Opinion Why restrict child porn but not guns? - From a wife-beating journo


It is what allows columnists — or anybody else — to write whatever we want without fear the government is going to haul us off to jail. In Russia, you can go to prison for calling their war against Ukraine “a war.” In China, you get sent to a camp for adhering to certain religions.

Free speech is so important in the United States, it is the First Amendment to our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” Not only am I allowed to air the truth as I see it — Donald Trump is a traitor who should be in prison — but all sorts of salacious material are permitted. Courts decided, grudgingly, that offensive artworks and obscene comedy sketches and extreme pornographic videos are also free speech and cannot be banned.

There are, of course, exceptions. Free speech doesn’t permit you to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. I didn’t just grab that example by accident. During World War I, a pacifist was arrested for distributing a leaflet claiming the draft was unconstitutional. In upholding his conviction in 1919 in Schenck v. The United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words ... create a clear and present danger ... that Congress has a right to prevent.
A half century later, the Supreme Court decided we are a great enough nation that our freedoms extend even to resisting a war we are currently fighting, and Schenck was dialed back. Now to be illegal, speech usually must be libelous, or promote imminent lawless action — you are not free to deliver a speech urging your neighbors to kill someone.

Nor can you own child pornography, and it’s important to understand why. Child pornography is among the most restricted material in our society. You don’t have to produce it or sell it to commit a crime; it’s a crime simply to possess it.

Why does child pornography merit such a unique level of suppression? I’ll give you a hint: it’s called “child pornography.” Children cannot consent to sexual acts with adults and are severely damaged by being forced to do so. Child pornography hurts children, so we fight it with all the legal might our nation can bring to bear, even if it infringes on fundamental freedoms.

To summarize: an essential part of the Constitution gives Americans a right, but that right is limited when the free exercise of it harms children.

So why all the trouble with guns? Why does a logic universally accepted regarding the First Amendment completely fall apart when we get to the Second? The harm to children from guns far exceeds the harm done by child pornography.

“Over the last two decades, more … children have died from guns than on-duty police officers and active-duty military combined,” Joe Biden said in his June 2 speech on the need for sane gun laws. “Think about that: more kids than on-duty cops killed by guns, more kids than soldiers killed by guns.”

Unlike the words of our previous president, that’s not only true, but an understatement.

The far right have a twisted logic about gun laws that goes like this: the Second Amendment is such an absolute value that even the most common-sense restriction — don’t sell assault rifles to teenagers — is a step toward the bogeyman of total confiscation. Ban .50-caliber bullets, their thinking goes, and the black helicopters are on their way.

As they repeat that, over and over, remember: by their reasoning, child pornography should be legal, out of respect for the First Amendment, with the harm it causes children shrugged off.

Among Republicans, 44% say schoolroom slaughters are the price we pay for living in a free society — ignoring that a) if kids are being regularly gunned down at school, then this isn’t a free society, and b) we already create all sorts of exceptions to our rights in order to preserve a sane and humane nation. We already do so with guns — no machine guns, no sawed-off shotguns. We can do more. As another Supreme Court Justice, Robert H. Jackson, once wrote, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

The author:
Screenshot_20220608-123653_DuckDuckGo.jpg

...who flunked a background check:
FUvnBZdWIAAns9g.jpg
 
Well, if there were circumstances under which child pornography was good and useful, it would be comparable to guns, which can be good and useful, or may be problems, depending upon who wields it.

No matter who is wielding the instruments of child rape, no part of that activity or the documentation and distribution is good and useful.

Have y’all noticed an escalation these past few years from the left in making comparisons that are obviously completely irrelevant situations to one another, but while clearly convinced they’re landing a serious punch? They honestly don’t seem to understand the obvious ways normal people think about things. It’s like now their thoughts have so diverged from normal reasonable adult patterns into this esoteric realm that only makes sense to them.

It’s kind of that deliberate, constructed ignorance thing they do when they discuss a study showing that the few lesbians and straight men who are willing to date a troon are only willing to date transmen, and then they express bafflement at how this makes no sense whatsoever. No one can figure out why this counterintuitive thing is happening! Lol.
 
Free speech does allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater. That is not the free speech standard. The free speech standard is Brandenburg v Ohio which explicitly rejected the fire in a crowded theater standard.

If you're gonna be so ignorant as to pull out that bit of misinformation right off the bat I'm not reading the rest of your bullshit, pedo.
 
Have y’all noticed an escalation these past few years from the left in making comparisons that are obviously completely irrelevant situations to one another, but while clearly convinced they’re landing a serious punch? They honestly don’t seem to understand the obvious ways normal people think about things.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, they lack empathy and theory of mind. They can kind of pull off sympathy, but only because it makes them feel superior to the poor sod they're crying crocodile tears over. And even then it's shallow false care.

