Quote from: John MorrowIn the case of abortion, the problem is that it was decided nationally in an undemocratic way (Supreme Court decision)

The independent judiciary is an essential part of the American democratic process.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that if you want to veer into a full-blown discussion about abortion, you should start a new thread on that topic. Just a suggestion.

No.  My argument is that Planned Parenthood has an obligation (and a legal requirement) to report statutory rape and child abuse and that they've been failing to do so, thus enabling child abuse.  You argued that they had higher obligations than preventing child abuse and obeying the law.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe independent judiciary is an essential part of the American democratic process.

The politicization of the judiciary is threatening it's independence.

Quote from: John MorrowThe politicization of the judiciary is threatening it's independence.

I like how with the Right, the SC is "politicized" when they're defending free speech for obscenity trials, or preventing states from passing anti-homosexuality laws, or defending womens' right to choose; but when they're being stacked with religious fundamentalists who've written anti-gay tracts or consistently voted to support right-wing causes they're just engaging in "strict interpretation" of the constitution and that's suddenly ok.

I think that on the whole, the SC is working pretty well; ironically some of the judges that the Right bitches about these days were put in there by Reagan or Bush, the right claims that they were "stealth liberals" or something like that, because they don't pass the kinds of judgments that the right-wing wants, while in fact the guys are just being competently apolitical in their judgments.

The only guy in the SC right now that I think is truly unqualified to be there is Clarence Thomas; and not because of the nonsense about him and Anita Hill, but because he's really very incompetent and a political mouthpiece. Even Scalia, who's politics I rarely agree with, has at least got a spine.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditDon't get me wrong, if they attempt it even once, then that's that; but you're talking about charging everyone with murder who owns a gun, because they might end up shooting someone with it one day.

Well duh! That's what the act of posessing a gun is: a threat to use it. A wicked man with a gun is a threat to good people, a good person with a gun is a threat to the wicked, a careless person is a threat to everyone etc... So the sane approach to gun control then is to ballance the good effects of gun ownership against the bad. I don't want to weigh in on Shakespere-this or criticaly acclaimed Lolita-that. Just actual children in actual porn.

It reminds me of a skit where Batman's nemisis, "the Penguin" tried to get past a policeman and failed because, unlike the police of Gothem city, this policeman wasn't an idiot -- he didn't fall for the old "smell the gas coming out of the Penguin's umbrella" trick. Point is, Penguin is a supervillian who can only function in a world where people sniff umbrella gas. The all kiddie porn is free speach routine only functions in a world where people can't distinguish between Shakespeare and nailing a 4 year old.

Therefore I call upon the en-brained people of earth to legislate against kiddie pr0n! EDIT: I'm lookin' at you Japan! :IGMEoY:

QuoteYes, and your point is?

It's not a point but a challenge -- and one that you responded to nicely.

QuoteIf some guy came around here and started advocating pedophilia, and could not stop himself, he would be banned.

There's a huge difference though between rightly mocking someone, or kicking them out of social groups, and sending them to prison for 10-15 and putting them on a registry that will guarantee to socially isolate and criminalize them for life.

I like the cut of your jib although I think the difference between banning people from social groups and banning people from society is only one of degree. Since you've got a big mouth, you berate pedophiles. Since you own a board, you ban them. If you were sheriff? If you were Prime Minister? If you were dictator for life? I think you're on the same slippery slope as I: the right to free speach is not absolute.

Quote from: RPGPunditI like how with the Right, the SC is "politicized" when they're defending free speech for obscenity trials, or preventing states from passing anti-homosexuality laws, or defending womens' right to choose; but when they're being stacked with religious fundamentalists who've written anti-gay tracts or consistently voted to support right-wing causes they're just engaging in "strict interpretation" of the constitution and that's suddenly ok.

And can you give me an example of a decision by those "religious fundamentalists" making actual rulings at odds with the Constitution, especially give that some of the most staunchly conservative justices are also the most reliable defenders of the First Amendment in a way that you should approve of?  In other words, do you have any specific example of right-wing activism or is this just generic lightweight partisanship masquerading as a deep opinion on the subject?  

(And before you cite Bush v. Gore, please read Souter's dissent that was joined by Breyer, which agreed that the remedy offered by the Florida Supreme Court was not Constitutional.  It was originally reported as a 7-2 decision for a reason.)

Of course Republicans ran Justices Ginsberg and Breyer through a wringer the same way Democrats run the appointees of Republicans through a wringer.  Oh, wait.  They didn't, instead arguing that a President is entitled to appoint who he wants to the courts.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that on the whole, the SC is working pretty well; ironically some of the judges that the Right bitches about these days were put in there by Reagan or Bush, the right claims that they were "stealth liberals" or something like that, because they don't pass the kinds of judgments that the right-wing wants, while in fact the guys are just being competently apolitical in their judgments.

On what basis do you think it's "working pretty well"?  That you like the rulings? :rolleyes:

Do you really believe that the interstate commerce clause covers activities that don't involve interstate commerce because they might have some small theoretical impact on interstate commerce?  Do you really believe that any tiny creek or muddy wetland is legally a "navigable waterway" because it might have some small theoretical impact on an actual navigable waterway?  Have you ever actually read Roe v. Wade (or Doe v. Bolton, or Griswald or any of the other key privacy rights decisions)?  Did you bother to read the Edward Lazarus column that I posted a link to earlier where he writes:

   As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather.

[...]

Why Roe, As Constitutional Interpretation, is Virtually Impossible to Defend

What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.

Before Roe, the right to contraception established in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird was a concept that was already barely hanging onto the high ledge of defensible constitutional thinking. In Roe, the Court added a 500 lb. lead weight. And the Court's been looking up at the ledge ever since.

Instead, as conservatives now scurry to do with Bush v. Gore, the friends of Roe seek to find other constitutional bases to defend its outcome. Might Roe be a stealth equal protection case - really relating not to the right of privacy, but instead to women's equality? Perhaps, but to say so amounts to a concession that the decision itself, as written, is unsustainable.

And it's not all that difficult to find other left-wing writers who agree with the outcome of Roe v. Wade who, nevertheless, feel that it' a legally indefensible position.  For example you can find columnist Richard Cohen's opinions about it here

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized Roe v. Wade.  From a New York Times article:

   Judge Ginsburg's critique of Roe v. Wade is twofold. First, she said in the New York University lecture, as she has written for years, the right to abortion might have been more secure had it been grounded in the concept of women's right to equality rather than in the right to privacy. "The Roe decision might have been less of a storm center," she said, had it "homed in more precisely on the women's-equality dimension of the issue."

[...]

The second part of Judge Ginsburg's critique concerns the scope of Roe v. Wade, and it is this part that has made some abortion-rights leaders, including Kate Michelman of the National Abortion Rights Action League, somewhat wary. Judge Ginsburg has argued that by issuing a broad ruling that swept most state abortion laws off the books, the Court created an inherently vulnerable precedent that led to a backlash and short-circuited a liberal trend then under way in the states.

ADDED: Then there are these quotes from an L.A. Times article from 2005 titled "Roe Ruling: More Than Its Author Intended":

   [...] On the day the ruling was announced, Burger said, "Plainly, the court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand."

Blackmun proposed to issue a news release to accompany the decision, issued Jan. 22, 1973. "I fear what the headlines may be," he wrote in a memo. His statement, never issued, emphasized that the court was not giving women "an absolute right to abortion," nor was it saying that the "Constitution compels abortion on demand."

In reality, the court did just that.

I suggest doing a Google search for the article and read the entire thing.  It talks about how the scope of Roe v. Wade was unintentional and how it happened the way it did based on the release of Blackmun's papers from the time.

Yes, I know that this is all far more nuanced than a Bill Maher monologue.  Please note that I'm making a point about the grounds upon which these decisions were made rather than how much I like or don't like the decision, so please try to keep your responses on that issue.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe only guy in the SC right now that I think is truly unqualified to be there is Clarence Thomas; and not because of the nonsense about him and Anita Hill, but because he's really very incompetent and a political mouthpiece. Even Scalia, who's politics I rarely agree with, has at least got a spine.

I find it ironic, given the shallowness and partisanship of this response, that you'd use it to call anyone else incompetent or a political mouthpiece.  

I suggest that you take a look at Edward Lazarus' other columns on the Supreme Court at FindLaw.com because even though I don't agree with his politics, he's not relying on comedians like Bill Maher for his opinions of the court.  Another Lazarus article (I posted a link to one earlier) from FindLaw worth reading is here.  In an article explaining why Thomas would make a poor Chief Justice, he writes:

   Don't Believe the Hype: Many Liberals' Views of Thomas Turn Out to Be Inaccurate

To see Thomas, as a Justice, clearly, it's first necessary to put aside many of the inaccurate claims that have been made about him.

In liberal circles, Thomas is often derided as an intellectual lightweight whose deep resentments fuel a passionate but unprincipled conservative judicial record. Often, liberals dismiss Thomas as a Scalia clone who can't think for himself.

As evidence for their claim, liberals almost universally point to his habitual silence at the Court's oral arguments. Surely, they say, this silence must be a sign of Thomas's indifference, his ill-preparedness, or his inability to engage in intellectual sparing with the lawyers who appear before him.

Much of this description of Thomas, however, has little grounding in reality. Court insiders (including ex-clerks who don't like Thomas's views) tend to agree that Thomas is plenty smart and intellectually engaged in the Court's work. They concede that Thomas's clerks do much of the heavy lifting in his opinions. But there is also no denying that Thomas has produced a body of incisive, provocative opinions that merit (and are increasingly receiving) serious attention.

In other words, whatever the reason for Thomas's consistent silence at oral argument, it isn't a lack of ability, nor is it any shirking of his duties. Those who suggest otherwise conveniently forget that, like Thomas, some of their own heroes (including very conscientious justices such as Harry Blackmun) only rarely contributed to oral argument.

Additional Years on the Court Have Proven Thomas Is Not a "Scalia Clone"

It is also wrong to suggest that Thomas is a Scalia clone (though this description was more apt in Thomas's first few years at the Court). To the contrary, in recent years, Thomas seems very self-consciously to have staked out a position distinctly to the right of Scalia on numerous issues.

Last term, for example, in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (the Pledge of Allegiance case), Thomas broke from Scalia's already conservative position favoring a more modest separation of Church and State. Thomas's view is much more extreme - so much so, that no other justice in the modern era has taken this view.

Thomas declares that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause (which creates the Church/State separation) applies only to the federal government, and not to the fifty states. As a result, according to Thomas's view, states are not prohibited from establishing a religion, as long as they do not violate citizens' rights - such as their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of their religion in doing so.

I don't doubt that the idea that Thomas is even more right-wing than Scalia makes him even worse in your eyes, but the point is that your shallow, partisan, and uninformed critique of him is, well, shallow, partisan, and uninformed.

Related TIME article: Will SCOTUS know indecency when it sees it?

QuoteMarch 17, 2008 11:34

Will SCOTUS Know Indecency When It Sees It?

Posted by James Poniewozik

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case of Fox network vs. the FCC, after the U.S. court of appeals ruled that the FCC could not fine the network for the use of "fleeting expletives" by Cher and Nicole Richie. I won't rehash my opinions on the case (see here, here and here) or the FCC's general nanny-statism.

But I will reiterate my constant reminder that the broadcast-decency issue is one of those controversies that don't break down along traditional liberal-conservative lines. Here, we're essentially seeing a cultural-conservative argument (that the government has a role in promoting public morals) against an economic-conservative one (that the government should stay out of the affairs of private business, not to mention out of viewers' living rooms). And you'll find "liberals" and "conservatives" lining up on both sides of the argument.

The big unknown--which I'm not legal scholar enough to guess at--is whether the case will prove the Court's pro-business leanings, or something else. But it would be nice if the ruling provided some clarity in the muddled question of what Washington can and cannot police.

One thing that has not been mentioned in regards to the porn issue, be it drawn cartoon child porn, or real world porn (nice dodge from Jimmy B on the dominatrix issue and it's contradiction of his 'porn is misogyny' theme btw):

What ever happened to those studies I heard about through the nineties that showed that pornography was an outlet valve, that repression of sexuality (including porn) actually increased instances of sexual assaults and rapes?

Were they discredited? Did they only exist in the rumormills of pop culture?


I mean, John (I think) accidentally put forth some numbers earlier that would actually support this. You know, how possessers of child porn were actually THREE FUCKING TIMES as turned on as actual pedophiles!!!

As horrific as it is to contemplate, the idea that people can find themselves enjoying the imaginary sex more than real sex might keep them from actually attempting to have it is a potentially valid part of the discussion that has been neglected.   You know: Instead of banning all expression of child porn, we could make every effort to let those that are inclined actually get addicted to the shit so they don't feel as much pressure to live out their fantasies with real children.  


This entire topic has the feeling of a wave of hysteria, the 'What of Societies Evils can we Stomp Out Next'.  They seem to come, lasting a few years, then move on, falling to the wayside. Each has been a legitimate problem in turn (glass ceilings, sexual harrassment, drunk driving... the list goes on...) leaving a wake of often shit law and potentially innocent victims of the lynch mob mentality in their wake...   and the problem remains.



My apologies for any crap wording. Please attempt to read the gist of my arguement rather than the specific phrasing. I'm tired, its early, and there is no coffee...

Quote from: SpikeWhat ever happened to those studies I heard about through the nineties that showed that pornography was an outlet valve, that repression of sexuality (including porn) actually increased instances of sexual assaults and rapes?

Were they discredited? Did they only exist in the rumormills of pop culture?

There are also plenty of other studies going back into the eighties showing that pornography, particularly the violent and misogynistic kind (which a great deal of Japanese pornography is), is harmful.  For every study there are questions about the sample size, methodology, and so on.  Like I said, the big problem is devising some sort of ethical way to evaluate what's going on and I don't think anyone from either side has managed that yet.

Quote from: SpikeI mean, John (I think) accidentally put forth some numbers earlier that would actually support this. You know, how possessers of child porn were actually THREE FUCKING TIMES as turned on as actual pedophiles!!!

The facts are what they are, whether they agree with me or not.  Facts are funny that way.  It's not the first time that I've posted facts that contradict or don't fully support my position.

That said, it's not entirely clear what that means.  Since the study was testing their response to pictures rather than real little children, does that mean that they are simply more turned on to pictures than people who have done the real thing?  Can we assume that they are correspondingly less attracted to real children or maybe the increased arousal carries over?  A lot is left unanswered there.

But, yes, it could support the idea that pornography can be used as an outlet.

Quote from: SpikeAs horrific as it is to contemplate, the idea that people can find themselves enjoying the imaginary sex more than real sex might keep them from actually attempting to have it is a potentially valid part of the discussion that has been neglected.   You know: Instead of banning all expression of child porn, we could make every effort to let those that are inclined actually get addicted to the shit so they don't feel as much pressure to live out their fantasies with real children.

My concern is that I have heard of people and have even known people for whom their appetites for pornography are not static, which is why there is a market for pornography dealing with some really twisted fetishes out there.  People see a topless woman and then want to see her bottomless.  They see her bottomless and then they want to see her having sex.  They see her having sex then want to see her doing something more kinky, and so on.

