Posted on 05/19/2005 11:05:47 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
On February 2, 2003, when seven-year-old Danielle van Dam disappeared from her family home in the middle of the night, every mother’s nightmare was played out on national television for almost a month while authorities searched for the girl. When Danielle’s body was found at the end of that month, the police and prosecutors discovered a frightening story about a neighbor of Danielle’s who had computer files filled with child pornography and even a sickening cartoon video of the rape of a young girl.
According to a report by Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, on the link between pornography and violent sex crimes, the prosecutor in the Danielle van Dam case said “The video represented [the defendant’s] sexual fantasies and inspired the abduction, rape, and murder of Danielle.” According to Raymond Pierce, a retired NYPD detective who worked on the sex-crimes squad for many years and is now a criminal-profiling consultant, about 80 percent of rapists and serial killers are heavy pornography users. I was a victim of an attempted rape by a disturbed man who turned out to be involved in pornography.
May is Victims of Pornography Month. Today Senator Sam Brownback (R., Kan.), Rep. Katherine Harris (R., Fla.), Rep. Joe Pitts (R., Pa.), and leaders from the values community will participate in a summit to explore the troubling connection between pornography and violence against women and children.
Florida attorney general Charlie Crist advises parents that “we must never lose sight of the fact that sexual predators make the online world a dangerous place for innocent children. Parents must be ever-vigilant to make sure their children are not exposed to images and messages that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.” Crist warns that we cannot allow the Internet to be a “pipeline for pornography aimed at children.” But while parents can use available means to protect their children when they are in their own homes, there is a cultural climate surrounding our children that threatens them the way Danielle van Dam was threatened. Because of the availability of pornography online, there is no way of knowing what lurks in the hearts of our neighborhoods.
More needs to be done to evaluate the connection between violent predatory behavior and pornography, and to crack down on these violent predators. Police and law-enforcement officers across the country report brutal instances in which those addicted to pornography utilized its sadistic images on their female and child victims.
Just this past February, the New York Times reported a story about a teenage babysitter who had raped three young children he was watching in their homes. According to the Times, his pattern was to watch pornographic videos with the oldest of the children, a 12-year-old boy, and intimidate them all by torturing them with a knife and threats to their family members. Perhaps one of the most notorious serial killers, Ted Bundy, participated in an interview with Dr. James Dobson shortly before he was executed. In the interview, Bundy explained, “I’ve lived in prison for a long time now. And I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence like me. And without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography — without exception, without exception — deeply influenced and consumed by an addiction to pornography.”
Since 1956, the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment does not protect obscene materials. If we know from the perpetrators themselves how obscenity contributes to violence against women and children, what can we do?
We need to fund more studies of the addiction to pornography and its effects on violent behavior. Parents can install filters on any computer used by children and keep the family computer in a central location, not in a child's bedroom or someplace where parents might not regularly see it. We need to demand tougher law enforcement on the state and federal level. The Bush administration is stepping up federal enforcement of obscenity laws. This is a good first step. Contact the U.S. attorney for your district and ask what they are doing to enforce the laws. We need tougher state penalties against both possession and distribution of child porn and passing any kind of pornographic material to kids. Experts indicate that pornography is often used by pedophiles to break down the resistance of child victims. Parents should check out their state’s penalties for child rape and make sure offenders are going to jail and staying there for these offenses. Florida, for example, just passed a tough new law after the tragedy involving Jessica Lunsford, whose killer was a recently released violent offender. We should pass legislation to address the threat to children on the Internet. This includes chat sites, websites, spam, and peer-to-peer networks. Peer-to-Peer networks are of particular concern because they are widely visited by kids and offer porn for free without any age verification.
As Rep. Katherine Harris has pointed out, "Pornography displays human beings as objects, obliterating the wall between an individual's sick fantasies and the compulsion to act upon them. Often, the monsters who hurt women and children start with this malignant desensitizer." We need to all work together to find better ways to protect women and children against this violence.
You'd be wrong.
Dream on. JimRob has said that he agrees with the majority of libertarian positions.
Yes I'm sure the founding fathers died for the right of perverts to view porn morning, noon and night.
Sounds like a good movie plot. If everyone were like me of course the world would be a much better place. No children would be abused. No wives would be murdered, battered, neglected or cheated on. There would be no income tax evasion or other fraud. Everyone who heed traffic laws. Come to think of it the world would be a whole heck of a lot smarter too! And generally better looking as well! And most of all, there would be no lack of humility! So. Does that satisfy your thirst for sarcasm - or should I go on... ;)
I'm just thinking about all the extra free time I'd have.
The founding fathers understood that liberty might well lead to free people doing things that the majority don't like. In a free society, you have to take the good with the bad.
Not generally. But selectively prohibiting Mohammedan immigration would be contrary to libertarian principles, right?
Not really. One of the legitimate roles of government is to protect the citizenry from outside threats. A good case can be made that the citizenry would be safer if Muslims were not allowed to immigrate to this country and if non-citizen Muslims already here were deported.
I don't have much use for them myself. But since they constitute a growing segment of society, we're going to have to make common cause with them when we can, while trying to convert them. Hopefully they'll see the error of their ways. The error at the heart of libertarianism is the belief that people have a God-given right to do evil. This supposed right is usually phrased as "people have a right to do what they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else." The slogan is diabolically clever.
There you have it, folks. A product of our post-1960s educational system.
So, in your opinion, the American government has always acted in a manner consistent with the Constitution and its ideals? Okay. I'll remember that the next time some branch of government bans school prayer or something similar.
No offense, but you throw out some sort of twisted point and when someone shows you that your logic is flawed, you go off on some weird tangent.
If a state passed a law legalizing slavery, the courts would rule it unconstitutional and that would be the end of that. There is already an amendment prohibiting slavery so another one wouldn't help.
First of all, I've made clear that I'm not a Catholic.
Second, if you buy the notion that Jesus forgives you of your sins, there aren't any sins that will keep you from heaven--ask for forgiveness, and you've got it. Whether you're a porn watcher, child molester, or serial axe murderer.
I don't make any mistake of confusion--you are making a moral judgment of others when you say that what they are doing is WRONG. Wrong is a moral judgment. Viewing pornography, in and of itself, is not evil. It is not "malum in se." It does not harm others. The very act of looking at pornography, in and of itself, does not harm society; thus, any opposition to it is on moral grounds--that is the type of judgment that Jesus tells us that we should not engage in.
The Gospel is crystal clear: why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye but do not consider the plank in your own? Jesus brought a NEW message when he came, and he was careful to warn about people who were so caught up in religious traditions that they missed the forest for the trees. They will not get passage to heaven.
Remember Matthew 9:11-12: The Pharisees said to the disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with the tax collectors and the sinners?" When Jesus heard that, he said to them, "those who are well have no need of a physician, but the sick do."
He also owned slaves. The founding fathers weren't gods.
You do. It's called free will. God gave it to us.
Whether society has an interest in punishing certain actions is a different story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.