There's one particular study I find interesting that's mentioned in relation to Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory. Centrists and conservatives are better able to predict other people's moral judgements and more likely to understand that their opponents think curbstomping kittens is bad than the other way around. Sadly although this has been published in this book and mentioned in talks, I'm not sure if it's actually been published as an academic paper anywhere.
 
I didn't know you could stop an authoritarian government with child porn.
Have y’all noticed an escalation these past few years from the left in making comparisons that are obviously completely irrelevant situations to one another, but while clearly convinced they’re landing a serious punch? They honestly don’t seem to understand the obvious ways normal people think about things. It’s like now their thoughts have so diverged from normal reasonable adult patterns into this esoteric realm that only makes sense to them.

Interesting thing is they don't get humor or jokes very well, and they don't seem to understand hyperbole/hypotheticals. I know people overuse the term, but I sometimes wonder if they aren't a bunch of low-functioning autistic people. It's really abnormal talking with them.
 
Imagine claiming child porn is free speech :story:
That was actually the origin of the "freeze peach" meme on Something Awful several years ago. The front page of Reddit used be littered with mass upvoted posts arguing for the legalization of CP, and sketchy academic studies claiming that giving pedos legal access to CP made them less likely to hurt children IRL. The comments sections of these posts were full of creepy self described lolberts unironically arguing that CP bans were a violation of their first amendment rights. Of course, Goons being Goons, the meme eventually devolved into unironic mockery of the very concept of freedom of speech.
 
Also typical of wifebeating alcoholics, the guy is a moralizer.
I thought is that true? Then I said to myself "Hell yeah, you bet your ass it is!" in a Southern accent while picturing Ethan Ralph.... sounds about right.

That title is the most retarded thing i've heard all week
... and I read the entire groomer thread staring Kenya Jones, Snailslime and Android Raptor.
 
Ver archivo adjunto 3365589
Can thses fuckers stop thinking with their dicks for 5 fucking seconds?

Neil Ira Steinberg
10 June 1960

2000 Center Ave.
Northbrook, IL
60062-4515

Democuck

Dude's blogspot is a salt and goldmine of lunacy. He even has a piece about snipping off peckers automatically makes a dude a chick way somewhere around 2015 to act like he's owning cuckservatives.


So much to archive.
 
Child porn necessarily harms a child in order to be created. A gun on it's own harms no one. Next question.
 
The article's author should get his representative to start the process of creating an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing a Right of the People to child porn instead of just whining about it.
 
Neil Ira Steinberg
10 June 1960

2000 Center Ave.
Northbrook, IL
60062-4515

Democuck

Dude's blogspot is a salt and goldmine of lunacy. He even has a piece about snipping off peckers automatically makes a dude a chick way somewhere around 2015 to act like he's owning cuckservatives.


So much to archive.
Marking my spot so I remember to come follow up when I am done with what I'm working on.

Just saw this on twitter:


"Another Biden judicial nominee who thinks sentencing for child porn offenders is too harsh... She once advocated for abolishing mandatory minimums for ALL child porn offenders. Gross. Watch @HawleyMO give her a dose of reality"
 
I didn't know you could stop an authoritarian government with child porn.
Hoooooly shit have I got a tale for you. That was actually argued in court. Kind of, the full argument wasn't made in one cohesive statement but the main ingredients (stopping authorirarian governments, child porn, 1st amendment) were all there.

This was from two testimonies from two different people from the same side of the same lawsuit. I feel comfortable enough to say a jew argued in the court of law that publishing CP of 4 year olds will stop the next rise of Hitler.

Some people will say I'm being autistic and failing to detect sarcasm. I will say they're being a dumbass and ignoring the fact that this happened in a court under oath and penalty of perjury. The speakers knew the consequences of what they were doing.

And you know who was interested in this case and showboated after gawker lost?

hulk-hogan.png
gamergate-52.png

#GamerGate strikes again!

No idea what r/KIA is like today, but they actually still have the second comic in their sidebar.
 
That Steinberg guy should do what he preach. Get rid of his private security bodyguards and don't live in a gated community. Btw, there's some chances he might have some anime tentacles in his desktop like Kurt Eichenwald.
 
I didn't know you could stop an authoritarian government with child porn.


Interesting thing is they don't get humor or jokes very well, and they don't seem to understand hyperbole/hypotheticals. I know people overuse the term, but I sometimes wonder if they aren't a bunch of low-functioning autistic people. It's really abnormal talking with them.
You know how in Galaxy Quest the Thermians don’t have a concept of lying available to them in their culture? It’s something like that except not wholesome and in fact part of a larger plan to legalize adults having sex with children.
 
FKiuE0vX0AEJWIp.jpg

I think Auron hates how relevant this keeps being. Anyways, guns get in the way of them diddling kids, so of course they want to get rid of them, makes it harder for angry parents to deal justice to Pedos.
 
I really have pity and respect for whichever LEO has the job of looking at the contents of this journoscum's computer.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo