I Just Gotta Ask This One. . .. . . .. To Strict Constitutionalists --- Do You Support This. . . . . .?

Question

There's a guy who's posting pictures of children on a website for the 'entertainment' of Pedophiles . And I just watched a debate on the topic(btw debates are cool , and you can find them everyday on FoxNews) . Constitutionally , there's nothing the police can do . However it's clear that his actions will foster terrible thoughts and undoubtedly actions by Pedophiles . Children will be and are in danger .
Now , I see you guys defend the constitution with your lives all the time(many say they'd rather die than lose rights to protect us from terrorists) .

So , Mr. and Mrs. Constitutionalist --- Would you defend this guys right to do what he's doing ?

Corrector - I didn't say anything about Liberals or Conservatives . Your answers today indicate a certain irrationality about you . Then I noticed that you just opened this account . You wanna get blocked again Jim ? If not , or whoever you are , you better start answering with clarity or logic .

You guys are so brain-washed . This isn't a partisan topic .

Cora and Others - I believe you're wrong when you say this won't foster bad behavior . Perhaps you'd believe me if you spoke with law enforcement officers . They know , as do I (former law enforcement officer) that pedophiles routinely build their desires starting from photos and going to the actual 'act' . Don't believe me ? Go ask a detective . Any detective .

Corrector - As you and everyone can see , there is no mention of President Bush in my question . Jim , not everything has something to do with the president and it is this type of irrationality that precludes you from thinking rationally . Hey , you got a few points built-up in your new account .. . . why not spend some and ask questions that you want to see !! What a concept , huh !!

Answer 1

No, I don't support that at all! But as an attorney, the process with which we deal with this is important.

First off, it's questionable whether this site could not be attacked constitutionally. Political speech is the heart of the First Amendment. But commercial speech can be regulated - that's why we can force manufacturers to include nutritional information on the food containers. And obscenity has even less protection. It might not be an easy case, but there could well be a rule to do it. I guess it depends on what judge(s) review the statute. Even if the pictures themselves are not obscene, the content taken as a whole might fail the test - at least some of the older ones.

Also, if it's really necessary, a constitutional amendment should be considered. We'd have to be extremely precise in the language.

So maybe we CAN do something about this. But we just have to be very, very careful not to disturb other rights.

PS Sometimes, public indignation succeeds even where laws fail. So publicizing these sites and their ISPs will help get rid of them without a new law. As far as I know, it's perfectly legal to boycott their ISPs!

PPS I do think things have gone a bit topsy-turvy. Nude dancing is constitutionally protected "expressive conduct" yet McCain-Feingold and the "Fairness Doctrine" are touted as good ideas. And terrorist enemies of the US have more rights than in the preceeding 225+ years of our history! And Bush is not doing nearly as much as Lincoln or FDR did in time of war. Leave aside the mass internments - I'm talking about the rest of the surveillance, interrogation and detention methods. So, we can dance nude as we're attacked, but we can't place an ad complaining about it before an election if we mention a candidate by name. (And I guess any anti-terrorist speech on the radio would have to be "balanced" by pro-terrorist spokesmen.) This could be called "bread and circuses."

The Constitution works, if we read the darned thing, and understand it!

Another long diatribe. No charge. :)

Answer 2

This is where you get into what is Free Speech and Free Press divided by a line of what should be regulated.
You can't slander or yell fire in a theater.
Art has always had a very fuzzy to say the least terms.

Yet when it comes to children this is what should worry people more so than wiretaps.

We are passing laws that people who have committed a crime against children are mark for life. You can now pull up their addresses on the Internet.

Can you name me another crime that is allowed?

Towns are more than willing to have zones of restrictions for certain criminals.

The ACLU is silent on this one too.

Now lets take a step out that someone else who has a very unpopular speech. For sake lets say that Christians become the target of the same set of laws because they can say that some priest molested some children all Christians should bear watching.

Considering the political climate for today how hate can be brew up against one group or the other. The group in control can use these laws against the minority.

Now back to your question strict Constitutionalists yes speech can be regulated if you go back and read the federalist papers.

I just think when we start doing it we better be very careful about what this laws can be turn into.

Answer 3

There is such a thing as Constitutional rights, but what this guy did is wrong. It doesn't specifically mention sexual acts and the like in the U.S. Constitution, therefore any laws that are not written in the U.S. Constitution are up to the State. The law enforcement of that State has to review their own laws that have been written for such cases, the Constitution covers the main stuff that is written to be followed by the entire government and the people, it was written for the Citizens of the U.S, by the people and for the people. The Constitution was also put in place to avoid having another King George. The founding fathers feared an Imperial President, a dictator.They valued having their own say in matters. The Constitution has laws put in place so a President cannot overstep his boundaries and abuse his powers. It was put in place to protect it's own people against tyrants such as the current King George we see now. If one of our freedoms are taken away, and has been, by him, then the Constitution and the dreams of our founding fathers will perish. If we lose any one of our freedoms, then the terrorist who don't want us to have our freedoms, have already won. I will not let even a single one of my rights go down the drain without having any say in the matter.

Answer 4

An Orginalist (the most common type of Strict Constructionalist) would say it's not a constitutional issue, because nothing in the Constitution protects electronic postings.