Consider that despite the widespread availability of adult pornography around the world, the sex trade is huge ranging from strip clubs to prostitutes.  And despite the availability of soft core then hard core pornography, not only have the extremes been getting pushed but the mainstream has also been getting harder.  So the fear is that pornography will encourage an escalation that will go from animation to pictures of real children and then to the real children, themselves, in part because the investigation of almost all sexual criminals seem to show pornography in their lives and it doesn't seem to stop them.

Quote from: SpikeThis entire topic has the feeling of a wave of hysteria, the 'What of Societies Evils can we Stomp Out Next'.  They seem to come, lasting a few years, then move on, falling to the wayside. Each has been a legitimate problem in turn (glass ceilings, sexual harrassment, drunk driving... the list goes on...) leaving a wake of often shit law and potentially innocent victims of the lynch mob mentality in their wake...   and the problem remains.

When they deal with the root causes and become a real deterrence, they can work to a degree.  It's just as utopian to expect any law or policy to perfectly solve a problem or want to abandon it.

QuoteMy apologies for any crap wording. Please attempt to read the gist of my arguement rather than the specific phrasing.

I think there's a point there, Spike. And the point has already been made in this thread that Japan may have less actual abuse than eg the US or Australia.

Quote from: John MorrowSince the study was testing their response to pictures rather than real little children, does that mean that they are simply more turned on to pictures than people who have done the real thing?  Can we assume that they are correspondingly less attracted to real children or maybe the increased arousal carries over?  A lot is left unanswered there.

But, yes, it could support the idea that pornography can be used as an outlet.

Quote from: John MorrowConsider that despite the widespread availability of adult pornography around the world, the sex trade is huge ranging from strip clubs to prostitutes.  And despite the availability of soft core then hard core pornography, not only have the extremes been getting pushed but the mainstream has also been getting harder.  So the fear is that pornography will encourage an escalation that will go from animation to pictures of real children and then to the real children, themselves, in part because the investigation of almost all sexual criminals seem to show pornography in their lives and it doesn't seem to stop them.

Well, no one claimed that porn would totally stop crime.  However, as I recall you have complained about the spread of general porn during the Clinton administration.  However, during that same period the rate of rapes decreased from its peak in 1991. cf. the Department of Justice  Rape Statistics  There is some question about the connection around 1995, but in general the trend has been downward despite your concerns about the rising spread of porn.  

I haven't been able to find similar estimations of child molestation, though I did see a reference to an increase between 1987 and 1993.

Quote from: jhkimWell, no one claimed that porn would totally stop crime.  However, as I recall you have complained about the spread of general porn during the Clinton administration.  However, during that same period the rate of rapes decreased from its peak in 1991. cf. the Department of Justice  Rape Statistics  There is some question about the connection around 1995, but in general the trend has been downward despite your concerns about the rising spread of porn.

Given the number of variables involved, I think it's difficult to jump from correlation to causation in this case.  That's why I'm much more interested in studied of individual behavior here than in statistical analysis, though it seems difficult to find studies that don't seem to have an axe to grind either way.  But there does seem to be enough zero and negative connection data to warrant consideration of the idea that it's harmless or even helpful but doing so should also consider the full social implications (e.g., I found testimony on one page from a wife who was coerced by her husband into doing things he'd seen in pornography that she didn't want to do, which won't show up any sort of statistic).

Quote from: jhkimI haven't been able to find similar estimations of child molestation, though I did see a reference to an increase between 1987 and 1993.

I did find at least one (possibly unreliable) anti-pornography document that pointed out that the FBI's crime statistics specifically deal with forcible rape of girls and women 12 and older and thus may be hiding increases for earlier victims, not to mention the point I made earlier about the active cover-up that many older men engage in to hide their relationship with even very young teenagers.  Even if there is a statistical drop in child rape, how much of that is the result of parental reluctance to let their children just go outside for unsupervised play or because the Internet has made it easier for authorities to find and round up child molesters?

Anime is one of those things, you know? Not that it's exempt from the judgment of society, (I'd say it's seen in more contempt than most media, actually) but that the animated nature of it creates a much larger 'gray area' in regards to the legality of what it depicts.

