Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Alas, while the quotes are nice and meaningful, they also occurred long before the internet allowed pedophiles to group together to share their exploits and their children with each other.
Also, nobody is suggesting that we cannot talk about child porn (ie, "Child porn, which is sexual or nude images involving minors is bad"), but there is no valid reason to be dwelling on and detailing the methods only for the prurient interest - especially when that interest is specifically to an act not only illegal, but the inflicts life long suffering on the victims.
The greatest thing about freedom should be the intelligence and judgement when NOT to use it.
|
There are actually plenty of valid reasons for certain people to dwell on it and actually detail the methodologies but I am not going to get into the psychiatricts (sp?? word???) of the whole mess.
Nicest thing about the freedom of speech is that it does not have to be valid. It can be whimsy, it can be illusion, it can be the worst things that you can personally imagine and it is still legal to both think it and speak it.
The only valid limits should be whether an accusation is true or not and that is usually handled at the civil level.
Jefferson maintained, and I completely agree, that the right to correspond did not have to be enunciated in the first amendment because it was quite obviously a natural right.
When we put limits on what people can write about we are going down that
big long slippery slope.
Would I find the writings offensive, from your descriptions (of your skimming) most definitely. Would I consciously allow those type of writings to be in my house, most definitely not.
But, what I like or dislike is not and should not be the determining factor. The law has always tried to make a distinction between the idea (speech) and the act (conduct).
Conduct can and should be regulated to some extent. Speech should not.