Pedo's web site - is he doing anything wrong?

[suppasonic]

Proactively encouraging breaking the law is illegal. Some of the exceptions to the first amendment include when your speech creates "clear and present danger" or when the governing body has a compelling interest to limit it. There are precedent cases that include that the state has an independent interest in protecting its youth.

So really, this guy could be arrested and a prosecutor could get him convicted.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Proactively encouraging breaking the law is illegal. Some of the exceptions to the first amendment include when your speech creates "clear and present danger" or when the governing body has a compelling interest to limit it. There are precedent cases that include that the state has an independent interest in protecting its youth.

So really, this guy could be arrested and a prosecutor could get him convicted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stay in the shallow end.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You may consider yourself libertarian but you ain't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well let's just say that on the majority of issues my position falls in with the libertarian line. If thinking that this is a tougher call than some of you do makes me not a libertarian then so be it. As it happens I never endorsed a restraining order or any other deprivation of liberty against the pedophile.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now you're backtracking and don't support any restraints against this guy? What are we arguing about then?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is just as bad for society to ignore such a threat, and to have one or more unnecessary victims, as to take the threat seriously and deprive someone of certain liberties (e.g., a restraining order) when he would not have followed through.

[/ QUOTE ]

The entire American justice system (due process, innocent until proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt) is based on a principle that is exactly the opposite of what you are saying here, i.e., that it is far better to let 100 guilty men go free than to wrongly convict 1 innocent man.

Bringing down the force of government onto a person based on threats, stats, and probabilities is inimical to freedom and exactly the opposite of the traditionally American concept of "justice."

I don't want to unnecessarily inflame the discussion, but your attitude is exactly the same one found in the philosophies of fascism and other totalitarian ideals. Is this truly the society you want to live in, where people are restrained because of something they "might" do???

[/ QUOTE ]

We deprive people of liberty all the time for things they might do. E.g., if someone is homocidal, suicidal, or psychotic he gets locked up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we really don't. What are you talking about? Involuntary confinement of crazy people? First of all, there are a number of "due process" channels that must be satisfied before "we" just "lock people up" in this way, and secondly, any libertarian would have serious questions about this practice anyway. This is more evidence that you just like the idea of being a libertarian, but not actual libertarian ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
Re: fascism. Just because a fascist state would do x does not mean that a state that does x is fascist. There are an awful lot of things much more likely to turn our government into a fascist state than what I regard as the marginal issue of the pedophile's freedom to ogle kids in the park (e.g., national security issues).

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant red herrings.

Just because the government already does things that are arguably fascist and arguably worse than this doesn't mean this is not fascist in nature.

And yes, it's true that not everything a fascist regime does is necessarily fascist. BUT LOCKING UP PEOPLE IN ANTICIPATION OF CRIMES THEY MIGHT COMMIT IS DEFINITELY FASCIST.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
If this isn't illegal then could I do a website where I help people break into cars and rob defenseless seniors?

What about identifying which banks or jewelry stores are easiest to rob and how to do it and on which days?

How about areas/parks/24-hour gyms/apartment buildings/whatever where you show people where there is zero security and at what times a specific female always goes there.
"I've personally never raped her. But this one is just asking for it and it would be SOOOOO easy....especially for a group of 3 or more to hold her down."


I seem to be more and more in favor of censorship of some of the more ridiculous stuff as I grow older.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is this different than computer security web sites that list open exploits? I realize the motive is different but that's the tricky part to express in a law, no?

[suppasonic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proactively encouraging breaking the law is illegal. Some of the exceptions to the first amendment include when your speech creates "clear and present danger" or when the governing body has a compelling interest to limit it. There are precedent cases that include that the state has an independent interest in protecting its youth.

So really, this guy could be arrested and a prosecutor could get him convicted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stay in the shallow end.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong, yes, but if your going to make comments like that you should at least point out where you disagree. While this guy isnt directly telling to people to go out and abuse children, he is providing resources. So while I wouldnt be surprised if he was convicted, it would be pretty tough.

Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the first amendment, and this guys right to free speech isnt guaranteed because of those exceptions.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proactively encouraging breaking the law is illegal. Some of the exceptions to the first amendment include when your speech creates "clear and present danger" or when the governing body has a compelling interest to limit it. There are precedent cases that include that the state has an independent interest in protecting its youth.

So really, this guy could be arrested and a prosecutor could get him convicted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stay in the shallow end.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong, yes, but if your going to make comments like that you should at least point out where you disagree. While this guy isnt directly telling to people to go out and abuse children, he is providing resources. So while I wouldnt be surprised if he was convicted, it would be pretty tough.

Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the first amendment, and this guys right to free speech isnt guaranteed because of those exceptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you have to do is read this thread, where I have painstakingly explained the current state of First Amendment law as it applies to the incitement of illegal activity.

