Over at Gates of Vienna, Baron Bodissey cites a story in the Sydney Morning Herald concerning the French government's plans to outlaw three types of internet crime, Child pornography, Terrorism, and Racial hatred. Baron's understandable concern is with the government of France effectively declaring "racism" (French government's definition, of course) as a crime equal to that of Child porn and Terrorism.
Baron writes:
This last little fillip — the “pledge” that the new rules will not infringe on “fundamental liberty” — is a sure sign that the authorities have every intention of using the plan to exert political control and clamp down on any speech that interferes with the entrenched European power structure.
As we have seen recently in Finland, Sweden, and Britain, as well as France, “racism” is a conveniently elastic term. It can be stretched to apply to any independent-minded behavior by the citizens of Europe that is considered unacceptable by the elites who run the show. Specifically, anyone who disapproves of or even questions the mass immigration of millions of Muslims into European cities is by definition a racist.
Virtually anything posted here at Gates of Vienna — or at the Brussels Journal, or Mission Europa, or Snaphanen, or Europe News, or Politically Incorrect, or Tundra Tabloids, or Beer n Sandwiches — is “racist”, and therefore actionable under the French scheme.
As I said, the Baron's concern is understandable and well founded in my opinion. But take a look at the comments to the post:
Commenter Henrik writes:
Good post. I've been saying this over and over. Personally I have not even seer a single pieces of child porn - couldn't care less - but the principle is important. Watching some despicable picture of naked children can hardly be a crime in itself - but in the failure to cope with what really matters - the child abuse - governments have decided to attack derivatives instead.
This is a violation of the Rule of Law, in that non-crimes are being punished, and this is a problem. Further, once the government gets the idea to block particular content, the idea will not stop.
What is coming to pass is exactly what I expected.
In Denmark, the Constitution is quite good on so-called 'preventive measures', and I've tried to sound the alarm about what they're doing (blocking at the DNS level), but so far to no avail.
This is a difficult issue to deal with.
And "Homophobic Horse" responds:
So you don't think that people who masturbate to child pornography are themselves participating in and encouraging child abuse?
A few comments later, "Pogo" replies to Homophobic Horse directly:
Homophobic Horse,
I once arrested an arsonist who got his kicks setting fires and watching them burn. Does this mean that matches should be outlawed?
At which point I enter the fray:
Pogo wrote:
I once arrested an arsonist who got his kicks setting fires and watching them burn. Does this mean that matches should be outlawed?
You're arguing that internet child pornography should be legal based on the idea that we don't ban the sale of matches which, when misused, have the power to destroy physical property? How do you equate the two?
Why don't you argue instead for the sale and distribution of child porn in magazine form at your local Seven Eleven?
In my passionate disbelief of what I was reading coming from Pogo (a law enforcement officer, nonetheless), I forgot to finish my thoughts before rushing to post my reply. When I qualified my statements about the legal sale of matches with the phrase "when misused," I meant to follow up on that thought regarding child pornography, to wit: When is child pornography ever not misused; what is the usefulness of child pornography to anyone???
I'd like for Pogo, or anyone else, to answer me that.
**********
2 comments:
Pogo seems conveniently unaware that the making of matches does not require anyone to commit a crime.
I find it odd that a law enforcement officer would use such an example.
Pogo seems conveniently unaware that the making of matches does not require anyone to commit a crime.
It's a good point, but it's lost on the Pogos of the world.
The Pogos of the world don't see the criminality in the taking and distribution of sexually explicit pictures of children. To the Pogos of the world producing matches (which can be harmful) and producing child pornography (which can be harmful) are essentially the same things, equal in their potentiality to be harmful and destructive, both requiring misuse and abuse.
But as my statements to Pogo imply, there is no such thing as a "useful purpose" for child pornography as with matches and other useful products which, in their normal usages, serve the general welfare of mankind.
Most every product can be misused and abused. But few (child porn being one) are inherently evil and useless to any good purpose.
-Terry
Post a Comment