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.
Trite.
I think both sides of this are right and wrong. I'm sure that there is a small hardcore group of people that porn leads to commit violent sexual crime. The trouble is, 90% of the people who watch porn will never commit such a crime. I practiced criminal law for 15 years and there is no question in my mind that alcohol was linked in some fashion with the vast majority of violent crimes committed. If alcohol could actually be banished today the crime rate would plummet. BUT....90% of the people who drink alcohol will never committ a violent crime. SO...is it right to try to ban alcohol or porn for the honest majority who sample it just to deal with the 10% who it effects in an incredibly socially destrctive manner? I don't know the answer but the results of prohibition and our current drug laws indicate that banning isn't the answer. (note: I do not drink alcohol, do drugs or view porn other than the occaisional racy e-mail I get)
I am not a libertarian and I am proud not to be part of the "everything should be legal, moral relativism" crowd.
"Every single one of those predators also drank water and ate bread at some point in their lives. This does not mean that bread and water drove them to predation"
I agree. To blame porno for the problem would be no different than blaming guns for violence - which I assume most of us here would not.
Coincidence.
Correlation isn't causation.
We have a God-given right to view obscene images.
It's a victimless crime.
Did I miss any other sophistries?
Oh boy another porn thread. The evangelicals will be coming out of the woodwork on this one.
That's an opinion. Many on the left see a device such as a gun, dezigned for he specific task of killing to be immoral. Some really left wackos think cars are immoral too. I find the female figure to be beautiful in its raw form, not immoral.
Alcohol is not immoral in and of itself, the abuse of alcohol is. Porn is by its very nature immoral. There is no morally correct way to enjoy pornography.
"I guess if one person isn't allergic to bee stings, no one else could possibly be allergic either."
Well that doesn't mean if a single person were allergic to bee stings we should eradicat all bees, does it?
The two of you battled on porn threads.
First of all, let's not pretend that pornography in any way, shape or form resembles 'art'.
As far as banning it, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all, but I'd think there were Constitutional issues to contend with in doing so. But I wonder if things like pornography, dope, and other immoral and/or illicit effects don't serve the unintended purpose of building character in those who ignore these things.
Evil has been with us since Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels vacated the Lord's immediate side. Ban pornography and we'd still have murders, thefts, etc.
If anything to be banned it should be liberals and liberalism. They are after all the ones perpetuating the aforementioned vices by instilling lax laws and punishments and even acceptance of them to an extent.
As will the porn addicts...
There is nothing "relativistic" about it. Sexual predation is a CRIME no matter who the hell you are. Of course, if you could get past the whole "sex is icky and immoral" thing, the nwe could probably have a decent conversation about why some people become sexual predators and effective means of doing something about it. Like enforcing a death penalty for repeat offenders and more victim armament laws.
But Noooo.... just got go after the porn industry. For the same reasons Sarah Brady is going after Colt and Smith and Wesson.
First, is the "piece of art" intrinsically evil. Yes, pornography is intrinsically evil. That people argue over what constitutes pornography only demonstrates that all people recognize the principle.
Second, is it prudent to ban pornography? In other words, does banning pornography do more harm to society than pornography itself? I say no. I remember the days when pornography wasn't widely available, and I don't remember any crimes associated with its criminalization, as there are with drug criminalization.
I won't stay long. Eventually the porn pirates will gather in a bunch and start holding church camp. I usually bolt when that happens.
Dude you'll never get anywhere with these people, its just not worth arguing on these threads.
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.