Re: CDR: Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change
It's mostly the result of habit these days. Since the evil of Fedgov is so pervasive these days, it's easy to forget it's many Stategov minions. I stand corrected on that in this particular case. On Thursday 06 September 2001 09:58 pm, Declan McCullagh wrote: > I'm confused about "Fedgov" references. This was a state law and > a state prosecution and a state judge. Doesn't make it right, but it > has little to do with "Fedgov." > > -Declan > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 05:30:19PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > > At 06:15 PM 9/6/2001 -0500, amp wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 05 September 2001 10:51 am, David Honig wrote: > > > At 09:49 AM 9/5/01 -0700, John Young wrote: > > > >Isn't what is new here is that the man did not publish this material > > > >as was the material of Joyce, Miller, et al? Nobody saw it except > > > >him and the cop who discovered it. > > > > > > Wasn't it his *parents* who read his journal and turned him in, hoping > > > for 'treatment' > > > instead of jail? Shades of David & Ted Kaczynski... > > > > > >Indeed. From press accounts, his mother turned him in. (That's how > > > Fedgov got > > > > his diary/notebook from what I understand.) The appelate decision that > > was recently in the news is that he pled guilty thinking he would get > > probation/treatment. The judge, in effect said, "I don't know why the > > hell you would have thought that. Lock him up!" > > > > >I'm concerned that Fedgov has been able to successfully prosecute this > > > > thoughtcrime using his own private writings. It could very well be > > possible that writing his evil thoughts down kept him from acting on > > them. I know that sometimes when I have a good rant building up, I have > > to just write it to get it out of my system. This case could well have > > unintended consequences if people finally understand that Fedgov doesn't > > give a rat's ass about any alleged 'right to privacy'. Americans > > allegedly have right to 'keep and bear arms' as well, spelled out on > > paper (currently being used as toilet paper in government offices across > > the land), but there are thousands of laws regulating against same. > > > > This may continue until JDF types with nothing to lose (e.g., diagnosed > > with a terminal illness) put selected DOJ, FBI and Congressional targets > > in their sights. > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > Version: Hush 2.0 > > > > wmAEARECACAFAjuYFYwZHGtleXNlci1zb3plQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRAg4ui5IoBV > > n/9+AJ9eK/gSpH59ahQrotIOcYbOo8cHQgCeM0ki/sMKBda2tdCstCyN4LqFQWk= > > =1jll > > -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TANSTAAFL, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zeugma.nu/ Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
Re: CDR: Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Mere possession (not creation) of visual depictions of child > pornography has been a federal felony for at least a decade. > Someone who's a "collector" who did not publish the material would > be a felon. We are not talking about "visual depictions" (cute Fedz euphemism for photographs or photograph like imagery) here, we are talking about *written words*. The anti-imaging laws are justified on the grounds that producing the stuff requires, by definition, a child, and therefore, outlawing the stuff "Saves Children". As I understand this story, the guy had a diary which contained written descriptions of things he would *like* to do, not a photo album of kids bent over a table... Big difference. A a "journalist", I'm sure you can see where this not so subtle difference lies... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: CDR: Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change
Declan writes: > What's new here? *Possession* of child porn has been illegal for at > least a decade. Obscenity prosecutions for writing what people find > objectionable have a long history: Joyce, Miller, etc. The legal basis for criminalizing non-obscene erotic depictions of minors is Ferber, which clearly states that such criminalization is Constitutional only when it is necessary to prevent actual persons under the age of 18 from experiencing the harmful workplace environment associated with porn production. Laws which criminalize synthetic visual depictions of the sexuality of minors, as well as written material, which do not depict actual living persons, are clearly unconstitutional under the standard created by Ferber. It is the hope of the Child Sex Hysterics, whose goal is not to protect minors, but to purge from the continuum all counterexamples to their religiously inspired doctrine on the asexuality of persons under 18, that the Sheeple have now been sufficiently programed to react with horror to all depictions of youthful sexuality. This will place the Supreme Court in the position where fabricating from whole cloth a legal justification for criminalizing all such material will be the only alternative to mass rioting in the streets the next time such a case appears before them. I'd rather just shoot the rioters, and raise the average intelligence in the sheep bin by epsilon. If you can criminalize dirty stories, which depict non-obscene sexuality on the part of fictional characters, then you can criminalize just about anything else, including chemistry and cryptography textbooks, and Tom Clancy novels. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
