Defending a priest

[REDWAVE]

This story caught my eye . . . hot off the wire.

As you know, I'm very critical of organized religion. And I've certainly derived a lot of amusement from the Catholic Church's recent pedophilia scandal. The worst part of that is not the pedophile priests themselves, but the coverup for them by high Church officials, by the cardinals and archbishops. Anyhoo, anyone else heading for the running of the choirboys at St. Pedophilia's?

I'm sure we'd all agree that when a priest uses his position to exercise duress or undue influence on a minor to have sex, that is highly reprehensible. However, I have to come to the defense of Rev. Thomas Rydzewski, a Roman Catholic priest in Baltimore. He pled guilty today to charges of receiving child pornography. Evidently, he had lewd images of minors on the hard drive of the computer in his rectory (snigger, snigger) at the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen. I guess when the God biz got boring for him, he would pop up the kiddie porn in his office and pleasure the bishoprick!

He faces up to 15 years in prison and a $250,000. fine. Sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 12. I say he is being unjustly punished. I say he had a First Amendment right to have child pornography on his computer. Note he's not accused of actually molesting any minors, just of having images on his computer. I think it's a bum rap.

What the hell do you think?

In case you think I made this up, here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-crime-priest.html

 

[Ishmael]

This guy might be an exception, but it's not pedophilia that is taking place. It's homosexual acts with minors.

The age break for pedophiles is somewhere around 10 to 12 years of age, depending on the specific laws that apply. Kids over that age are considered 'minors'.

The majority of the cases are priests engaging in sex with teenage alter boys.

In any event, it's about time the church and the law does something tangible about this and/or any other case where a person in a position of priveledge takes advantage of a minor. Male or female.

Ishmael

 

[REDWAVE]

Free speech

You didn't address the real issue, Ishmael. Is there a First Amendment right to have child pornography in your possesion? I say there is.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

It's not a free speech issue. It's a commerce and trafficking issue. You're barking up the wrong soapbox.

By the way, the "running of choirboys" thing was pretty funny.

 

[Guest]

Re: Free speech

You didn't address the real issue, Ishmael. Is there a First Amendment right to have child pornography in your possesion? I say there is.

I disagree, Redwave. If there were no market for child pornography, there would be no child pornography. I feel he's contributing to the despicable crime by enjoying it. As far as whether I feel his sentence was too stiff or not, I'm out to lunch. But I do think he should be punished in some way.

MoonWolf

 

[REDWAVE]

I wanna be a Catholic priest . . .

Well, Ishie, I don't know anything about "alter boys," but the idea of having sex with altar boys sure sounds good to me! Where do I sign up to become a priest?


DCL, I think the issues are all related. Let's address commerce and trafficking. Is there a right, under both the First and Ninth Amendments, to sell or transfer child pornography to consenting adults? I say there is. Some people derive pleasure from viewing child pornogrpahy, and they are not violating anyone else's rights by so doing. They are simply pursuing their happiness. Thus, other people should have the right to earn income by supplying those who desire child pornography with it.

Anyway, the priest involved is not accused of trafficking in kiddie porn. He just had it on his computer.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Off the topic, but here's an alternative media source I think you'll find a bit less "agenda heavy", and might be of interest to you, REDWAVE. I have some friends over there, and though I feel they do tend to editorialize too much, they have their heads pretty well screwed on, and I think you're going to be hearing more of them very soon:
Free Speech TV

Just thought you'd be interested.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

They are simply pursuing their happiness. Thus, other people should have the right to earn income by supplying those who desire child pornography with it.

The Declaration's implication regarding inalienable rights is that you have the right to pursue happieness (a right from Nature, not government), but a Republic must legislate in such a way that your right to pursue happieness does not infringe upon someone else's inalienable right of liberty. No child consents to pornography. His civil rights are abused. You do not have the right to profit from this. The First Amendment right to free speech has many, many restrictions. It's not a blank check for gross behavior.

 

[Purple Haze]

Re: I wanna be a Catholic priest . . .

They are simply pursuing their happiness. Thus, other people should have the right to earn income by supplying those who desire child pornography with it.

You ARE out of your fucking mind.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Maybe, but at least he's arguing in a mostly lucid manner. I'm cutting him some slack on this one.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Free speech

You didn't address the real issue, Ishmael. Is there a First Amendment right to have child pornography in your possesion? I say there is.

