4 ms·

I cant take your comment seriously. I cannot, in any way, equate the sexual interest/abuse of children with freedom of speech in an form. While there are acts

by phlux 16y ago

I cant take your comment seriously. I cannot, in any way, equate the sexual interest/abuse of children with freedom of speech in an form. While there are acts one can take against a government/system which one perceives to be oppressive, they cannot parallel sexual interest in children. Typically [citation needed] pedophilia is a symptom of having been sexually abused as a child. Regardless of your stance on free speech, this truly is a tragic and disgusting behavior which should not be tolerated. At the same time - it should not be ignored, and all efforts to eradicate and prosecute it should be upheld. In the same way, say, forcing a child to smoke cannabis would be as abhorrent. Sure, you choosing to smoke it shouldn't affect anyone - but you forcing that desire upon on whom you (as an adult) should be protecting is unacceptable in all instances. [EDIT: incomplete thoughts.]

ErrantX 16y ago
I don't disagree with you necessairily, but just ot say: Typically [citation needed] pedophilia is a symptom of having been sexually abused as a child. This is an urban myth. It is not known (but much debated) what causes pedophilia, but I believe current thinking is generally in favour of physical/mental causes. Although there are links to people with low self-esteem and other similar problems there is no actual link to childhood abuse.
- phlux 16y ago
  Point noted. Though I still stand by my personal observation that child abuse == stunted/warped/damaged development in the psyche; which can cause [unknown] problems as the child matures.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Yep, can't dispute that as a reasonable thesis (there are studies IIRC, though my reading on this was nearly 2 years ago when I started my current job). I'm desperately trying to find a really interesting paper I do remember where the author posited that, actually, people abused in childhood were less likely to manifest as pedophiles in adult life. He claimed this was because "normal" childhood sexual abuse does create an initial emotional attachment (which you would expect to make such relationships acceptable to the subject, Stockholm syndrome style) but that later on in adulthood this usually adapted to dislike and hatred at their treatment. I think the argument was that abused children were more likely to manifest as sociopaths and take a more violent path, particularly against adults. The argument was pretty persuasive, and the evidence relatively solid, but I can't find it :(
chc 16y ago
These books are not sexual abuse of children. We must distinguish between talking about an act and committing that act. Talking about an act is free speech, and should be protected even when we find the subject matter abhorrent — though speech approving of illegal acts walks a blurry line between free speech and criminal incitement. In fact, offensive speech is pretty much the only kind that needs protecting. Freedom of speech that only guards unobjectionable things is like Henry Ford's famous offering of freedom: "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."
- phlux 16y ago
  >In fact, offensive speech is pretty much the only kind that needs protecting. I agree. Maybe the GP then need use better analogies than what seemed to me equating the discussing rebellious (terroristic) behavior with sexual molestation/pedophilia. I fully defend free speech, I do not support condoning abuses. Why dont we then use the analogy of say "Stalin's guide to torturing political dissidents through the use of mutilation, torture and death" as opposed to "standing up against a government which you feel is oppressive" as a starting point. If my logic is flawed, I humbly hope to be educated. But I DO feel there need be a line drawn with respect to what could be legal. I am not saying we should limit free speech, I am saying we need to identify that which is illegal from that which is objectionable. For example, is it not illegal for one to make mortal threats, implied or otherwise against the president of the US? It is still speech, and could be said without ever truly being a threat to his person (e.g. on teh internet) -- but illegal nonetheless. Therefore, I submit that writing about the desire or actions of sexual abuse of children should be illegal. We protect out (dear) leaders to such a degree, what about our (dear) offspring? Whats odd, is that the least able to defend themselves (the children) have the greatest need. The president of the US has hundreds of millions of dollars on personal security detail, as well as the weight of the entire US military behind his defense so I would say has less-so of a need to be protected from threatening speech online or otherwise. e.g. those that would threaten the president are far less likely to be able to carry it out as those who have easy access to be able to harm kids. --- [EDIT: disclaimer, I have not read the books in question, nor do I intend too. If that keeps me more ignorant so be it - but I will not seek out the contents of such material...]

by phlux 16y ago

ErrantX 16y ago

I don't disagree with you necessairily, but just ot say: Typically [citation needed] pedophilia is a symptom of having been sexually abused as a child. This is an urban myth. It is not known (but much debated) what causes pedophilia, but I believe current thinking is generally in favour of physical/mental causes. Although there are links to people with low self-esteem and other similar problems there is no actual link to childhood abuse.

phlux 16y ago
Point noted. Though I still stand by my personal observation that child abuse == stunted/warped/damaged development in the psyche; which can cause [unknown] problems as the child matures.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Yep, can't dispute that as a reasonable thesis (there are studies IIRC, though my reading on this was nearly 2 years ago when I started my current job). I'm desperately trying to find a really interesting paper I do remember where the author posited that, actually, people abused in childhood were less likely to manifest as pedophiles in adult life. He claimed this was because "normal" childhood sexual abuse does create an initial emotional attachment (which you would expect to make such relationships acceptable to the subject, Stockholm syndrome style) but that later on in adulthood this usually adapted to dislike and hatred at their treatment. I think the argument was that abused children were more likely to manifest as sociopaths and take a more violent path, particularly against adults. The argument was pretty persuasive, and the evidence relatively solid, but I can't find it :(

chc 16y ago

These books are not sexual abuse of children. We must distinguish between talking about an act and committing that act. Talking about an act is free speech, and should be protected even when we find the subject matter abhorrent — though speech approving of illegal acts walks a blurry line between free speech and criminal incitement. In fact, offensive speech is pretty much the only kind that needs protecting. Freedom of speech that only guards unobjectionable things is like Henry Ford's famous offering of freedom: "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."

phlux 16y ago
>In fact, offensive speech is pretty much the only kind that needs protecting. I agree. Maybe the GP then need use better analogies than what seemed to me equating the discussing rebellious (terroristic) behavior with sexual molestation/pedophilia. I fully defend free speech, I do not support condoning abuses. Why dont we then use the analogy of say "Stalin's guide to torturing political dissidents through the use of mutilation, torture and death" as opposed to "standing up against a government which you feel is oppressive" as a starting point. If my logic is flawed, I humbly hope to be educated. But I DO feel there need be a line drawn with respect to what could be legal. I am not saying we should limit free speech, I am saying we need to identify that which is illegal from that which is objectionable. For example, is it not illegal for one to make mortal threats, implied or otherwise against the president of the US? It is still speech, and could be said without ever truly being a threat to his person (e.g. on teh internet) -- but illegal nonetheless. Therefore, I submit that writing about the desire or actions of sexual abuse of children should be illegal. We protect out (dear) leaders to such a degree, what about our (dear) offspring? Whats odd, is that the least able to defend themselves (the children) have the greatest need. The president of the US has hundreds of millions of dollars on personal security detail, as well as the weight of the entire US military behind his defense so I would say has less-so of a need to be protected from threatening speech online or otherwise. e.g. those that would threaten the president are far less likely to be able to carry it out as those who have easy access to be able to harm kids. --- [EDIT: disclaimer, I have not read the books in question, nor do I intend too. If that keeps me more ignorant so be it - but I will not seek out the contents of such material...]