Freedom of speech in the U.S. is not absolute and does carry certain limitations. For obscenity or other sexually-explicit content, of which this scumbag’s writings would fall under, the “speech” must be subjected to the Miller Test. “I know it when I see it” kind of thing. This was a case that set a precedent in 1973.
Basically, the form of speech in question must be either A) offensive in that it clearly describes/portrays/encourages sexual acts or behavior that has been defined as offensive under applicable state law. Child pornography of virtually any kind falls into this category. B) the average person, when using contemporary societal standards, must find the material to be especially prurient. Child pornography also meets this standard in that society almost universally accepts child pornography to be offensive. C) the material must, as a whole, lack any sort of legitimate literary, scientific, political or artistic integrity. ALMOST any form of child pornography meets this standard as well.
So there is no legal question being raised here. The guy has no valid recourse through the legal system since his writing clearly meets all three of the standards listed above. The third standard leaves a little bit of wiggle room, but not much. All three standards must be met, and the first two definitely have been. The third might lead him to mount some sort of serious challenge in court, but he’ll be defeated, and probably very quickly at that.[/quote]
That’s actually very interesting. What I don’t seem to understand is why society (I’m included, in that I, myself, see it as very taboo) views pedophilia to be the absolute worst crime you can commit. It seems that if society were to rank certain crimes from completely unacceptable to acceptable, you would have pedophilia first, statutory rape second (Even if consensual, as is often the case), sexual assault third, and murder the fourth, as if completely ending someone’s life is more acceptable. Many serial killers even become respected in their own ways (See movies like “Zodiak”). It doesn’t really make any sense. [/quote]
Seriously? Are you twelve? People look at at it as a horrible crime, especially dads like me. And as for many others we don’t rank it in any kind of top ten of horrible MTV list. they all are horrible.
Most IMO would look at it as bad because of the fact they are children and have less decision making abilities, are less capable of protecting themselves from harm, do not understand the consequences, etc.
It’s not like I’m pro murder here unless it’s a kid. Or I think rape and torture is just something people need to accept.[/quote]
Ummm… no, I’m not twelve. Are you? Yes people see it as a horrible crime. Why wouldn’t they? It is a horrible crime. And I’m a big brother to a 6-year-old. What’s your point? Of course they’re all of those crimes are horrible. Who said they weren’t? I don’t think anyone would argue against the notion that when a pedophile is found out, people tend to “grab their torches and pitchforks.” The same reaction is not always had for murderers. Have you ever heard of a rapist or pedophile being glorified in any way? On the other hand, have you ever heard of a murderer being glorified? I was just curious as to why that is. Btw, you didn’t at all answer the question, although DBCoober took a nice stab at it, and I think he’s right in many ways. Why are you so hostile? I’m not defending anyone here. [/quote]
I’ll take another stab at it. First off, while there are certain killers who enjoy some sort of mystique due to the nature of their crime(s), it rare to see an outright serial killer legitimately glorified. People have some sort of interest in them due to many factors, but interest does not equal glorification. I certainly wouldn’t say that the Zodiac Killer is glorified. He sparks a lot of interest in people for many reasons, his intellect and the fact that he wasn’t caught being perhaps the two most important factors.
And those factors are partly where the fascination (minus glorification) comes from. Have you ever read “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad? That book perfectly captures why we find these sorts of people fascinating. The ability to resort to savagery resides in all of us, it’s just buried deeper in some than others. So we look at a guy like who the Zodiac Killer was and we know that, given his apparent intellect, he may very well have been just like us or just like someone who we strive to be, on the surface. But deep down inside, we wonder if we too could resort to the vicious behavior that he did. How is it that someone who may very well be just like us end up committing such atrocious acts? It’s the same with other killers. We’ve all had the urge or the thought to kill someone at some point. For some, it’s just a fleeting hatred of someone at work, or its rage directed inward about a lover’s mistress or it’s out of jealousy or whatever.
But we don’t all find ourselves thinking about having sex with children. There would have to be an innate sexual attraction to children for us to even entertain the thought of acting that out. That innate ability to kill IS there, though. As a species, humans have killed each other and other things since the beginning of time. And there are circumstances where killing someone is perfectly acceptable and even legal. But not so with adults fucking little kids. Society hasn’t erected that barrier; humanity has. But it’s society that has erected the barrier regarding killing people.
So I would say that your argument rests on false premises to start with. Perhaps its just a semantical issue in terms of what glorification is, but I don’t really see “society” glorifying serial killers. We may glorify certain killers because of who they killed, and many of these “glorifications” exist strictly in fiction (Michael Corleone, Anton Shigur, Hannibal Lecter), but that is immaterial to real killers. While I wouldn’t say that people necessarily grab their pitchforks or whatever when a pedophile is found out, people tend to get up in arms like that because they have children or were children and also because children cannot really rise up in the same manner for themselves. When a serial killer is found out, there are no relatives of the victims of previous killers “glorifying” them. [/quote]
While I very much agree with the majority of what you wrote, and appreciate both the psychological and legal explanations of why these crimes are dealt with the way they are, I have to say that I do believe many killers are glorified. I believe you may have even been subconsciously alluding to that within your post, with certain humans being revered for having the capacity to actually follow through with certain dark desires most have. Specifically, you said that people are fascinated by killers. Perhaps we’re merely discussing semantics at this point, but when something fascinates someone, it is because they believe there is something inherently desirable about it, or that it possesses some sort of valuable trait. In this case, that would be the ability to act on evil fantasies without regard to what society around them is doing. All that aside, it makes sense why a cereal killer would be glorified and why a pedophile wouldn’t. What’s funny is that when you brought up the notion of intrinsic desires, it seemed so obvious to me (Derrr) and fell into place: In order for a crime to be lauded by anyone, that person must have had at least a remote longing to have committed the same act at one point in their lives or another. Thus, it makes sense for the pedophile to evoke a torches-and-pitchforks reaction (From myself included, though not in a sheepish way, as I made clear in my first or second post).[/quote]
Your definition of fascination is insufficient. I am fascinated by Hitler for instance, but I find him to be repulsive, evil and there are zero traits of his that I desire. What fascinates me about him is how someone could be so different from the “norm”, how someone as evil as him came to power, maintained it and so forth. There is no glorification there, there is no desire and there are no valuable traits of his that I can identify. I am also fascinated by the Zodiac Killer, but mostly I am fascinated with the totality of the case, not him specifically. If I knew who he was, I probably would be somewhat bored by him.
Glorification would have to also include some sort of outright praise for the person or the person’s actions. Name a serial killer (it’s serial, not cereal for Christ’s sake. How can I take you seriously when you swing and miss on the spelling that bad?) whose actions have been outright praised. Name any killer who receives genuine praise from the masses. I suppose Che Guevara might fit the bill, but I could argue against that as well; I think a lot of people don’t realize how many people’s deaths he was responsible for. But that’s neither here nor there.
My point is that fascination, even obsession, does not entail glorification.