I disagree. The 1st. amendment does not, and should not, afford protection to those that exploit others that are unable to make a reasoned decision. Be they children or the mentally incapacitated. Possesion of such material makes the possesor an accesory after the fact. By encouraging the commercialization of what is blatantly wrong.

However, I will give you this. When some over zealoius prosecuter decides to place mommie and daddie in jail for taking a picture of little Mary or Johnnie on a bearskin rug, or in the tub, we have gone beyond reason. A single male parent of a 2 or 3 year old female child bathes her at his own risk in today's society. One of the biggest arguments for the sunseting of many of the intrusive laws.

Ishmael

 

[REDWAVE]

New issue

Now Moonwolf raises an interesting issue. Some child pornography-- the most graphic and extreme kind-- involves depicting children having sex. Let's call this "hardcore" child pornogrpahy. But child pornography is defined more broadly than obscenity, and includes materials which would not fall under the Supreme Court's definition of "obscenity." (That definition is very complex and convoluted, so I'd rather not go into it.) Thus, nude photos of minors, perhaps even clothed pictures of minors striking lewd or suggestive poses (young girl with her legs up in the air, for instance) can also be child pornography. Let's call that "softcore" child pornography. Also, there's "virtual" child pornography (addressed in a recent court case): drawings of children having sex, cartoons, stories, etc.

Is there a right to distribute and view softcore and virtual child pornography? Again, I say yes.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Free speech

I disagree. The 1st. amendment does not, and should not, afford protection to those that exploit others that are unable to make a reasoned decision. Be they children or the mentally incapacitated. Possesion of such material makes the possesor an accesory after the fact. By encouraging the commercialization of what is blatantly wrong.

However, I will give you this. When some over zealoius prosecuter decides to place mommie and daddie in jail for taking a picture of little Mary or Johnnie on a bearskin rug, or in the tub, we have gone beyond reason. A single male parent of a 2 or 3 year old female child bathes her at his own risk in today's society. One of the biggest arguments for the sunseting of many of the intrusive laws.

Ishmael

100 % agree on these statements.

MoonWolf

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Re: New issue

Now Moonwolf raises an interesting issue. Some child pornography-- the most graphic and extreme kind-- involves depicting children having sex. Let's call this "hardcore" child pornogrpahy. But child pornography is defined more broadly than obscenity, and includes materials which would not fall under the Supreme Court's definition of "obscenity." (That definition is very complex and convoluted, so I'd rather not go into it.) Thus, nude photos of minors, perhaps even clothed pictures of minors striking lewd or suggestive poses (young girl with her legs up in the air, for instance) can also be child pornography. Let's call that "softcore" child pornography. Also, there's "virtual" child pornography (addressed in a recent court case): drawings of children having sex, cartoons, stories, etc.

Is there a right to distribute and view softcore and virtual child pornography? Again, I say yes.

Well, how many things are we going to argue here? I thought we were talking about this one case? We could be here all day.

Open a Sears catalogue, or walk though a Mall, and you'll see photos of kids modelling underwear. There's a line that's been fairly well defined by all the complex convoluted legislation you don't want to go into. I think that if you really want to answer your questions, someone, somewhere, will have to go into all that, because that's where the legal distinctions lie.

 

[Purple Haze]

You back-pedaled pretty well there REDWAVE...

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: New issue

Well, how many things are we going to argue here? I thought we were talking about this one case? We could be here all day.

Open a Sears catalogue, or walk though a Mall, and you'll see photos of kids modelling underwear. There's a line that's been fairly well defined by all the complex convoluted legislation you don't want to go into. I think that if you really want to answer your questions, someone, somewhere, will have to go into all that, because that's where the legal distinctions lie.

I have to say I agree with DCL on this one too.

Soft porn or hard core. Selling it to seekers of kiddie porn should be a criminal offense. Again, these children can not exersize their rights and are are being exploited against their wills.

I'd not take it lightly if something happened to my son or any child I know involving pornography. I'd be as serious about that as I would about a molester.

And if a molester would have ever touched my child, I'd have killed him, or found a way to badly maime him.

Sorry, that's the way I feel.

Moon

 

[REDWAVE]

Stanley v. Georgia

Consider the case of Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), in which the Supreme Court held that possession of obscenity in the home was constitutionally protected, even though the production and distribution of pornography could be prohibited.

Dix, I don't Sears is going to be charged with kiddie porn for having kids model underwear in its catalogue. Nor have I ever heard of any parents being prosecuted for snapping a photo of their kid in the bathtub. Neither of those instances are intended to excite sexual desire. I raised the issue of softcore kiddie porn here because I don't know exactly what kind of images the priest had on his hard (very) drive. The article didn't say.

