I hate to use this forum to step up on my soap box, but there is a
real problem happening right now, and we need to be aware of it.
We in the Western World -- or those who fall under it's sovereignty --
have long cherished the idea that we represent certain human rights,
specifically to this particular issue, the right to freedom of speech
or expression. But we must now abandon this idea because of recent
court and legislative decisions. I do not know how long these laws
have been in effect in Canada, but written fiction and drawings or art
that depict children involved in sexual activity is illegal child
pornography despite the fact that they do not involve the activity of
actual children. The US has actually had a precedent set in court that
states that, by definition, illegal child pornography must involve
actual children, meaning that only pictures or videos showing actual
children can be considered illegal child pornography. Written accounts
of actual children engaged in sexual activity is something of a gray
area, but might be used as evidence against one if one is accused of
molesting children. That definition has now been called into question
by a Federal Appeals court that upheld a decision in a Virginia court.
First of all, the defendant in the case had actual illegal child
pornography in his possession, but the court decided to include in
that category drawings that depicted children in sexual activity. One
of the three judges dissented, and the lawyer will appeal, even
petitioning the Supreme Court if necessary.
Meanwhile in Australia, a judge has convicted a man of possessing
illegal child pornography because he had a drawing of characters from
the cartoon show The Simpsons involved in sexual activity. Of course,
we are talking about a drawing, not a photograph. And of course, we
are talking about children who are totally fictional characters -- and
cartoon characters at that; the court could not even claim that the
drawing depicted actual child actors portraying the characters. But
the judge basically said something that semantically turns out to be,
"Just because they aren't real doesn't mean they aren't real."
And, let us not forget Great Britain. In jolly ol', the law has
decided that adult actors portraying minors in movies or whatnot that
depict sexual situations is illegal child pornography. Despite the
fact that the actor is actually an adult and is only pretending to
have sex or sexual activities, it's illegal child pornography. FTR,
they don't convict the actor, but the movie people behind the film.
Imagine what they think about written fiction or drawings!
And, back in the states, courts are now attacking written fiction
under obscenity laws. It's not illegal to possess or create something
that is considered obscene, but it is illegal to distribute such. The
courts have a long-standing precedent that states that obscene works
do not have the protection of freedom of speech; however, the
definition of obscene is totally based on opinion. In other words,
there actually is NO definition of obscene. So we are stuck at the
mercy of idiots who proclaim, "I may not be able to tell you what it
means, but I know it when I see it!" So how do we determine what is
obscene or not? If even 1 person thinks it isn't obscene, then is it
really obscene? According to the law, the idea that "most average
people would agree" that it is obscene means that it is obscene.
Funny, I thought that the US Constitution guaranteed that everyone had
the right to enjoy their own opinion -- but this idea in the court
systems denies this right.
But let's take a look at the bigger picture. Under these laws and
decisions we must now remove some popular works from the book shelves.
Stephen King's awesome work, It, depicts a scene in which 6 or 7
children who are about 10-13 years-old have sex with each other: it
has to go. Nora Roberts writing as JD Robb in her Eve Dallas books
repeatedly depicts the rape experienced by a child no more than
7-years-old: they have to go, about 27 books shot to hell, and I don't
even know about her romance novels! Laurel K Hamilton, in one of her
Anita Blake novels graphically depicts the sexual molestation of a 13
or 14-year-old boy while his little sister is physically abused; it
also depicts sex involving vampires who are stuck at ages less than
14: they have to go. Brave New World depicts young school-age children
(prepubescent) being encouraged to explore each other sexually: it has
to go.
I could go on, but the implication is clear. Western Civilization has
declared war on the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the
new era of book-burning has begun. Thought police are coming.
-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
(without showing your email addy)
unless you ask me not to.
|
|