Would you rewrite the 1st amendment if it would help stop sex crimes?

Question

I was watching this story on the news the other day about this pedophile who has a website on which he posts pictures of very young girls. They aren't naked, but it's obvious the pictures are there for one reason and one reason only: to aid the site's pedo viewers with their fantasies.
You would think the guy should have been arrested a long time ago, as he's publically admitted to having a fascination with little girls... but.... since he hasn't actually committed an illegal act (other than violating a temporary restraining order), the law cannot prosocute him.
My question to you is this: Should the government actively censor and take down these sort of sites, although they have a First Amendment right to exist? Or do you support the pedophile's right to free speech because it is guarded by the Constitution? It's obvious that by removing such sites may help diminish the chance of victimization of children. What are your thoughts?

Truth - So by your definition, Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet and Nabokov's Lolita would be deemed illegal.

Vangorn - He's a self-described pedophile. He's told this to the media, even correcting one reporter who asked about his attraction to little children. He told the reporter, "No. Little girls. I don't like boys."
The media did not label him. He labeled himself.

One more thing.. I'm asking this from a completely neutral standpoint. I'm not advocating tampering with the 1st or doing nothing at all to stop this guy... I just wanted to see what other people thought about it.

Here's the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/16/blogging.pedophile.ap/index.html

Answer 1

No I wouldn't. Freedom of speech is a foundation of this country. We have to deal with the scumbags like this guy as the come up.

Answer 2

Another part of the bill of rights is that a man is innocent until he is proven guilty. Are you SURE, beyond a doubt, that this man was a CONVICTED pedophile, or is that just the word used to describe him by the media? Or did they even use that word, and that's just the conclusion you drew based on what you were shown?

You see, the world must be careful about suppressing the rights spelled out in our constitution, even if you don't always agree with them. The gradual complete suppression would start with websites like these, censored "in the name of righteousness," "to protect our children," "for the greater good," "because it will reduce crime." Refrains like this have appeared throughout history, and came from tyrants like Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon, Hitler, and even now from our own president in the war on terror as an excuse for phone tapping. The problem is, once you are successful in censoring these sites, it will gradually start to apply to more and more of them, and before you know it, the first amendment will no longer apply at all.

But the truth is, true pedophiles are always going to find a way to act their fantasies out, whether websites like this exist or not. If they can't look at it on a web, they will turn to other paths of contraband to get what they want.

Your question draws conclusions that too many people all too easily accept because they want to have something to direct their "righteous anger" at. You don't KNOW the pictures are there to aid pedo viewers in their fantasy, that's the conclusion YOU choose to draw based on what you see and what the news program chose to show you (it's simply amazing how manipulative and selective media can be to present exactly what you want to see..I wonder who funded such a program anyway?).

You don't KNOW that crime would be reduced by taking the sites down, though you say, "it's obvious." How do you know it's so obvious?

So just be careful when you draw conclusions like this, and don't act without thinking and consider ALL sides of a story.

Answer 3

I know exactly the person you are talking about! He has been getting a lot of camera time on cnn and what not.
My answer is, no, the constitution should not be changed and by changing that Amendment it would not change the way that this person thinks. Changing our freedom of speech is a very dangerous thing. We have the freedom of speech now and the media and others are STILL afraid to say the TRUTH! Imagine what kind of control we would be giving the goverment if we allowed them to change this Amendment.
He's not very smart by being so open about it because now people are going to watch him like a hawk. In a sense, his freedom to be open about his 'preferences' have now made the COUNTRY aware of his thoughts. Now people are aware and maybe parents will be a little cautious around this person.
We should all be so open about how we feel and then maybe we can all truly learn something about ourselves and humanity. He is being open even though he knows society is going to destroy him.
I could go on and on about this topic...I'm at work so I cannot!

=======================================
additional stuff 8/19-
This is an excellent and interesting question. I find it scary when society can throw labels on people. I beleive that this person is hard wired and probably cannot be changed. What is society supposed to do w/ a person like that? When children fall victim to these people, where is the culpability of the parents? How did the children get so involved w/ that person that it got to the point of abuse?
Also, I think it's horrible what dateline does to these people. I'm sure that the reason the show continues is because they get great ratings. Why is that? Is it because people like to see others at their worst? Is it because Dateline wants to help these people? Somehow I dout that.

Answer 4

Ok, this is definently a touchy subject. I hate the idea of little children being exploited at all. Pedephila makes me sick, and I just dont understand it. But changing the first amendment can lead to even more exagerated changes. Freedom of Speech is what makes up this country. I believe some things should be watched (i.e. the internet). I believe if someone is known to be a pedephile cops she keep the best eye on them, because people act upon their instincts. Oh and by the way, treatment does not work for pedephiles most of the time, only 1-2 out of 10 will stay away from children after they get out. There are always going to be weird people out there but that is everywhere, not just here.

Answer 5

Unfortunately with many rights we have to take the good with the bad. Here, he is doing nothing illegal, as you said. To change the law to make his actions illegal would also invariably infringe upon the activities of law-abiding people. In addition, there is no sound evidence to show that a pedophile would be more likely to commit an actual attack simply because he viewed these pictures.

As to the claim that you would need consent, if the pictures were taken of a person in a public place, consent is not required. I don't know what the pictures this freak is posting are, but if they are of people, even children, who are willingly out in public (With their parent or guardian's permission to be so), then consent is not an issue.

Answer 6

As you had stated, the pedophile has not actually committed an illegal act.

As a society, we have to draw a line as to what is considered an illegal act, and what is freedom of expression.

I am very proud of my sons, and would have no problem posting their pictures in their diapers/pull-ups on my personal website. Should I be cited as well for that action?

Limiting the freedom of one segment of society would have an adverse effect on other groups.

Answer 7

the problem is who makes the decision.
will we decide that all pictures of little girls cannot be on the net? who determines his purpose? what about me, what about if i want to post pictures of myself as a young girl. i don't see any sex crimes happening here. i also don't see what you think is obvious = that removing such sites may help diminish the chance of victimization of children. i'm not sure it will. the best way to stop sex crimes is TREATMENT. there are successful treatment programs for those who have sex crime problems. they cost money and society is not willing to invest. look into treatment. it is very successful-more proven results that yanking down websites.

Answer 8

No.....Hopefully he's in a Megans law state and the public could take things into their own hands. Changing the Constitution takes a Constitutional Convention and that would open up too many possibilities...

Answer 9

Pedophilia is something that is hard-wired. It has existed as long as humans (at least) and has thrived no matter what the technology of the moment.

So, bring down all the websites you want. Pedophiles are still going to be sexually attracted to little kids, and they'll still get their pictures.

The solution needs to be one of education, therapy and rehab. Most abusers were abused as children, and the cycle needs to be broken.

Answer 10

If I thought it wouls stop them 100%, I might consider it, but only for a moment. The founding fathers put a lot of serious thought into preparing the constitution and the bill of rights. I am loathe to change any of it without taking great effort to consider all the ramifications of that change.

Answer 11

I don't think re-writing is necessary - just interpreting it as it was for the first 150+ years of our history.

Obscenity was never deemed protected. Even sites with clothed children could fall under this definition if the website as a whole was obscene in "intent."

Plus, we could always boycott any internet service provider who hosts such a site. The market works even faster than a criminal suit. Hit 'em where it hurts - the wallet!