Posted on 05/19/2005 11:05:47 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
On February 2, 2003, when seven-year-old Danielle van Dam disappeared from her family home in the middle of the night, every mother’s nightmare was played out on national television for almost a month while authorities searched for the girl. When Danielle’s body was found at the end of that month, the police and prosecutors discovered a frightening story about a neighbor of Danielle’s who had computer files filled with child pornography and even a sickening cartoon video of the rape of a young girl.
According to a report by Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, on the link between pornography and violent sex crimes, the prosecutor in the Danielle van Dam case said “The video represented [the defendant’s] sexual fantasies and inspired the abduction, rape, and murder of Danielle.” According to Raymond Pierce, a retired NYPD detective who worked on the sex-crimes squad for many years and is now a criminal-profiling consultant, about 80 percent of rapists and serial killers are heavy pornography users. I was a victim of an attempted rape by a disturbed man who turned out to be involved in pornography.
May is Victims of Pornography Month. Today Senator Sam Brownback (R., Kan.), Rep. Katherine Harris (R., Fla.), Rep. Joe Pitts (R., Pa.), and leaders from the values community will participate in a summit to explore the troubling connection between pornography and violence against women and children.
Florida attorney general Charlie Crist advises parents that “we must never lose sight of the fact that sexual predators make the online world a dangerous place for innocent children. Parents must be ever-vigilant to make sure their children are not exposed to images and messages that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.” Crist warns that we cannot allow the Internet to be a “pipeline for pornography aimed at children.” But while parents can use available means to protect their children when they are in their own homes, there is a cultural climate surrounding our children that threatens them the way Danielle van Dam was threatened. Because of the availability of pornography online, there is no way of knowing what lurks in the hearts of our neighborhoods.
More needs to be done to evaluate the connection between violent predatory behavior and pornography, and to crack down on these violent predators. Police and law-enforcement officers across the country report brutal instances in which those addicted to pornography utilized its sadistic images on their female and child victims.
Just this past February, the New York Times reported a story about a teenage babysitter who had raped three young children he was watching in their homes. According to the Times, his pattern was to watch pornographic videos with the oldest of the children, a 12-year-old boy, and intimidate them all by torturing them with a knife and threats to their family members. Perhaps one of the most notorious serial killers, Ted Bundy, participated in an interview with Dr. James Dobson shortly before he was executed. In the interview, Bundy explained, “I’ve lived in prison for a long time now. And I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence like me. And without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography — without exception, without exception — deeply influenced and consumed by an addiction to pornography.”
Since 1956, the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment does not protect obscene materials. If we know from the perpetrators themselves how obscenity contributes to violence against women and children, what can we do?
We need to fund more studies of the addiction to pornography and its effects on violent behavior. Parents can install filters on any computer used by children and keep the family computer in a central location, not in a child's bedroom or someplace where parents might not regularly see it. We need to demand tougher law enforcement on the state and federal level. The Bush administration is stepping up federal enforcement of obscenity laws. This is a good first step. Contact the U.S. attorney for your district and ask what they are doing to enforce the laws. We need tougher state penalties against both possession and distribution of child porn and passing any kind of pornographic material to kids. Experts indicate that pornography is often used by pedophiles to break down the resistance of child victims. Parents should check out their state’s penalties for child rape and make sure offenders are going to jail and staying there for these offenses. Florida, for example, just passed a tough new law after the tragedy involving Jessica Lunsford, whose killer was a recently released violent offender. We should pass legislation to address the threat to children on the Internet. This includes chat sites, websites, spam, and peer-to-peer networks. Peer-to-Peer networks are of particular concern because they are widely visited by kids and offer porn for free without any age verification.
As Rep. Katherine Harris has pointed out, "Pornography displays human beings as objects, obliterating the wall between an individual's sick fantasies and the compulsion to act upon them. Often, the monsters who hurt women and children start with this malignant desensitizer." We need to all work together to find better ways to protect women and children against this violence.
The pro-porn, prostitution, and drug crowd.
How so? Do prostitutes argue that because they have sex for money they are also permitted to murder their johns -- or do anything else? Or do hookers simply assert that murder should be permitted for everyone?
I be a lot more convinced of the sincerity of your position if I heard you arguing that because of what it does to people like Eric Rudolph, the Islamic Jihadists (and the Crusaders), religion should be banned.
Sure it is, so long as your evil does not harm another. That's the downside of liberty- sometimes people are going to engage in pursuits you might consider evil. However, unless that evil harms other people, you and the government have no power to ban such activity.
I agree wholeheartedly. Unless someone's actions harm another, the government has no power to ban such actions.
Nobody needs to justify owning a gun. However, if you commit crimes with that gun, the government can punish you and limit your right to own firearms. Similarly, nobody needs to justify the ownership of pornography. However, if your use of the pornography leads to you violating the law, the government can punish you and limit your access to pornography.
Oh, hey, thanks for the enlightenment, your eminence.
Lust is not at issue, which should be obvious, had you taken the time to read my post, rather than dismiss it as sophistry.
It must be possible to have marital sex without lust, otherwise any sex would be "inordinate craving" by your definition. So, is videotaped, lust-free sex, still porn?
Looking forward to your patronizing response.
The pro-porn, prostitution, and drug crowd.
How so? Do prostitutes argue that because they have sex for money they are also permitted to murder their johns -- or do anything else? Or do hookers simply assert that murder should be permitted for everyone?
I be a lot more convinced of the sincerity of your position if I heard you arguing that because of what it does to people like Eric Rudolph, the Islamic Jihadists (and the Crusaders), religion should be banned.
Sanctimonious posturing aside, you've done a noteworthy job painting yourself into the "sex is dirty" corner.
No, but they engage in prostitution, which is evil.
I be a lot more convinced of the sincerity of your position if I heard you arguing that because of what it does to people like Eric Rudolph, the Islamic Jihadists (and the Crusaders), religion should be banned.
I'm not a religious freedom absolutist. The purpose of government is to promote the common good. At times, this may entail the suppression of particular religions or religious practices.
For example, it would be wise for our nation, and most European nations, to restrict or prohibit Mohammedan immigration, for the overall good of society. Libertarians can't justify taking such a position, and would slit their own throats by allowing a Mohammedan takeover by immigration.
Small "l" libertarians would have no problem with that.
There's no such thing as personal sin. But regardless, I say otherwise. And here we stand, because it's all just people with different opinions.
Then what's your point?
It must be possible to have marital sex without lust, otherwise any sex would be "inordinate craving" by your definition.
Look up "inordinate."
So, is videotaped, lust-free sex, still porn?
Looking forward to your patronizing response.
You asked for it. This is sophistical and not worthy of a response. I don't see any interest in your part in finding the truth. I gave you the principles. Apply them. Or don't. Your choice.
Any arguments in support of your position?
Sometimes legislators pass laws that are unconstitutional. Sometimes the courts get it wrong - the Campaign Finance Reform law is one the courts should have caught but didn't.
If a state government passes a law that legalizes slavery, do you think that it should go unchallenged?
No, it is part of being a free people.
With particular restrictions against Mohammedan immigration? On what basis?
The Libertarian party doesn't hold that position, but most libertarians don't belong to that party.
It is not inconsistent with libertarian ideology to support controlling America's borders.
The sooner the libertarians are banned from FR the better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.