Ignoring arguments about what art is (another thread, please), anime and generic animated films and drawings don't involve real people engaged in these actions of sex (normal consensual) or rape (violent non-consensual). This raises the question of who's harmed, and generally falls under pornography clauses and issues of free speech.

It's slightly less of a gray area when the ages of characters are well-defined (stated in print or audibly, for ex), and issues re: child pornography can be levied at that point, maybe. OTOH, we're all aware, I think, of characters who are reported to be at legal age for sexual congress but look younger. This is a really hazy area because we know what squicks us, and we know why, but when legislating, it's stated intent versus perception. If the character looks too young, and acts too young, but is given the listed age of 18+ (popular tactic is making someone hundreds of years old, but appear young) it's difficult to draw any kind of line you can legislate from without becoming draconian. And that's without getting into areas re: artistic expression, 'what is porn', and artistic style.

In the US, we don't get this as often. With cartoons being for children, sexualized animated/drawn images are fairly recent, or mostly relegated to being hidden/closeted. Not the same in Japan, whose minimum age for sexual relations is already lower then it is in the United States and has a different attitude towards sex than we do. And no, I'm not defending child porn. I'm just saying that there are things that make animated porn featuring minors difficult to legislate, and in Japan, it's already going to be harder to build up momentum.

So, I assume the logistical issues have created an atmosphere that makes dragging ones feet regarding legislation likely. I'm not surprised that without outside weight, nothing's gotten done. I'm not sure it'd be a good idea anyhow, since I agree with Pundit on that issue.

okay. Let's see much I can condense this one :

Child porn = BAD

Porn with adult women & men is Good.



- Ed C.

Quote from: SpikeWhat ever happened to those studies I heard about through the nineties that showed that pornography was an outlet valve, that repression of sexuality (including porn) actually increased instances of sexual assaults and rapes?

Were they discredited? Did they only exist in the rumormills of pop culture?

Discredited but still in vogue.    How did [Kinsey] get this data?

According to Kinsey, these conclusions were based on statistics gathered from mysterious sources such as "Mr. X" and other "trained observers" who sent him reports about their sexual activities with children. These "trained observers" were later discovered to be pedophiles. "Mr. X" turned out to be Rex King, a man known to have been responsible for the rapes of hundreds of children.

Another consort was the notorious former Nazi and pedophile Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck. Von Balluseck contributed data about his child abuse to Kinsey's research database during the twenty year period of 1936–1956. Von Balluseck was on trial in Germany for the rape and murder of a ten-year-old girl when correspondence from Kinsey was found in his possession. Kinsey's letters encouraged Von Balluseck to continue sending the results of his "research" on children and even warned him to "be careful."

Considering his sources, one hardly can wonder why Kinsey believed that the vast majority of adult-child sex is harmless. He claimed that adult hysteria over the matter was more harmful than the rape itself. The perpetuation of these outrageous myths has had an enormous impact on the lives of children. Not only has it fueled an ever-growing movement to legalize pedophilia, but it is also behind the graphic sex education allowed in classrooms for children as young as five years.
 Like John said, it's hard to find an unbiased study but if you'd like to see a quick summary look here. It's hosted by Catholic.com. (Can you guess which way the bias leans? :Catholic:  )

QuoteAs horrific as it is to contemplate, the idea that people can find themselves enjoying the imaginary sex more than real sex might keep them from actually attempting to have it is a potentially valid part of the discussion that has been neglected.   You know: Instead of banning all expression of child porn, we could make every effort to let those that are inclined actually get addicted to the shit so they don't feel as much pressure to live out their fantasies with real children.

Good thinking Spike. Build your kiddy porn clubs where they'll do the most good -- next to gradeschools and playgrounds. Build two or three inside Disneyland. :rolleyes:

QuoteMy apologies for any crap wording. Please attempt to read the gist of my arguement rather than the specific phrasing. I'm tired, its early, and there is no coffee...

I need coffee too!