According to this article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BJ59120101220), Phillip Greaves, the author of The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: The Child-Lover's Code of Conduct, was arrested in Colorado. He was arrested on charges of obscenity, which is understandable, considering that he included descriptions of sexual encounters with children in his book. All in all, this is good news.
However, there is bad news. If you click on this link and read some of the comments posted by readers, it is obvious that people are not aware of the impact that a book like this can have on our society.
The top-most comment, posted by user Edward666 (Seriously?), asks, "Free Speach? what harm is a book no one is going to read?"
This guy obviously hasn't flipped open a book--let alone a newspaper--in a while, considering the fact that he can't even spell "speech" and that he didn't realize that this book was a huge hit. It was number 65 on Amazon's 100 Top-Selling Paid Kindle e-books, and after the story broke about amazon.com selling the book, sales rose 101,000%.
Another comment by daniwitz13 says, "I am 100% with you that are 100% for him. It is not ABOUT him or the contents itself but about freedom and rights. I hope rights win out."
These people obviously do not have children. I understand that the man's first amendment rights are under fire here, but he depicted sexual acts with children in his book, which according to the following information, is illegal.
This is the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
This is the definition of pornography:
1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction Here's the problem: the CEOS (Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section) of the U.S. Department of Justice defines child pornography as "the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct." So, because Greaves doesn't actually have visual representations of children engaged in sexual acts, his book does not disobey this law. But it is technically pornography. And, according to the test developed by the Supreme Court and used to determine whether or not material is obscene, for Phillip Greaves, there is no escape. Here are the three "prongs" that make up the test: "The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether material is obscene. The test was developed in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The resulting three-pronged test to adjudicate obscenity is as follows: -Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); and -Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and -Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Any material meeting this definition may be found to violate the laws of the United States and anyone convicted of distributing such material may be prosecuted and punished by fines and a term of imprisonment. " (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/optf/guide/citizens-guide.html) So, while Greaves' work may not qualify as child pornography, it does qualify as obscene and is therefore illegal. You can't hide behind the constitution forever, Greaves. But this isn't about one man. This is about an entire culture of people (including members of NAMBLA) who believe that engaging in sexual acts with children is legal and morally just. If you visit nambla.org, you will see that members of this group actually believe that male children can be and are sexually interested in older men. They not only believe that children are sexually interested in men and make advances on them, but they believe that rejecting these so-called advances will result in a sense of rejection and abandonment in that child. You can't victimize innocent children and expect that just because they do not fight back or protest, that they are consenting to these acts. There is a reason that an age of consent has been established. It's true that some children mature faster than others, but just because you can convince 8 year-old children to have sex with you, it doesn't mean that they want to. And it certainly doesn't mean that they are attracted to you. It means that they have no concept of trust, or of what is right and wrong. It's like kicking a puppy. It's not going to kick you back. Or call the police. Or bite you. He's going to let you kick him, and that puppy is going to think that he did something wrong and that he deserves it. Pedophelia will never be eradicated. There will always be people who distribute underground child pornography and there will always be people who secretly molest children. But if we can get put away some of these people, that means fewer abused children and fewer cycles of abuse. It means that someday there will be a world where you can let your child walk to school or go to a neighbor's house without a fear that he or she won't come back just as innocent or even come back at all. |
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment