Sex In The Public Square - Law - Comments

Opinion

Kelly — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:00:52 -0800

I found this opinion. It seems to have some more insight into the case. I looked up Rep. Day. He represents part of Chatham County. Would have been interesting if Bibb County was in his baliwick. Bibb is strongly Republican and less safe territory than the rest of the state for anyone who does not carry a flag and slice of apple pie.

Here's this: http://bourgieadventures.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/some-judges-are-fuckin...

I'll dig further

Link to GA Supreme Court Docket info

Elizabeth — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:51:04 -0800

Back in September it appears that the GA Supreme Court did in fact toss this case out:

http://www.gasupreme.us/docket_search/results_one_record.php?docr_case_num=S08C1295

I haven't found any other information yet.

Supreme Court Tosses Ross Case Out

Daniel's Dad — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:19:19 -0800

Every single court in which my son, Daniel, has been challenged, attorney Amanda Farahany has lost in the Ross case - evidence that my son is innocent.

Stronger laws are needed that make legal recourse for those upon extortion is used, then found groundless, are easier to file against irresponsible attorneys.

This has been a sad story, not only for my family, but for the Ross family, or so I presume.

It's over.

Now the long process of restoring a good name, trashed in this brouhaha, begins.

Another irony?

Elizabeth — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:40:52 -0800

The New York Times reported this morning that gay rights activists in Utah are planning a 5-bill strategy toward equal rights in that state. From the article:

But leaders of the rights group here, Equality Utah, said statements made by Mormon leaders in defense of their actions in California — that the church was not antigay and had no problem with legal protections for gay men and lesbians already on the books in California — were going to be taken as an endorsement to expand legal rights that gay and lesbian couples have never remotely had in Utah, where the church is based.

“We are taking the L.D.S. Church at its word,” said Stephanie Pappas, Equality Utah’s chairwoman.

The article reports that the bills will not be aimed at overturning Utah's constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, but that they will be aimed at eliminating language that prohibits domestic partnerships and will be aimed at creating legal protections in health care, housing and employment.

Wow

Visitor — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:31:00 -0700

I will just say that that post was extremely thought provoking. I could see the various sides the different commenters were making. Not for the faint at heart.

Any time, Gracie

Elizabeth — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:38:40 -0700

And I mean that :)

Thanks for posting this,

Gracie — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:28:26 -0700

Thanks for posting this, Elizabeth ~ I am (naturally) whoring it!

In silence, the Tyranny we allow

Kelly — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:59:47 -0700

How do I not speak to this? In fact, why do we not all speak to this in such a loud and unified voice that we must be heard and heeded?

The framers of our Constitution depended heavily on social and political thought when they published both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (any yes, the Articles of Confederation.) One of these influential thinkers was John Locke. The following is an excerpt from The Second Treatise on Government and is very important to what I have to say.

Sec. 243. To conclude, The power that every individual gave the society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community; because without this there can be no community, no common-wealth, which is contrary to the original agreement: so also when the society hath placed the legislative in any assembly of men, to continue in them and their successors, with direction and authority for providing such successors, the legislative can never revert to the people whilst that government lasts; because having provided a legislative with power to continue for ever, they have given up their political power to the legislative, and cannot resume it. But if they have set limits to the duration of their legislative, and made this supreme power in any person, or assembly, only temporary; or else, when by the miscarriages of those in authority, it is forfeited; upon the forfeiture, or at the determination of the time set, it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good.

The Second Treatise On Government, John Locke

Another important influence was the English Jurist Blackstone. There is too much to attempt to offer a direct quote. Blackstone held that government should exist at the whim of the people as opposed to his student Bentham who maintained that the people should yield to the will of government. To fail to understand this is to create the atmosphere the current intrusive and limiting government we now have thrives. The short book cited below is important reading to understand this.

The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats are Trampling on the Constitution in the Name of Justice, Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Straton.

I will not reference or cite authority in my remarks beyond saying that every member of every society must read the above cited works. The first is Public Domain and can be downloaded from multiple sources, including just asking me and I will be happy to forward a text copy. The second can be found at alibris.com or amazon.com and purchased used for as little as $9.00 (used.)

First, it is the street walkers… This is so much larger than the sex industry. Government is a social contract. A population forms a society, that society recognizes a need for a social contract. A government is ordained. Our social Contract is the Constitution of the United States.

A government, of any nature, is an attempt by a society to establish limits on individuals. A government and a society are different entities just as a society and the individual are separate. The struggle of the individual is always to remain an individual. The momentum of a society is to cause the individual to conform to the society.

The struggle differs between society and government. Government, by its nature is a Tyranny. Being a Tyranny, government has the goal of conforming society and the individual to its World View.

To accomplish this conformation a government and/or a society practices two brutalities. One brutality is overt. The most humane form is through legislation and regulation enforced by loss of liberty or privilege. The other brutality is covert and more dangerous.

This covert brutality is employed when the social contract would not otherwise empower the government or society to affect the actions of the individual and the actions of the individual cause no harm to the society. The brutality is accomplished through social pressure, shaming and ostracizing the individual. Isolating the non conforming individual from society and branding the individual with, as it were, a scarlet letter. This allows society to ignore the protections guaranteed to the individual by the Constitution as government attacks the now weakened and defenseless social outcast.

This targeted ostracizing is easily recognized by the popularizing of untruths about the individual(s) society and government wish to isolate and attack. Consider this untruth. The rate of recidivism for sex offenders is very high. So high, that it is necessary to place all sex offenders of any sort on a registry and to restrict where they can live, work, or even be. Most of us believe that because when the term sex offender is used, we automatically draw images of child molesters and rapists. Of course the fact is that over 94% of all sex offenses are committed by first time offenders. Only 5% of first time offenders re-offend. There are clear indicators as to who those re-offenders will be; persons who committed a violent offense, have an extensive criminal history, did not have, as part of the sentence, a component of treatment.

Look at the parallels. Street prostitutes are diseased, they have been forced into the work by predatory pimps and criminal organizations, the money they are paid is used for criminal enterprise, they are kept in the activity by drug dependence and further the criminal enterprise goals of selling drugs. That is the myth.

Now, the myth is extended to encompass otherwise Constitutionally protected activities and no one will contest it. After all, are not street prostitutes involved in ‘abnormal’ sexual behavior? Are not activities such as Sadism and Masochism and Bondage and Discipline ‘abnormal’ sexual behavior? What does society answer to this logical error? Quad Erat Profundum (Latin, abbr QEP. That which was to be proved.)

It becomes even more complex. An adolescent in Texas sent nude pictures of herself to other teens by cell phone. The exploration was discovered. The 15 year-old female was arrested as were the teen males who received the images. The teen boys were arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. The female was arrested for producing and publishing child pornography. Then to make the charges stick against the males, the girl was labeled the victim of the crime. Now, after the convictions are completed (have no doubt, the state has no choice, they either convict or repeal their thought crime laws) all these teens will be on the SO Registry for life and their life will be ruined by statute.

When a society attempts to force its will on the individual where there is no actual harm done by the individual other than perceived harm to the individual mores of members of the society, the Tyranny is no longer limited to its inherent nature of government. The Tyranny has become pervasive and government uses that segment of society to increase its power and lessen the power of the individual.

Morality cannot be legislated. Morality has to be the choice of the individual. There is no desire expressed or intended in these words to change the moral position of the individual, especially those individuals who disagree with what is written here. The intent is to stop the Tyranny of the Majority because if government, our government, is to work, it must cease pandering to the ‘Moral Majority’ (which is neither), and resume its Constitutional limits.

That, of course, is up to the individual. We must each speak with one voice against criminal acts. Acts that involve the taking or forcing or coercion of the individual. We must all speak with one voice against a government and society that tramples on the Constitution and the individual. Alternatively, we can go back and apologize to McCarthy and his ilk. First there were the street prostitutes, then the sex offenders, then the adult entertainment businesses, then those who had marital sex in their darkened and closed bedroom for a purpose other than to procreate.…

Just Say No.

Lou FCD — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:18:09 -0700

Basic human rights should not be subject to the will of the majority. That's a basic underlying principle of our entire Bill of Rights.

No, neither the states, nor the feds, nor the people should get a say in the fundamental rights of other people.

No, the rights of the minority are not subject to the whim and the tyranny of the majority.

Just no.

Government funding for poor research?

Elizabeth — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:16:32 -0700

Another issue, aside from the poor quality of the research and the over-reaching of the write-up is that in this case the sponsor of the research, The Poppy Project, gets its funding from the Office of Criminal Justice. If government funds are going to pay for research then the public ought to be assured that the research is carefully reviewed for ethics and methodology before it is conducted.

Now there's an interesting idea.

Lou FCD — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:41:53 -0700

Makes just as much sense as the Krial case.

Back Fire

Kelly — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:12:07 -0700

I find the Staunton, Virginia pornography case very disturbing. So disturbing that I need to approach the issue tongue in cheek (maybe.)

At one point in my life, I was married. At one point in my marriage, I was involved in marriage counseling (as a counselee.) At one point in counseling, I made passing mention of a drawer full of Romance Novels (of the Harlequin variety), complaining that these, in my opinion had no literary value. The counselor calmly advised me that these were not meant to have any socially redeeming value, they were most commonly accepted as ‘Women’s Pornography’.

