TheAgitator.com
Pete Townshend and the Hitler Rule.
Tuesday, January 14th, 2003Remember the Hitler Rule? It states that there are some topics about which you just aren’t permitted to take any position other than the most rigid of hard lines. You aren’t permitted to say, for example, that “for all his evilness, I think Hitler had nice shoulders.”
I’d guess that for most people, child pornography falls well within the Hitler rule. Who’s going to make the case that it should be legal? Or that it’s not so bad? Well, I’m about to break the Hitler rule.
I don’t think it should be illegal to access (read: download) child pornography.
Should creating it be illegal? Hell yes. Distributing it? Of course. And I could even be persuaded — though it would take more of an effort — that paying for it ought to be illegal.
Here’s my point: what if Pete Townshend’s telling the truth? It’s true in fact that he has an upcoming book on the subject, that he’s been an outspoken critic of child pornography, and that he even once published a paper relating to the topic.
The Internet and filesharing services are fraught with wrong-turns and porn perils. As Perry de Havilland has noted, you can literally be arrested for one misclick of the mouse. Yes, you’re free to pass judgjment on those who surf the web for conventional pornography. But do you really think someone should be arrested for accidentally wandering into the wrong Internet neighborhood? Should a journalist be arrested for researching the availability of child porn?
Look, for all I know, Pete Townshend may indeed be a sick, sick man. I haven’t seen all that the authorities have compiled against him. If he’s been making kiddie porn, or selling or trading it, lock him up. I’m fine with that. But if all he’s done is download it, I don’t like the precedent. Especially when the guy’s got a ton of evidence suggesting he had benign uses for what he’d found.
Come on guys, he’s a nearly stone deaf, drug addled rock star…you’re expecting his grasp on reality and social norms to be rock solid? He may be a fool, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be being sincere.
/rant
“bona fide researchers”
Bona fide by whom? The Department of Bona Fidcation? How many years of government education should one need before you are “bona fidable” by the government?? And once you have achieved “boba fide” status by your government, should you be able to access material in a different country or do we need an International Standard of Bona Fidcation?
Bona fide means “in good faith”. Short of reading Townsend’s mind, how can you definitively say that Townsend is not a “bona fide” researcher?
Child abuse, sexual or otherwise, has existed since the beginning of humanity and most likely will endure until humanity’s end. How does restricting public access to information on social ills help eliminate them? If you were abused as a child, should you need the government’s permission to access a chat room in the attempt to gain some insight on why “this” happened to you? What if you were informed that your missing child’s picture was posted on a website, should you need the government’s permission to access that website? What if you have adopted an abused child who won’t talk about what happened, should you need the government’s permission to access information that would give you understanding as to what exactly the child may have gone through?
What ever the problem, restricting freedom is not the solution.
/end rant
Radley, I think and hope that you are misinterpreting the term “download.” When you click on a website, you aren’t downloading in the classical sense. Downloading infers an active attempt to place those images on your hard drive in persistent memory. That’s distribution in any book.
If you are simply talking about viewing a webpage, it is not only difficult, but impossible to infer intent. No, we shouldn’t lock anyone up for merely surfing the web. But, downloading is very different from surfing – in both technical terms and intent.
I feel the need to add this before the discussion gets too far along: monkey butlers. Now that they’ve been mentionned, it’s safe to continue with the discussion.
“Every law restricts individual freedom in some way.”
No ‘just’ law restricts freedom in any way. Laws against playing bumper cars on the freeway or booby-trapping your boss’s toothbrush are not restrictions on your freedoms because both acts require the initiation of force against another on your part, therefore these “freedoms” never existed. These laws merely protect the other people on the freeway and your boss from having their freedom infringed upon by you. Just laws don’t restrict, they protect. The purpose of government is to protect each individual’s freedom, not to restrict freedom..
“Yes, I am an American.”
I don’t doubt that you are a citizen of the United States, but I suspect that you are not a subscriber to the American ideal.
“The people that are posting this on the internet arenâ??t just isolated perverts, they prey on children for the specific purpose of recording the abuse to sell. Would you make the same argument for a serial killer that made his living by posting pictures of his victims? How about a rapist? You donâ??t turn the lights on by allowing an active market in an illegal activity. You also donâ??t discourage that activity.”
Again we disagree. The best way I can explain my position is with an analogy…so bear with me.
In 1776 we had a country where “all men are created equal” and we also had legalized slavery. We were a country built on a contradiction. One or the other had to go. In the 1860′s the country split and was almost lost, but through much tragedy and bloodshed, we managed to get rid of the contradiction and save the country. Fast-forward 100 years (you’re welcome), and minority rights are still being oppressed in this country. People were being tortured, raped, mutilated , and “who knows what else”. And pictures were being taken. These pictures were kept as trophies by the people committing these evil acts and used as badges of honor when certain groups (klubs, if you will) would gather. Nothing would get you respect faster than a picture of yourself at a lynching. Pictures are a powerful media. For decades “decent” people had heard the stories of oppression but there was no nation-wide public outrage. Not until they saw the pictures. Photos and videos made the stories real. These were real people being murdered and the smiling faces of the murderers were right there for the whole world to see. The public finally became aware of what was really going on and they were outraged. Public pressure on politicians was immediate and change was swift. The world is a better place.
We’ve all heard stories of the sexual abuse of children. 20% of all children sexual abused. 25%. 30%. Just words and numbers to most people. No outrage. I believe if everyone who has access to the pictures would just take a moment to look at them, just one moment to realize how pervasive this evil has become in our society, just one moment to make it all real, that the public outrage would be immediate and world wide. And change would be swift.
Limiting people’s ability to get real information about real problems only serves those with the power or inclination to abuse. This goes for civil rights, child abuse, politics, and everything else under the sun.
And I’m not a Libertarian, I’m an Objectivist.
Radley
You are paying for these comments by the word, right?
Wow, SpudVol. We could get rich if he does that. I’d like to continue this, but Joe Sims has invoked the unwritten Monkey Butler rule. Therefore, I suggest we take the G. Gordon Liddy approach and agree to disagree.
Funny how we all make such easy comments on all and everything, while no one of us WAS actually THERE when it all happened – that is one of the powerful aspects of fame : NO ONE REALLY NEVER IS THERE – behind their doors.And why should we wanna ???It is THEIR life and at best they have given us some great times – and THE WHO D I D.
Unlike Pete Townshend never tires to explicitly state : I KEEP BEING A N ADMIRER OF THEM, always, and only last night saw an old version live performance of MAGIC BUS: It is NOT arrogance when he somewhere stated: ” I was sitting around listening to some of our stuff of the 60ies and wondered at how we were SO MUCH BETTER than anyone else at that time !” BANG!
I CAN ONLY AGREE – MORE THAN EVER.
Fuck his private life ! Who cares !The mUSIC matters and keeps me a reelin and a rockin – forever !!!
extracting Brookdale?creature mantel Normanizer distiller?cheater collapses betting styles