The Worst President in History?

I knew a fellow who was convicted of child porn
( and spent a year or 2 in prison for it )
in that he attempted to have a roll of film developed
and the police were informed of a nude child among
some of the pictures.

He said that his child was fooling around,
taking pictures of herself on an unused part of the roll of film,
unbeknownst to the defendant. I have no way of knowing whether
this is true, but assuming for the moment that it is:

shud his child have been prosecuted ?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Maybe child pornography should not be protected...(I happen to be one person who thinks child pornography should NOT be protected...and should be prosecuted diligently)...

...but the right to express the opinion that it should be protected...

...should be protected.

That is the right we are actually discussing.

And there is nobody on A2K saying anything different then you just did.

All we were asking is for CI to clarify his statement.
He refused to.

0 Replies

OSD, I guess that the govt. fleshed out its case, contradicting the man's excuse.

Should someone be convicted who, say, answers an ad, placed by an undercover cop, selling child porn? (People have been convicted in such circumstances.)

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

OSD, I guess that the govt. fleshed out its case, contradicting the man's excuse.

He said that he cud not afford a lawyer, tho he was not destitute.
I suggested he apply for pro bono legal counsel.
He pled guilty ( if I remember correctly ).
Maybe he possibly might have pled to a lesser offense; or not.

Shud his child have been criminally prosecuted ?

Quote:

Should someone be convicted who, say, answers an ad, placed by an undercover cop, selling child porn?
(People have been convicted in such circumstances.)

I saw on TV how one fellow was so embarrassed
at his picking up a package of the porn at the Post Office,
that he committed suicide before trial.

0 Replies

...but the right to express the opinion that it (child pornography) should be protected...

...should be protected.

Protected from what?

Governmental prosecution or harassment? Agreed.

Expressions of disgust and disdain from fellow citizens? No.

The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment.

Have we really reached a point where people are willing to argue that sexually explicit renderings of children can, in any way, not be obscene?

A drawing or photograph of a naked child is not necessarily pornography, but a drawing or photograph of a child, in any state, that is intended to cause sexual arousal is pornography and in any decent society must be considered obscene.

The premise of those with whom I disagree is, apparently, that there is no harm done if the pornography does not involve an actual child; that people should be free to indulge in whatever perversions they have as long as a victim cannot be readily identified.

In the matter of child pornography of any sort, the readily identified victim is society.

In a healthy and moral society, there should not be the slightest ambivalence about whether or not child pornography is obscene. If child pornography of any kind does not violate our commonly accepted standard of decency, what will?

Limitations are fundamental to human society, and without them every society will quickly break apart.

From a legal standpoint this means that society should criminalize the creation and distribution, in any format, of child pornography.

From a practical standpoint, this means the criminal justice system should vigorously investigate and prosecute any and all pornography involving actual children, and the distribution of any pornographic renderings of children.

Somehow I doubt the Founders would ever have considered child pornography as free speech requiring protection.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

...but the right to express the opinion that it (child pornography) should be protected...

...should be protected.

Protected from what?

Governmental prosecution or harassment? Agreed.

Expressions of disgust and disdain from fellow citizens? No.

I 've never heard ANYONE disagree
with THAT.

Quote:

The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment.

Have we really reached a point where
people are willing to argue that sexually explicit renderings of children can,
in any way, not be obscene?

That appears to be the case, yes, in vu of the fact that the USSC has accepted that argument.
( Point of information, if I may: is there some reason
that it shud NOT be " explicit " ? That it shud be VAGUE ?
If so, what is the reason for creating this uncertainty ? )

Suppose a child makes up a daydream, or a story, of encountering
a young lady of his age ( or any age )
and succeeding in accomplishing sexual relations with her.
Is that beyond conception ?
Do u believe that this might have occurred
during the history of the world ?
What if he is telling his friends the TRUTH ?

If he communicates this story to another person
either verbally, or in writing, with or without drawings,
is that a perversity ? Is it unnatural ?
Shud he be criminally prosecuted for child porn,
with the First Amendment cast aside ?

If he repeats that story 20 years later,
shud he be imprisoned for it ?

Quote:

A drawing or photograph of a naked child is not necessarily pornography, but a drawing or photograph of a child, in any state, that is intended to cause sexual arousal is pornography and in any decent society must be considered obscene.

Does this mean
that it is, or that u believe it shud be, criminal
to communicate ideas that sexually arouse anyone ?
if a child is involved in the story ?

Quote:

The premise of those with whom I disagree is, apparently,
that there is no harm done if the pornography does not involve an actual child;
that people should be free to indulge in whatever perversions they have
as long as a victim cannot be readily identified.

Sounds good; free country.

Quote:

In the matter of child pornography of any sort,
the readily identified victim is society.

Society does not exist, except by association of INDIVIDUALS;
i.e., individuals are the creators of society
and society is their child.
As individuals, it serves our best interests
to be very, very stingy with our delegation of power
to our child, society, as that can be used AGAINST us.

Quote:

In a healthy and moral society, there should not be the slightest ambivalence
about whether or not child pornography is obscene.

U employ terms without defining them.

Will hospitals be overwhelmed
depending upon the law as it relates to thinking up stories,
or writing stories, or illustrating stories by drawings
or by computer generated simulated photography ?

How do u define " moral " ?
I think that u imply that everyone agrees with your beliefs about it.

Thru out history ( and geography ) morality has been defined
very, very differently ( e.g., the morality of taking prisoners as slaves
in war, as opposed to killing them all on the battlefield [ ancient Rome ]
or the power of parents to lawfully kill their children for disobedience
[ Japan, among other places ]
or the morality of forcing your religious beliefs
upon others who disagree with them [ 9/11 ] ).

I wonder about your use of the words: " should not ";
can u logically prove what " should not " be,
rather than giving vague implications
of some general emotion on your part ?

Quote:

If child pornography of any kind does not violate our
commonly accepted standard of decency, what will?

In my opinion, use of dead and rotting animals in art
is more gross and repugnant.
However, u imply that when someone makes up a story,
this can only be legal or proper, if it is " decent ".

Puritanism has no place in America any more.

Quote:

Limitations are fundamental to human society,

Some of them are; yes, like robbery or murder,
but, as individual citizens, we need to be very stingy
with the power that we grant to government,
in defense of our freedom.

I do not believe that we ever gave government
the authority to decide what stories
we can make up or write down, or illustrate.

If u disagree, then please point to when and where this happened.
If we did not grant that power to government,
then it has no more authority than a schoolyard bully to tell us what to do.
If we tolerate THAT,
then we accept unlimited tyranny like the USSR, the 3rd Reich, or Saddam.

Quote:

and without them every society will quickly break apart.

Better that than a tyranny

Quote:

From a legal standpoint this means that society should criminalize
the creation and distribution, in any format, of child pornography.

Will u logically prove that ?

I dislike rye bread; terrible taste.
I say from a legal standpoint this means that society
should criminalize the creation and distribution of rye bread in any form.

Quote:

From a practical standpoint, this means the criminal justice system should
vigorously investigate and prosecute any and all pornography involving actual children,

and the distribution of any pornographic renderings of children.

U stand in support of the heckler 's veto.
If anyone does not like something,
then government shud intimidate anyone else from expressing it.
That 's not a free country.
I choose to live in a free country.

Quote:

Somehow I doubt
the Founders would ever have considered child pornography
as free speech requiring protection.

Do u believe that your uncertainties
about the intentions of the Founders
shud curtail the freedom of the citizens ?

What if some people don 't like what YOU write ?
Shud they have equal power to criminally prosecute YOU ?
How do u make the distinction ?
Is it by the intensity of your emotional fervor ?

I suspect that Find Abuzz
will not attempt to respond to my answer to him,
or perhaps he 'll render a quick remark of ad hominem invective,
because unsupported emotion cannot stand up to logical analysis.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:

and without them every society will quickly break apart.

Better that than a tyranny

Laws against pornography a tyranny? .........? To each his own I guess.

In regard to pornography, we could argue all day, but we should all know it when we see it.

0 Replies

YES.
I stand for freedom to make up any story,
including those with sexual elements,
whether illustrated or not.

If u allege that government was granted authority
to curtail this,
then please tell us when, where and in what language
this occurred; or,
admit that it has no more authority than
the Hell 's Angels Motorcycle Club
to tell us what we cannot do.

David

0 Replies

David, I am with you on the right to bear arms, but anything taken to the extreme is just unreasonable. I don't think you should be allowed to have nuclear bombs, or for that matter, howitzers, in your house to protect yourself. One must be willing to take an honest look at the intent or context of the words framed by the founders. I believe when they said "arms," they were talking about rather normal firearms necessary to protect your household and the citizenry from intruders and tyrants. I look at the "freedom of speech" in the same manner. The founders would be horrified if they could see now what some people claim is protected by freedom of speech.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded room at night does not pass muster. Neither does hard core pornography. I agree that it is worse if it is actually specifically using or harming a person, but lets face it David, there are many laws that recognize common decency, such as wearing clothes in public. If someone walks down mainstreet naked, he is not specifically harming anyone, but he will be arrested for indecent exposure. He does not have that degree of freedom of speech, and never did under the constitution. The founders would have endorsed the man be arrested in 1776 just as he would be arrested now. Trying to interpret laws or the constitution to the extreme limits, without employing some common sense and common decency, will simply run us all off into a quagmire of confusion.

0 Replies

Quote:

"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced, it would be expected that he would retire or resign."

William F. Buckley, far-left traitorous type

0 Replies

okie wrote:

David, I am with you on the right to bear arms,
but anything taken to the extreme is just unreasonable.
I don't think you should be allowed to have nuclear bombs,

Sadly, I must agree with u
about the nukes.
However, if someone chooses to build one,
I doubt that a statutory prohibition will deter him.

Quote:

or for that matter, howitzers, in your house to protect yourself.

Well, we see in the Federalist Papers ( as I remember, #28 and #46 ?
I hope those designations are accurate ) that the argument was asserted
that the militia ( I believe they meant private militia ) wud be able to
overthrow government, if it became tyrannical, or if it usurped power,
as the Founders had just actually DONE from 1775 to 1783.
That may well require artillery.
Hence, no jurisdiction was granted to government to prevent that;
indeed, a few years later in the 1800s, when Texas became independent of Mexico,
in the same spirit of personal freedom,
the Constitution of Texas said that anyone and everyone
was explicitly authorized to form a militia to overthrow the government of Texas.
That was deemed as a problem years later,
by the occupying Yankees after the Civil War, who abrogated that.

Quote:

One must be willing to take an honest look at the intent or context
of the words framed by the founders.
I believe when they said "arms," they were talking about rather normal firearms
necessary to protect your household and the citizenry from intruders and tyrants.

Does that mean that if the citizens revolt against
a government that declared an indefinite moratorium on elections,
only that government is entitled to use artillery ?

Quote:

I look at the "freedom of speech" in the same manner.
The founders would be horrified if they could see now what some people claim is protected by freedom of speech.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded room at night does not pass muster.

What if there really IS a fire ?
Must one rise and leave silently, without telling anyone ?
That is CONDUCT, rather than merely conveying information.

Quote:

Neither does hard core pornography. I agree that it is worse if it is actually specifically using or harming a person, but lets face it David, there are many laws that recognize common decency,

I question 2 things that u imply:
1. that any jurisdiction was ever granted to government in this area;
( if u disagree, then please indicate when, where and in what language
it WAS graned to government to curtail our freedom )

and

2. that there is common agreement as to what is " common decency ".
Most of the time,
" common decency " is referred to as beliefs that people hold
with intense fervor; however, there has been great and intense
disagreement as to many major issues of intense controversy,
e.g., slavery, freedom of abortion, whether or not the Emperor of Japan was a god,
or how homosexuals shud be treated, etc.

Is the definition
of " common decency " written in the stars,
or some place that we can find and all agree as to what it IS ?

One of my tenants used to believe that arriving at home late
was against decency. I do THAT very ofen.

I submit that whichever side has the greater POWER,
enuf power to triumph, gets to DEFINE " common decency ".

Quote:

such as wearing clothes in public.

Are nudist colonies indecent ? Has any harm resulted from them ?
or from European topless beaches ?
If so, what is that harm ?

