March 14th, 2013 - Rebuttal to Senator Fienstien and Company
Comparing Child Pornography to Gun Control
It was bound to happen that someone would make the comparison to the 2nd amendment against the 1st or the 4th, being that those other amendments specify specific rights of The People. It was, therefore, an eventuality that someone would chime back with the reply, "well, is child pornography protected under the 1st amendment?"
This is where the fundamental disconnect occurs. They are not even the same thing. One is an inalienable right of an individual, the other is an act against another human being. That is. You're right to speak or own your thoughts is untouchable against any action or power and you are the single most influential authority when it comes to your vision and images (1st amendment). A right is an extension of the personal self, of the self property. A right is personal, safe from intrusion form others.
A person whom takes a child and forces them to commit acts against their own property (their bodies) is in in clear violation of more than simple image capturing. A person whom attacks a child's body is in violation of that child's Life, Liberty and Estate. The crime is the attack of the child. The attack on the child's inalienable rights. Same as rape, or murder, or theft (all three in fact) on any other person. It only seems like a bigger crime because of the age of the person affected. And this seeming difference is really the grown ups personal sense of morality about the value of children over the value of other grown ups. It is not evidence different, it's not even truly morally different, it just feels more unjust, as we feel that youth has innocence and potential value outside our own. And things like that are pure perception, not reality. The crime is the act against the child.
One is a right to personal property, the other is a violation of that personal property. The capturing of images is really just evidence of this crime against a person's self rights to not be used or controlled or told what to do by others. The opinion that the image itself is the crime is simply the viewer's moral indignation and disgust. An argument could be made that any image that shows an act against any person is in fact a kind of crime against others. One could argue that images of war, images of assassinations, images of hate, in fact any image captured and used by the media (Life magazine for example) to profit, are in fact a kind of 'pornography' against man. This would mean that every image ever captured that showed human drama, would be a crime and all those photographers guilty of the acts themselves. Every paparazzi is guilty of the same value set as a man whom would sell any kind of image, yet we don't arrest them for their constant invasion of other peoples lives.
How about looking at this way. Would a writer be guilty of his words if he wrote about his personal witness of a child being abused, that is, if he wrote a story about sex others have had with children (not necessarily erotic, perhaps simply mechanical - after all an image does not necessarily emote of it's own) or would the writer be guilty of participation where he chose to be a willing participant in the abuse of another human being (by not stopping the crime from occurring). Would his written words suffer the same criminal intention as we have applied to an image or would his actions actually be the crime? What then, if the person simply passed his witness to the events by word of mouth? Would those words be pornography and criminal? How could any judge try such a case, as each line spoken by the attorney's would be in violation of these restrictions on pornography? Or would his actions, those things known to have been his intention, be the reason for his crime against another? And wouldn't, in a court, his words be evidence of his participation, that the court would use to try him for his crimes? Shouldn't too the idea of images be approached like grown ups would and be used as logical ends to express evidence?
So blaming the medium is in fact not a valid argument and should have no intelligent meaning.
Which means, comparing pornography and guns is 1. not even the same thing and 2. if you try to force them into similarity, the actions, that is the intent, of the criminal is the real crime, not the evidence that they leave behind after the crime. In the end it appears that the argument of limiting a right based on evidence and Tertiary remains is asinine and intellectually void of deeper thought. Truly, unsound reasoning.
In fact one could argue (by the original argument's opinion), that the theft of rights by government is a kind of pornography, where the government forces individuals into positions and acts of slavery that they do not want to participate in. Government does this by stealing our rights; by ignoring the Constitution; by creating agencies without our consent or reason whereby it creates reason for excess taxation - taxation is created by agencies need for money's, and those agencies are created by government. So when asked to pay our 'fair share' we are in fact being lied to, because we had not voice in the creation of the debt that was surmounted by the government and our fair share has nothing to do with us - with out the right or expectation given it by the Constitution. If anything, the reams of illegal laws instituted by Government is evidence, like images, of a government full of pornographers, molesting and stealing all of mankind's Liberty and Freedom.
My right to keep (own, possess, have as property) and bear (carry with me, burden oneself with the weight) arms is not up for debate, it is a grant from creation to allow me the authority to protect myself with which ever tools best suit that purpose.