[jackflashdrive]

Drew,

The original post asked if the pedophile is doing anything wrong under the law. I think you might agree with me that many of our laws don't exactly reflect libertarian ideals. So in saying that (1) a restraining order and possible civil confinement could be legally justified, and (2) I don't think this would be unreasonable, I was simply answering OPs question vis-a-vis the current state of the law. As it happens a restrainig order WAS issued so I can't be that off base on the law (and, as I said originally, pedophiles have been locked up in civil confinement AFTER they have served the full term of any criminal penalty -- for no other reason than that they seem like unrepentent pedophiles).

Do I agree with this? Let me be clear that no I do not think the restraining order should have been issued. To give an analogy: I wouldn't endorse a tax hike to pay for the war in Iraq, but I would regard such a tax hike to be both legally justified and 'not unreasonable.' (I can say these things despite the fact that I don't believe there should be a national income tax at all).

I believe we have two main points of disagreement: The first is that, while I don't endorse any restriction on the pedophile's liberty, I do think that the pedophiles activities are menacing in context (and the statistical liklihood he follows through with his stated desire is part of that context). You think that it would nonetheless be unconstitutional and against the principles of our legal system to deprive him of liberty on this basis, while I think that such restrictions are *probably, but not necessarily, unconsitutional*..

The second point of disagreement seems to be our concern over the outcome of this case. You think that the restraining order is a fascist activity. While I agree with this, I *do not* think that one fascist activity makes a state fascist. Rather, I think this restraining order is a marginal issue at best and I just can't imagine how the outcome one way or another is going to affect anyone's life but this one individual. I believe that restrictions on liberty that affect masses of people in a small way are much more important and much more likely to slide us into fascism than restrictions on liberty that affect an isolated case in a big way.

[bekman]

After some searches on Lexis Nexis, and knowing a little of the legal history of <u>The Anarchist's Cookbook</u>, I came across some information that will lend well to the discussion of what he might have to do before he would cross the line according to our current legal system.

According to Bakken, "The test applied to speech which is likely to incite imminent lawless action is claimed to be the appropriate test to be applied to speech providing detailed illegal instruction. (32 McGeorge L. Rev. 289)" While there are other tests, of course, this is the only aspect worth examining in this case. Due to the pedo's lack of detailed illegal instruction, even though his website could be easily construed and used in an illegal manner, this test would handedly fail.

On that note, I do think it is great that there is a restraining order working against him. When one route fails, leave it to pissed off people to find another.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Drew,

The original post asked if the pedophile is doing anything wrong under the law. I think you might agree with me that many of our laws don't exactly reflect libertarian ideals. So in saying that (1) a restraining order and possible civil confinement could be legally justified, and (2) I don't think this would be unreasonable, I was simply answering OPs question vis-a-vis the current state of the law. As it happens a restrainig order WAS issued so I can't be that off base on the law (and, as I said originally, pedophiles have been locked up in civil confinement AFTER they have served the full term of any criminal penalty -- for no other reason than that they seem like unrepentent pedophiles).

Do I agree with this? Let me be clear that no I do not think the restraining order should have been issued. To give an analogy: I wouldn't endorse a tax hike to pay for the war in Iraq, but I would regard such a tax hike to be both legally justified and 'not unreasonable.' (I can say these things despite the fact that I don't believe there should be a national income tax at all).

I believe we have two main points of disagreement: The first is that, while I don't endorse any restriction on the pedophile's liberty, I do think that the pedophiles activities are menacing in context (and the statistical liklihood he follows through with his stated desire is part of that context). You think that it would nonetheless be unconstitutional and against the principles of our legal system to deprive him of liberty on this basis, while I think that such restrictions are *probably, but not necessarily, unconsitutional*..

The second point of disagreement seems to be our concern over the outcome of this case. You think that the restraining order is a fascist activity. While I agree with this, I *do not* think that one fascist activity makes a state fascist. Rather, I think this restraining order is a marginal issue at best and I just can't imagine how the outcome one way or another is going to affect anyone's life but this one individual. I believe that restrictions on liberty that affect masses of people in a small way are much more important and much more likely to slide us into fascism than restrictions on liberty that affect an isolated case in a big way.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're discussing two things: what the law currently is, and what it should be.

To me, it is pretty obvious that under current law, the government cannot legally restrain the pedo from blogging, and I also think the restraining order is blatantly unconstitutional. I hope someone pays the pedo's legal bills to challenge it.

Also, it is my opinion that there should not be any First Amendment exception for inciting lawless action, and that the website should be obviously and completely legal. I also do not believe American citizens should ever be detained or arrested because of something they might do, or statistically are likely to do. That is fascist.

This is my final post in the thread.

[Los Feliz Slim]

Pedo arrested