Pedophillia author arested - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

davidmash · #1 12-21-2010, 04:57 PM

Good or bad?

If there is a sound legal reason to do this I say go for it but I don't see it? How is writing something a violation of the law? I thought you had to act on it? How is this different from publishing instructions on how to build a bomb, make a gun fully auto, plan a murder. For that matter, there are novel out there about all of this stuff that in a round about way, give the exact same info if not worse.

I like to watch Criminal Minds on TV. Some of the stuff they show is just really screwed up. I find my self thinking that if I needed some twisted ideas on ways to hurt someone, this would be one of the shows I would take notes on.

Any way, are there any legal minds here who can chime in? I don't support the SOB in any way shape or form so don't bite my head off. I just do not see any legal basis for his arrest.

jlomon · #2 12-21-2010, 05:11 PM

I'll take a stab at it, although I don't profess to be a legal mind. It is already an accepted legal maxim that all speech is not necessarily protected - there have been legal limits applied to free speech/free expression when deemed in the greater public interest - the whole "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" scenario.

It is also accepted legal maxim that minors are treated different from adults - there are already all kinds of laws on the books that treat minors differently - either affording them special protections or prohibiting them from doing certain activities.

This is a dovetailing of two accepted legal principals - that not all speech is free and that minors are afforded special protection under the law. Going after the author of a book that is basically "raping kids for Dummies" protects minors from predators that will use this book to take advantage of them. It is deemed to be in society's best interest to curtain the author's speech rights in favour of protecting a vulnerable sector of society.

davidmash · #3 12-21-2010, 05:14 PM

I get that part but it seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me.

HuskyMan · #4 12-21-2010, 05:36 PM

It is a slippery slope. Don't let it shock you though, there have been many other titles that have been banned or sued out of existence. The following list is by no means all inclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments

aklim · #5 12-21-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

This is a dovetailing of two accepted legal principals - that not all speech is free and that minors are afforded special protection under the law. Going after the author of a book that is basically "raping kids for Dummies" protects minors from predators that will use this book to take advantage of them. It is deemed to be in society's best interest to curtain the author's speech rights in favour of protecting a vulnerable sector of society.

IMO, free speech is about ideas not the "Fire" in a crowded theater thing. Granted his ideas are bad, how do we ban him and not others? What if it is deemed someday that going to the WH and standing outside in the public street with a sign "Obama Sucks" is bad? Maybe it is a bad example but where are you going to draw the line? While it is good to protect the vulnerable, etc, etc, how can we ensure that it won't be used again in a not so honorable way? Maybe Judd was not grandstanding and not trying to use this in his re-election bid. How do we know that Judd II will not be trying to chip at it a bit more with Judd III going even further, etc, etc? Once you get on that slippery slope, where will it end?

Assuming that Judd's motives were pure and not politically motivate, can we be sure that the next Judd won't try to use it to his own nefarious ends?

MTI · #6 12-21-2010, 06:03 PM

I don't think FL will win the Constitutional challenge that will likely arise. This could easly be an ACLU case and they will have most of the ammo.

aklim · #7 12-21-2010, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

I don't think FL will win the Constitutional challenge that will likely arise. This could easly be an ACLU case and they will have most of the ammo.

If that were so, I wonder why Judd is doing it? Perhaps for the "re-election" vote?

davidmash · #8 12-21-2010, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

IMO, free speech is about ideas not the "Fire" in a crowded theater thing. Granted his ideas are bad, how do we ban him and not others? What if it is deemed someday that going to the WH and standing outside in the public street with a sign "Obama Sucks" is bad? Maybe it is a bad example but where are you going to draw the line? While it is good to protect the vulnerable, etc, etc, how can we ensure that it won't be used again in a not so honorable way? Maybe Judd was not grandstanding and not trying to use this in his re-election bid. How do we know that Judd II will not be trying to chip at it a bit more with Judd III going even further, etc, etc? Once you get on that slippery slope, where will it end?

Assuming that Judd's motives were pure and not politically motivate, can we be sure that the next Judd won't try to use it to his own nefarious ends?

That was my point. Thoughts should not be illegal, actions are what count.

Why did the FL Senate enact the Shivo law when they knew it was not constitutional? No accountability and all the glory. Win Win.

#9 12-21-2010, 06:19 PM

I agree it's a slippy slope when you start prosecuting people for what they write or think, as opposed to their actions. I recently read Naked Lunch again, which was one of the last books banned in the US, it would be a shame if worthwhile literature was banned or discouraged by these types of actions.

On a side note, the state of FL finally pardoned Jim Morrison:

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=12356572

Pooka · #10 12-21-2010, 06:24 PM

'Distributing materials of minors engaging in harmful acts' or something like that is what he is charged with. Sounds like some sort of 'kiddy porn' law but I don't really know.

It will be interesting, from a First Amendment standpoint, to wee where this goes. I know at one time there was such a Fed law that was so vaguely written anyone could be arrested for almost anything. The law was so vague that it was struck down by the SC since it really made either everything or nothing porn.

There was a lot of outrage at this law being struck down from all sides since everyone wanted the law but Congress could not find a way to write it so that it would be Constitutional. So they just passed something, said they were done, and washed their hands of it. Few people were shocked when it was struck down.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

By the way, the 'book' was selling for $50! Could it be that it contained a lot of 'instructional photos' as well?

All in all a bit too weird for me.

HuskyMan · #11 12-21-2010, 07:48 PM

At one time, any and all publishers, writers or mailers of pornographic material were subject to prosecution by the vice squad. back in the day, the Vice squad took it's job very seriously. after Hugh Hefner, not so much.

Hatterasguy · #12 12-21-2010, 10:40 PM

Interesting, they arrested him under "obscenity charges". I wonder how much of a stretch it would be to be arrested under "obscenity charges" for criticizing a public official?

As much as the material is objectionable, even objectionable material sometimes needs defending.

aklim · #13 12-22-2010, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Interesting, they arrested him under "obscenity charges". I wonder how much of a stretch it would be to be arrested under "obscenity charges" for criticizing a public official?

As much as the material is objectionable, even objectionable material sometimes needs defending.

Especially objectionable material. IF not, what is your principle worth?

HuskyMan · #14 12-22-2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Especially objectionable material. IF not, what is your principle worth?

Let's step back and take a real close look at this. Censorship is alive and well.

Those who do not approve of a writer's book or statements merely have to complain to the powers that be and said writer will be gagged, the books will be seized and hauled to the incinerator and then the author may go to jail.

Controlled speech, it's what's for dinner.

raymr · #15 12-22-2010, 03:26 PM

A while ago some lawmakers were asked to define what porn is. They couldn't come to a consensus but merely stated that they "know it when they see it". Thats where it becomes subjective. With people becoming more and more easily offended about everything, this could set a precedent for more censorship of writings that don't meet someone's approval. By the same token it difficult defending anyone selling child porn literature.