On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 02:07:58 +0100, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>4s00th <4s00th@thetruth.com> wrote in
>news:2o1kp2ts44f5d6rrq4mg9sko692ftcgele@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 23:54:28 +0100 (CET), Baal
>> <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>>Let's assume for a moment that Joe Blow has trouble dealing
>>>with his sexual attraction towards children and accordingly
>>>seeks professional help. Let's assume that Joe has no prior
>>>convictions, nor anything else in his background that would
>>>indicate his sexual predilections. As soon as Joe begins
>>>seeing a therapist, then his problems *really* begin. The
>>>therapist may be required by law to report Joe depending on
>>>what Joe reveals to the therapist. Once reported, Joe's
>>>name will almost certainly be added to a watch-list of some
>>>sort.
>>
>> As a former Social Worker, I can say that I don't know of
>> any law in the US, or at least the state I worked in, that
>> required anyone to report anything about someone's feelings
>> unless they started to affect behavior. Psychologists,
>> Social Workers, Counselors, Medical Doctors including
>> Shrinks and Teachers are required by law to report any
>> suspicions of child abuse or neglect to Social Services,
>> the sole authority for investigating complaints of abuse
>> and neglect, though we used to ask the State Troopers or
>> Countie Mounties for an assist in cases of excessive
>> violence or possible sexual abuse.
>>
>> Telling your shrink you're a pedophile in the US should do
>> nothing more than cause a notation in your chart. Telling
>> your shrink you've had some kind of sexual contact with a
>> child -- that has to be reported, although without some
>> details regarding the identity of the child, it probably
>> wouldn't matter. I hate to say it, but Social Services is
>> full of red tape, too -- and they are very strict about
>> what they can and cannot investigate. Hearing that some
>> child may have been molested doesn't do it. Then there's
>> the issue of jurisdiction, and while the law is a little
>> more flexible in that regard, individual agencies may not
>> be.
>
>Bruce Rind says otherwise, and agrees with Baal:
>
>Message-ID: <20061216233837.059$CW@newsreader.com>
>
>"Anyone in the U.S. who disseminates or even possesses child
>porn is subject to prosecution. Any therapist who attempts to
>treat a pedophile -- even someone who admits to fantasizing
>about engaging in sex with an under-aged person -- is
>required by law to turn that client over to the authorities,
>or risk arrest himself or herself."
>
>Are you *sure* your name was not turned over to the authorities?
>How would you tell?
>
>Secret Squirrel
Oh, and to tell the truth, if the authorites are aware of me, it's
likely that they are do to my activities on this newsgroup. I'm
certain that someone has a file with my real name and the different
names I've posted under -- and probably the notation: "harmless
crank."
4s00th
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|