Quote:

If someone walks down mainstreet naked, he is not specifically harming anyone,
but he will be arrested for indecent exposure.

Yes.
It seems to me that this is a usurpation of power,
unless it can be shown that government was granted jurisdiction
to control how or whether people shud dress.

Quote:

He does not have that degree of freedom of speech, and never did under the constitution.

Well, the general principle is that we citizens have all retained and kept
all freedom that we did not surrender to government,
as per the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The burden of proof is and shud be on governments
to prove that thay have been granted authority to control
what thay seek to control. Do u deny that ?

Quote:

The founders would have endorsed the man be arrested in 1776 just as he would be arrested now.

John Adams was a Founder.
When he was America 's 2nd President,
he was known to swim nude each day, in the Potomac River.
Are u sure that he believed that he shud be arrested ?

Quote:

Trying to interpret laws or the constitution to the extreme limits,
without employing some common sense and common decency,
will simply run us all off into a quagmire of confusion.

There is no agreement as to WHAT is " common sense "
or
" common decency ".

I respectfully suggest that we shud not tolerate
government ruling by arbitrary USURPATIONS of power,
justifying those usurpations by such vague generalities
as " common sense " or of " common decency "; that can be applied to ANYTHING,
wihout limit, resulting in unlimited government.

We NEED to keep government on a very short leash.
We cannot afford to let the dam thing run wild,
against our freedom.

0 Replies

David, I can't disagree with you on all of your points. As to common decency, yes, I agree that it really comes down to whether we have a consensus. As for Adams swimming nude in the Potomac, I have no problem, I've gone skinny dipping myself, no big deal. Big difference however between that and marching down a city street in the nude. The problems in society become bigger problems when too many wish to stretch the limits of decency, and wrest the concept of freedom to their own detriment.

To clarify, I do not subscribe to the theory that stretching societal norms is always bad. Obviously, treating minorities as second class citizens needed to bite the dust. But to believe that stretching societal norms in the name of free speech is always a positive thing is just as wrong.

Freedom without responsibility is doomed to failure. If too many people pull society into the gutter in the name of freedom, the effects will not be positive. They might win enough freedom to do this in court, but the ultimate results will be a detriment to us all. To summarize, I hardly think that the founders had pornography in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. You can stretch the letter of the law to cover such garbage, and perhaps win in court, but the end result will be to water down the real freedom of speech that is important, and so your defense of such will ultimately accomplish the exact opposite of what you intended. If you stretch a rubber band too far, there will ultimately be an equal and opposite reaction.

I don't have the solution to all of this, except to repeat that freedom without responsibility is doomed to failure. Societies usually reap what they sow. It may take decades, but that is what happens.

0 Replies

It is always perilous to guess at what the founding fathers would have thought of something. They may have thought that wearing a bikini is criminal. But the constitution is a living document to be interpreted in light of present conditions.

I agree with David's views on child porn, but feel he is dead (no pun intended) wrong regarding guns.

0 Replies

Quote:

If someone walks down mainstreet naked, he is not specifically harming anyone,
but he will be arrested for indecent exposure.

OSD wrote
Yes.
It seems to me that this is a usurpation of power,
unless it can be shown that government was granted jurisdiction
to control how or whether people shud dress.

And there's:
The Adventuresome

This year, as always, the Bay-to-Breakers attracted "the adventuresome." Before we jumped in at 1st and Howard, we watched at least two dozen "invigorated" nudists go by wearing nothing but tattoos and neon yellow hats. One of the nudists had a snake tattooed on his pelvic bone. You can guess where the head was.

While nude running was supposedly outlawed by the race promoters this year, it didn't stop anyone. The police, including SFPD Officer, Jeff Roth, looked the other way. The only violations given were to those who crossed the finish line in exhibition mode.

OSD got it right; the citizens did not give up "free speech."

0 Replies

okie wrote:

David, I can't disagree with you on all of your points. As to common decency, yes,
I agree that it really comes down to whether we have a consensus.

Indeed, if there were enuf people who
LIKED nudity, wearing clothes ( in warm weather )
cud be alleged by them to be against " common decency ". Right ?

I consider using dead, rotting animals in art to be " indecent. "
I cannot PROVE that this is true.
I can only give my assertion that it grosses me out,
so that I DON 'T LIKE IT, as I dislike rye bread; bad taste.
Does that change the rights of my fellow citizens to their freedom ?
or to their bread, of choice ?
I don 't think so.

Quote:

As for Adams swimming nude in the Potomac, I have no problem, I've gone skinny dipping myself, no big deal.
Big difference however between that and marching down a city street in the nude.

WHAT IS THE BIG DIFFERENCE ?
Please give us a logical explanation
( i.e., one based upon more than gut feeling, like my sentiments of rye bread ).
Admittedly, it wud be a shock, but
what is the worst that can happen ?
If it happened ofen enuf,
like topless European beaches, people wud accept it as normal;
( i.e., the norm wud change )

I guess that u have probably figured out by now,
that I am a fairly radical libertarian.

I try to apply pure logic.

Quote:

The problems in society

Which ones do u have in mind ?

Quote:

become bigger problems when too many wish to stretch the limits of decency,
and wrest the concept of freedom to their own detriment.

Assuming that to be true,
does that mean that the individual has acquired
more limitations upon his freedom
to which he has not consented ?
that snuck up on him ?

" Decency " is nothing more than people's OPINIONS of the moment
of how thay like things ( such as the fact that I can 't stand jazz:
it gives me headaches; painful ones ).
Those opinions CHANGE over time, e.g. women uncovering their ankles,
regardless of the former opinion that this was DEEPLY RONG.

This is DISTINCT from matters of moral right and rong,
such as robbery or murder.

Quote:

To clarify, I do not subscribe to the theory that stretching societal norms is always bad.
Obviously, treating minorities as second class citizens needed to bite the dust.

I suspect that to the 1000s of fellows
who volunteered for the Confederate States Army,
thereby accepting peril to life n limb,
something very DIFFERENT was OBVIOUS.

Most respectfully:
u r in error to project your opinions onto all of your fellow human beings.

Quote:

But to believe that stretching societal norms in the name of free speech
is always a positive thing is just as wrong.

( I have been condemned, more than once,
for employing fonetic spelling, stretching that societal norm,
yet, I am within my rights to do so. )

More than championing freedom of speech,
as laudible as that is,
I have gone beyond that to challenge governmental USURPATION
of ultra vires activity,
masquerading it as having been legitimately granted,
when it never was.
That is worse than a dishonest accountant
stealing your funds, for freedom does not regenerate,
as money does.

Quote:

Freedom without responsibility is doomed to failure.

I am less sure of that than u r.
Freedom is power that was WITHHELD from government;
e.g., u r free to choose your favorite color for yourself,
for government was never granted power to force its own color preference upon u.

Quote:

If too many people pull society into the gutter in the name of freedom, the effects will not be positive. They might win enough freedom to do this in court, but the ultimate results will be a detriment to us all.

To summarize, I hardly think that the founders had pornography in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

AGREED.
Thay were not thinking about it,
but what thay DID was to put decisions of this nature
( i.e., about thinking up stories and disseminating them )
beyond the reach of government,
and into the autonomous decision making processes of each citizen, individually.

In other words,
u r completely FREE to think about
anything that u choose to think about,
and
u are free to tell anyone who is willing to listen
what u r thinking about,
and government has no authority to enact any law
to curtail your thinking,
nor your descriptions of your thoughts,
to whomever is willing to listen.

Quote:

You can stretch the letter of the law to cover such garbage, and perhaps win in court, but the end result will be to water down the real freedom of speech that is important, and so your defense of such will ultimately accomplish the exact opposite of what you intended.

The GREATER DANGER is to allow government
to get away with USURPING power that was withheld from it,
in the name of vague generalities,
based upon some of the opinions
of some of the people ( e.g., of decency requiring women to cover
their ankles when mounting a trolley car, for no explained reason ).

0 Replies

Also in South America:

Legal naturism or nudity: Not only in Brazil
There are a number of nude and/or naturist beaches and clubs in Central America and the Caribbean, but to date, relatively few in South America.

"Naturism is a way of life in harmony with nature characterised by the practice of communal nudity, with the intention of encouraging self-respect, respect for others and for the environment."
International Naturist Federation

After visiting the famous beaches of Rio de Janeiro where the skimpiest amount of cloth passes for a tanga, thong bathing suit, or the even minuter version called fio dental or dental floss, and beach goers revel in exposing almost their entire bodies, it isn't surprising that Brazil is one of the few South American countries that have legalized nude or naturist beaches and resorts.

Not without a struggle, though.

The traditional and conservative attitudes toward nudity prevail in most countries of South America, and try to set limits, even in Rio de Janeiro: Rio cracks down on nude sunbathers, article from 2000, but not successfully.

0 Replies

Japanese Baths

Many Japanese cultural phenomena confound first-time visitors to the country, but few rituals are as opaque to foreigners as those surrounding bathing. Partly because of the importance of purification rites in Shinto, Japan's ancient indigenous religion, the art of bathing has been a crucial element of Japanese culture for centuries. Baths in Japan are as much about pleasure and relaxation as they are about washing and cleansing. Traditionally, communal bathhouses served as centers for social gatherings, and even though most modern houses and apartments have bathtubs, many Japanese still prefer the pleasures of communal bathing -- either at onsen (hot springs) while on vacation or in public bathhouses closer to home.

Japanese bathtubs themselves are different from those in the West -- they're deep enough to sit in upright with (very hot) water up to the neck -- and the procedures for using them are quite different as well. You wash yourself in a special area outside the tub first. The tubs are for soaking, not washing; soap must not get into the bathwater.

Many hotels in major cities offer only Western-style reclining bathtubs, so to indulge in the pleasure of a Japanese bath you'll need to stay in a Japanese-style inn or find an o-furo-ya (public bathhouse). The latter are clean, hygienic, and easy to find. Japanese bath towels, which are typically called (ta-o-ru), are available for a fee at onsen and bathhouses. They are no larger than a hand towel, and they have three functions: covering your privates (and breasts in mixed bathing), washing before you bathe and scrubbing while you bathe (if desired), and drying off (wring them out hard and they will dry you quite well). If you want a larger towel to dry yourself off, you will have to bring one along.

You may at first feel justifiably apprehensive about bathing (and bathing properly) in an o-furo, but if you're well versed in bathing etiquette, you should soon feel at ease. And once you've experienced a variety of public baths -- from the standard bathhouses found in every neighborhood to idyllic outdoor hot springs -- you may find yourself an unlikely advocate of this ancient custom.

The first challenge in bathing is acknowledging that your Japanese bath mates will stare at your body. Take solace, however, in the fact that their apparent voyeurism most likely stems from curiosity.

When you enter the bathing room, help yourself to two towels, soap, and shampoo (often included in the entry fee), and grab a bucket and a stool. At one of the shower stations around the edge of the room, crouch on your bucket (or stand if you prefer) and use the handheld showers, your soap, and one of your towels to wash yourself thoroughly. A head-to-toe twice-over will impress onlookers. Rinse off, and then you may enter the public bath. When you do, you'll still have one dry towel. You can use it to cover yourself, or you can place it on your head (as you'll see many of your bath mates doing) while soaking. The water in the bath is as hot as the body can endure, and the reward for making it past the initial shock of the heat is the pleasure of a lengthy soak in water that does not become tepid. All you need to do then is lean back, relax, and experience the pleasures of Shinto-style purification -- cleanse your body and enlighten your spirit. It seems, in Japan, cleanliness is next to godliness.

-David Miles

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Somehow I doubt the Founders would ever have considered child pornography as free speech requiring protection.

Stop with the insipidness, Finn. It doesn't matter a tinker's damn what the "founders" thought. It's such rank stupidity to consider that a group of MEN and their ideas from 200 years ago would have any bearing on this issue today.

With the morals some of them possessed, they could very well have been having sexual realtionships with minors as we know them today.

0 Replies

Finn and his brothers are good at projections on almost any stopic that makes no common sense or relationship being discussed.

0 Replies

I keep seeing new posts and I hope they talk about Buchanan, but they don't.

0 Replies

The Worst President in History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know