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

[jackflashdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
All the stalking laws are in murky constitutional waters anyway, but to issue a restraining order against a guy who has made no threats, done nothing intimidating, etc., wow is that overboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this case is about as marginal as they come. Eugene Volokh happens to aggree with you and some others that this is unconstitutional. I don't think this is as clear a case of a violation of his rights as some of you think. Use commonsense. A very high percentage of people sexually attracted to children act on their attraction, and this individual intentionally puts himself within the vicinity of children. The problem, of course, with common-sense is that most people err way on the side of caution when 'the children' are concerned.

Let me ask a question, though, of anyone opposed to the restraining order issued against this individual. Suppose that he obtained a membership to a community recreation facility with public showers, where men and children would see him naked and vice-versa. Suppose he acts no different from any other patron except for the fact that he openly advertises his sexual attraction to children on his website. Would issuing a restraining order be out-of-line in this case for the same reason, and if it is NOT out of line then what is the crucial difference between the public shower situation and the situation of him visiting other public areas where children are present? (let's put aside the fact that he would be beaten down six ways from Sunday)

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
nath, don't you know you that you don't have any rights when it comes to puppies and children?

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
if you ever come to lake charles and i'm there i'll buy you a beer

[5_year_old_bully]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is as clear a case of a violation of his rights as some of you think. Use commonsense. A very high percentage of people sexually attracted to children act on their attraction, and this individual intentionally puts himself within the vicinity of children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the statistics: People who degrade women are more likely than those who do not to commit rape. People who watch hardcore porn are more likely than those who don't to commit rape. Black people are more likely to commit rape than whites. Jamal is a black person who listens to rap music, has hardcore porn on his computer, and calls all women s|uts and beyotches.

Should we not allow Jamal near women?


What about a closer to home analogy:
People who use drugs and gamble are more likely than those who don't to steal. Should 50% of this message board be only allowed into banks with an escort?

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All the stalking laws are in murky constitutional waters anyway, but to issue a restraining order against a guy who has made no threats, done nothing intimidating, etc., wow is that overboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this case is about as marginal as they come. Eugene Volokh happens to aggree with you and some others that this is unconstitutional. I don't think this is as clear a case of a violation of his rights as some of you think. Use commonsense. A very high percentage of people sexually attracted to children act on their attraction, and this individual intentionally puts himself within the vicinity of children. The problem, of course, with common-sense is that most people err way on the side of caution when 'the children' are concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

My common sense tells me that we shouldn't be issuing restraining orders against people based on statistics and probability.

By this logic, we should just lock up all young black males because they are statistically more likely to commit crimes than other groups.

Herein lies fascism. DUCY?

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask a question, though, of anyone opposed to the restraining order issued against this individual. Suppose that he obtained a membership to a community recreation facility with public showers, where men and children would see him naked and vice-versa. Suppose he acts no different from any other patron except for the fact that he openly advertises his sexual attraction to children on his website. Would issuing a restraining order be out-of-line in this case for the same reason, and if it is NOT out of line then what is the crucial difference between the public shower situation and the situation of him visiting other public areas where children are present? (let's put aside the fact that he would be beaten down six ways from Sunday)

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no difference; both hypothetical restraining orders are a violation of his civil rights.

[SmokeyRidesAgain]

I love people who say free speech is great, as long as you don't say that.

Really, I do.

[jackflashdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is as clear a case of a violation of his rights as some of you think. Use commonsense. A very high percentage of people sexually attracted to children act on their attraction, and this individual intentionally puts himself within the vicinity of children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the statistics: People who degrade women are more likely than those who do not to commit rape. People who watch hardcore porn are more likely than those who don't to commit rape. Black people are more likely to commit rape than whites. Jamal is a black person who listens to rap music, has hardcore porn on his computer, and calls all women s|uts and beyotches.

Should we not allow Jamal near women?


What about a closer to home analogy:
People who use drugs and gamble are more likely than those who don't to steal. Should 50% of this message board be only allowed into banks with an escort?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, while I agree with you that in general people overreact when it comes to children and puppies, I think you are too easily dismissing the threatening context of his actions. Also, the comparison to correlations with race that you and others make are a poor analogy.

Let's say that among people who express a desire to kill their wife there is a very high rate of people who go through with killing their wife in the next week. Now consider an individual who expresses a desire to kill his wife, but claims to have never killed her in the past and claims to have no immediate plans to kill her. Add to all this the fact that this individual has a blog in which he details all the opportunities he has had to kill his wife in the past few weeks. The context of this individuals statements, his actions, and the statistical liklihood he goes through with his desire makes this a *specific* and *completely predictable* threat (these conditions don't apply to correlations with race). 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.

In the case of correlations between negative social factors and social categories like race, using the correlation would in practice cause much much more social disruption than any benefit that could be obtained. Thus, this can be dismissed out of hand.

I understand that libertarians are a very principled bunch, and I think that's great (I consider myself libertarian). However, principles shouldn't be so ridged that the application is unreflexive and dogmatic.

[DrewDevil]

You may consider yourself libertarian but you ain't.

[ 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???

[jackflashdrive]

[ 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 ]
[ 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.

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).

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or a novel with graphic depictions of people molesting kids?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's actually a masterpiece



[/ QUOTE ]

exactly! My favorite novel of all time. Errrrrr, and NOT because of the subject matter, of course... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Dominic]

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

[ 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 ]

awesome job, Drew. You're saying everything I was too lazy to!