@firefly,
DAVID wrote:In effect, this law is an effort at thought control.
The Founders woud have been aghast.
firefly wrote:People can think about anything they want, including pedophilic fantasies of sex with with children,
that's quite different than possessing the actual material of child pornography.
Art is an expression of thought. Do u see that?
That is the reason that art from different artists, different minds,
is not all the same.
firefly wrote:Is thinking about having an arsenol of automatic weapons and hundreds of guns,
or thinking about having a large stash of cocaine or heroin, the same as actually possessing those items?
That is not art (tho the police have commended me upon the
beauty of my ordnance at gunnery ranges).
firefly wrote:No one's thoughts are being controlled.
When the commies (
Red Chinese) did it during the Korean War, that was openly the reason.
We found POWs all carrying pocket diaries in which thay were required
by their commissars to record their thoughts.
If the commissar suspected (or he alleged that he suspected)
any un-communist ideas, his victim was in
BIG trouble.
I saw a Chinese fugitive from its slavery, who attested on TV
that thay had been ordered not to think of sex,
but instead, to think of the communist party
and to meticulously record their thoughts in that regard
on an hourly basis,
my point being that it
HAS been done; it is
not unprecedented.
I feel like a voice crying in the wilderness,
with no libertarians to energetically defeat oppression.
It keeps getting worse n worse.
I woud not send that depraved person that fotografed my rear end
to prison for any number of years, nor minutes, nor nanoseconds.
It is clear that his brain is twisted (figuratively speaking) n
perverted,
but I have no lust for
anti-sicko
VENGEANCE.
His offense is trivial. That conclusion is not based upon my age.
If it had happened in my childhood (picture taken from afar)
I 'd not have gotten much excited about it; curious, maybe.
If he had sold copies,
then maybe I 'd be equitably entitled to share the profits.
If an artist sees Whistler's mom
and then, from memory, he paints a picture of her,
is she rightfully entitled to share in revenue from its sale in a gallery ?
David