 

[Guest]

Re: Stanley v. Georgia

Nor have I ever heard of any parents being prosecuted for snapping a photo of their kid in the bathtub.

Actually, Redwave, there was a recent case of, I think it was a grandparent taking pictures of their grandchild in some form of undress. I don't remember the outcome nor the specifics, but if I recall it was just a few months ago. They were accused of some charge for them.

Maybe I or someone can find a reference to it.

Moon

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

If the prosecutors are calling it kiddie porn, then it's kiddie porn, and not underwear modeling. As I said, the legislative distinctions are laid out State to State. You should review all the convoluted stuff you don't want to look at for your answer as to what defines phrases like "softcore", "harcore" and "kiddie porn". Asking people for their opinion of what all that means is okay, but it's not really going to answer your questions. It'll just make a for a typical "talk radio" kind of afternoon where unrelated discource and agenda is substituted for fact. It sounds like you have access to legislation, so, let's ask you. In this case, in this state, what are the court's definitions for the crimes involved?

 

[REDWAVE]

Not law but philosophy

Well, DCL, I'm not really going for a legalistic answer here, but a philosophical discussion of what the law should be. I'm interested in finding out what other people think about this, and of course in airing my own opinions. Legalistically, obscenity and child pornography are federal constitutional issues. The U.S. Supreme Court's definitions control; any state law to the contrary is void.

Here's an issue near to home. Last time I checked, Lit.'s guidelines prohibited stories with characters less than 18 years of age depicted in sexual situations. Now for someone to write a story about minors having sex, no minors have to be sexually molested. It all takes place in the heads of the author and the readers. Especially in light of the recent court decision which struck down a law prohibiting virtual child pornography (sorry, don't have the cite handy), I say Lit.'s prohibition is overbroad. As a private person, Laurel has the right under capitalist law to set whatever guidelines on her website she chooses. But I say there's a First Amendment right to write, sell, transfer, read, and have in one's possession stories about minors having sex.

Anyone disagree?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

To be fair, I'm not sure what the law is on that, and I would find an "opinion" discussion more interesting and directed if it started from a definition of existing legislation. Court rulings often eloquently bring an issue into focus much more quickly than 10 pages of Internet Forum ranting.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Stanley v. Georgia

Actually, Redwave, there was a recent case of, I think it was a grandparent taking pictures of their grandchild in some form of undress. I don't remember the outcome nor the specifics, but if I recall it was just a few months ago. They were accused of some charge for them.

Maybe I or someone can find a reference to it.

Moon

Ah Ha! Found one:

Much to the dismay of many shutterbugs, some employees at photo processing labs inspect customers' photos, and if they decide the pictures resemble child pornography, in some states they are required to alert the police. The consequences for the customer are often dire.

False Accusation

Marian Rubin is a 66-year-old award-winning photographer. Last year, she took a roll of film of her granddaughters before they got in their bath. One of the photos depicted one of the girls lying on a bed naked while reading a book.

Shutter Bugs Beware

Moon

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Two important points from that case:

1) The grandma got off, the law said she did nothing wrong.
2) The grandma's rights were certainly abused.

I believe this case more clearly illustrates abuse of prosecutorial power than it does the legallity of kiddie porn imagery.

 

[Guest]

Re: Not law but philosophy

But I say there's a First Amendment right to write, sell, transfer, read, and have in one's possession stories about minors having sex.

Anyone disagree?

Minors having sex with each other in a story is different than a grown person to possess kiddie porn, or an adult having sex with a minor or child. I don't have a problem with the stories with minors, as long as an adult is not taking advantage of them in the story.

I have a BIG problem with Kiddie porn and molestation, however, and ANYONE that contributes to either one, IMHO, whether that be to commit, create, distribute, or be a consumer of same. All are guilty of harming the child(ren), as far as I am concerned.

Have you ever known a victim of any of these crimes? I have and it can damage them severely. My own mother was molested by her father and brothers, and she will never get over it. That's not the only example of someone I know personally.

Moon

 

[REDWAVE]

New York v. Ferber

For those of a legalistic turn of mind, the big Supreme Court case on child pornography is New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). That case upheld a New York law which prohibited depictions of minors engaged in simulated sexual intercourse, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or (my favorite) lewd exhibition of the genitals, as well as actual sexual intercourse.

Come on now, everybody, lewdly exhibit your genitals!