It was bound to happen that someone would make the comparison to the 2nd amendment against the 1st or the 4th, being that those other amendments specify specific rights of The People. It was, therefore, an eventuality that someone would chime back with the reply, "well, is child pornography protected under the 1st amendment?"
This is where the fundamental disconnect occurs. They are not even the same thing. One is an inalienable right of an individual, the other is an act against another human being. That is. You're right to speak or own your thoughts is untouchable against any action or power and you are the single most influential authority when it comes to your vision and images (1st amendment). A right is an extension of the personal self, of the self property. A right is personal, safe from intrusion form others.
A person whom takes a child and forces them to commit acts against their own property (their bodies) is in in clear violation of more than simple image capturing. A person whom attacks a child's body is in violation of that child's Life, Liberty and Estate. The crime is the attack of the child. The attack on the child's inalienable rights. Same as rape, or murder, or theft (all three in fact) on any other person. It only seems like a bigger crime because of the age of the person affected. And this seeming difference is really the grown ups personal sense of morality about the value of children over the value of other grown ups. It is not evidence different, it's not even truly morally different, it just feels more unjust, as we feel that youth has innocence and potential value outside our own. And things like that are pure perception, not reality. The crime is the act against the child.
One is a right to personal property, the other is a violation of that personal property. The capturing of images is really just evidence of this crime against a person's self rights to not be used or controlled or told what to do by others. The opinion that the image itself is the crime is simply the viewer's moral indignation and disgust. An argument could be made that any image that shows an act against any person is in fact a kind of crime against others. One could argue that images of war, images of assassinations, images of hate, in fact any image captured and used by the media (Life magazine for example) to profit, are in fact a kind of 'pornography' against man. This would mean that every image ever captured that showed human drama, would be a crime and all those photographers guilty of the acts themselves. Every paparazzi is guilty of the same value set as a man whom would sell any kind of image, yet we don't arrest them for their constant invasion of other peoples lives.
How about looking at this way. Would a writer be guilty of his words if he wrote about his personal witness of a child being abused, that is, if he wrote a story about sex others have had with children (not necessarily erotic, perhaps simply mechanical - after all an image does not necessarily emote of it's own) or would the writer be guilty of participation where he chose to be a willing participant in the abuse of another human being (by not stopping the crime from occurring). Would his written words suffer the same criminal intention as we have applied to an image or would his actions actually be the crime? What then, if the person simply passed his witness to the events by word of mouth? Would those words be pornography and criminal? How could any judge try such a case, as each line spoken by the attorney's would be in violation of these restrictions on pornography? Or would his actions, those things known to have been his intention, be the reason for his crime against another? And wouldn't, in a court, his words be evidence of his participation, that the court would use to try him for his crimes? Shouldn't too the idea of images be approached like grown ups would and be used as logical ends to express evidence?
So blaming the medium is in fact not a valid argument and should have no intelligent meaning.
Which means, comparing pornography and guns is 1. not even the same thing and 2. if you try to force them into similarity, the actions, that is the intent, of the criminal is the real crime, not the evidence that they leave behind after the crime. In the end it appears that the argument of limiting a right based on evidence and Tertiary remains is asinine and intellectually void of deeper thought. Truly, unsound reasoning.
In fact one could argue (by the original argument's opinion), that the theft of rights by government is a kind of pornography, where the government forces individuals into positions and acts of slavery that they do not want to participate in. Government does this by stealing our rights; by ignoring the Constitution; by creating agencies without our consent or reason whereby it creates reason for excess taxation - taxation is created by agencies need for money's, and those agencies are created by government. So when asked to pay our 'fair share' we are in fact being lied to, because we had not voice in the creation of the debt that was surmounted by the government and our fair share has nothing to do with us - with out the right or expectation given it by the Constitution. If anything, the reams of illegal laws instituted by Government is evidence, like images, of a government full of pornographers, molesting and stealing all of mankind's Liberty and Freedom.
My right to keep (own, possess, have as property) and bear (carry with me, burden oneself with the weight) arms is not up for debate, it is a grant from creation to allow me the authority to protect myself with which ever tools best suit that purpose.
Comments
Post a Comment