.html goes like this: “You're the one that's into child porn, right?” It never ceases to amaze me how many intelligent people can fail to actually read what is clearly stated in black and white right before their eyes! NPN and Mr. Pell, you are not alone.
Yours/AC
Dear NoPorn,
It's hard for me to believe that you consider this to be a central issue in your fight against capital video. Perhaps you'd like to comment on A/C's take on the Alameda Books Case, instead? I thought you'd be very interested in it, since you've attempted (wrongly) to use the case to defend your own postion. Care to comment?
Congratulations, Peter. You have now moved into the same realm of insanity as the worst excesses of NPN. Kudos.
Post a Comment