Other Strict Constructionalists would not oppose regulation of such actions, because they generally favor the ability of govt to regulate any conduct. That's why they allow laws based on risk management, and laws that protect against even indirect or hypothetical possible harm.

Someone who favors an interpretation based on Constitutional meaning would oppose regulation, because it's protected speech. So would a Constitutional Literalist.

You said it will "undoubtedly foster actions" -- that's a known incorrect statement. A huge percentage of people who look at child porn never act on it, and never harm any children directly. So "undoubtedly" is incorrect. But if they did harm children, you could punish them for that direct harm. Whether they looked at pictures or not.

I am a Constitutional Literalist. I believe in following the plain text, as applicable to modern context. The Constitution absolutely protects expression (speech and press -- even if in electronic form). So, absent the law being the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling govt interest, the restriction is invalid.

The least restrictive means is to punish the people who harm children, not the people who look at pictures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT: I didn't say it "never" happens. I said it doesn't "always" happen. Meaning you'd be punishing the people even if they did NOT act -- which is the point of my analysis.

On the flip side, here's an essay on why and how they could be punished -- under a criminal facilitation argumement.

Answer 5

Without seeing the website, it's hard to know why there is nothing the police can do about it.

There are very specific laws about what is and what is not legal when it comes to websites dealing with children and geared toward pedophiles. Any sexual acts are, naturally, illegal. Simple pictures of children, clothed, and doing the stuff that children normally do (i.e. playing at the park, swinging on swings, etc...) are legal--if you look at people's family websites there are tons of images like that. The key is what the image contains, not what it is intended to do. Anything hinky is subject to the law. Perfectly innocent pictures are not illegal, regardless of whether or not the man says they are for the entertainment of pedophiles. And in truth, convicted pedophiles, while they are not allowed to go onto school ground or into children's parks, can still see that stuff every day just by driving around. They see that stuff at the grocery store, they see it at the doctor's office, and they see it just doing their stuff every day. It's the contact they have with children which is illegal. As such, if this guy is just posting normal pictures of children, he isn't breaking any laws, regardless of who his target audience is. As I said before, if the pictures are inappropriate in any way, then he can be busted for it, and that's fair.

When you get into messing with the Constitution, you start on a slippery slope which leads nowhere but down. In our free society, to keep if free, you have to decide which is more important--giving up freedoms to protect yourself, or protecting yourself by refusing to compromise the freedoms accorded by the Constitution. I will go with the Constitution any day, because the minute we start to hack into it and erode any of its protections, we, as citizens of the United States of America, are collectively and individually screwed.

Answer 6

I think we ought to revise the 2d modification to learn: "A good regulated Militia, being fundamental to the safety of a loose State, the proper of the individuals to maintain and undergo Arms, shall now not be infringed. AND ALSO THE RIGHT TO SHOOT PEDOPHILES IN THE FOREHEAD" I do not think the common record would potentially look after this form of speech. I think the charter needs to be a residing record. The drafters would now not have potentially foreseen the entire abuses viable for the record and consequently we are not able to always keep the common purpose sacrosanct. We already preclude a few speech as "hate" speech that is a long way worse and will have to be actionable, it isn't the phrases that we will have to be worried with however the purpose of this internet site, purpose isn't blanketed. I will have to have spoke back your first query as I do not aid this monsters rights, however I did desire to mention, if the park in which my child performs used to be in this waste-of-air's internet site I might hunt him down and deal with this in my view. Long earlier than he had the possibility to contact my youngster

Answer 7

If the pictures are obscene, there's a good legal basis for banning them, because they are the product of an illegal act - exploitation of children. If they aren't obscene, they aren't any different from any picture you can get of a child anywhere. And it's quite possible that this kind of thing may relieve the pressure pedophiles feel instead of increasing it. But nobody has commited a crime, so yes, they have a right to publish this, even if it's for a sick reason. I know one thing - I won't feel my kids are any safer or fail to protect them just because some website is taken down. They are in danger either way.

Answer 8

For starters...I don't like your tone,secondly I don't like law breakers and predators especially.How ever messed up the law(or lack of in this instance) can be.....as a "Constitutionist"
( I prefer the word AMERICAN ) I must recognize that the rights that I enjoy are the same as yours,and even that degenerate's too.
As long as no law prohibits his type of 'expression', neither you nor anyone else has a right to interfere ( lawfully) with him.
I find this critter revolting and on a personal level would like to stomp a mud hole in his a-- but until he breaks the law there
is little that can be done.
As for defending him .no. I would not. I don't think his actions are defensible and therefore I could not defend them.

Answer 9

I say that if it is ok for pedophiles (btw the ACLU champions the rights of NAMBLA, which is for the rape of children), to post pictures of innocent children on the Internet, then it would be ok for someone else to post pictures of pedophiles on the Internet. The children are put in danger by having their pictures posted, so why not the sicko pedophiles?

Answer 10

The sad truth is that pedophiles will act without provocation or encouragement, so this site (I'll be honest, this is the first I'm hearing of it) isn't actually likely to cause any attacks. That being the case, if what he's doing is legal, then yes, I'd defend his right to do it.

Now, if I don't have all the information, if he's doing something with the intent to encourage illegal activity (Which would be illegal, so I don't see how that's what he'd be doing), then, of course, shut him down and lock him up.