Aha! What is needed is to find some rational prosecutor (I know, an oxymoron) who doesn’t mind some notoriety. The case is simple. I am aware that the local grocery and the local book store both sell these novels with obscenely half clad men standing while a woman swoons at his feet. Now, even without reading the book I can imagine what perverted things must be between the covers. In addition to the imagery, I have been told that this sort of material is pornographic for women. Certainly, it must appeal to a woman’s baser instinct. Certainly, I am embarrassed to admit what I imagine women are feeling, even doing, as they read this smut.

I want this brought to trial. I will testify as ‘Average Citizen’ that I am morally offended and that the community is being undermined as women sneak these pernicious novels home, buried beneath the cucumbers and chocolate bars, and while away in prurient pursuit when their proper position should be cleaning and cooking for the true hero of their life, their upstanding, and on the short list for deacon, husband.

Am I joking? I don’t know. Should the woman who was forced to leave the mall where she bought the dress that caused her eviction sue the store that sold it to her? Can the woman in L.A. sue the Federal Government and the security company ofr emblams symbolic of war on their uniforms?

Noise has to be made. Can it be made by bringing suits as much nuisance suits as the ones being pursued by the government. Would the media coverage wake anybody up?

How to "do something"

Elizabeth — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:40:14 -0700

ED, yes, on the left-hand sidebar is a "Speak out" box that has a link to Capwiz's "Contact the Media" page, where you can easily find electronic addresses to which you can send letters to the editors of your local media, and also a "Contact Congress" link where you can type in your zip code and via Congress.org (a non-profit organization, not the government itself) you can be instantly connected to your representatives in local, state and federal government.

Thank you so much for dropping by and for passing along what you find here!

Ah, the convenience of 'Living' documents

Kelly — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:26:44 -0700

Often held is that the Constitution is a ‘Living’ document. The same is held for the Bible. It is the ‘Living’ Word.

Let us look at that. The claim, of course, is that these writings are living in a way that allows them to have the same relevance today as when they were written. That is certainly a reasonable and defensible position. The Bible holds that …‘and the second of these is as great; to treat your neighbor as you would have them treat you.’ Or, in the Declaration of Independence, ’…that all men are created equal…’

Then where is the problem, you might ask. The problem is that in defending a writing as a ‘Living’ document it allows the defender the latitude of interpretation of the words instead of the speech.

Let me explain. The First Amendment to the Constitution does not amend by change it amends by addition. The First Amendment precludes the government, and by extension the People, from abridging the right of speech of any other citizen (and by Supreme Court decision, any other person.)

Now, the Supreme Court has decided that there is something called ‘Community Standards’. Does that mean that if a community organizes in such a way that the rule of ‘Pater Familias’ holds as the penultimate rule of law, an action that would normally be proscribed is allowable because the act took place within the domain of the household? Does it mean that if the community has determined that meat is not to be consumed on a particular day, any household that consumes meat on that day is in violation of the standard and thus prosecutable?

Those may seem ludicrous on the surface. They are not in the sense that they speak of what freedom means. In the framework of whether a ‘community standard’ should be applied to what is pornography, obscenity, or indecency, freedom has a very specific meaning. These are all forms of speech. If a ‘community standard’ is to be applied, then the freedom lies in the speech and not in the words.

That is, writing, oration, visual depiction, and other expressions are speech that is allowed by the ‘community standard’. What is proscribed by that standard is the content. The content is the words used. A community allows the production, distribution, possession, and control of a DVD of a particular production because the content of the DVD is in alignment with what is decent and proper. I cannot imagine the Virginia community banning or criminalizing the movie ‘At Dawn We Slept’, the depiction of Japanese bombers destroying the Naval Base at Pearl Harbor is iconic and somehow ‘patriotic’ in nature. Of course, this movie inspires apathetic Americans to send their children off to destroy other children and accept the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. That seems completely Holy and Righteous to America. This content is allowable because it meets the ‘community standard’. I cannot see the Virginia community banning or criminalizing ‘The Scarlett Letter’. This book is completely innocuous because it is written in such an anachronistic form of the language that few get beyond the prose actually to understand the author’s point.

I can understand the Virginia community banning the book ‘Johnny Got His Gun’. After all, this anti-war novel has been banned in America at least three times (Prior to and during both World Wars and the Korean Conflict.) I can even understand the Virginia community banning ‘Lolita’. This book is clearly about a proscribed act in the ‘national community’. Of course, the book is about the detrimental consequences of the act and the male figure is clearly made out to be anything but a role model. In this case, the Virginia comminity bans through ignorence, a seemingly allowable component of 'community statndard'. I can understand the Virginia community banning what it fears because that community refuses to take the time to understand what challenges what it believes.

I can understand the local prosecutor pressing this case with the power of the Supreme Court ‘Community Standard’ decision as a legal theory. I can understand the minions of the Executive, the US Attorney, riding along in the trial balloon. The shift from a Blackstonian theory of law and government to a Benthamite theory of law and government is much too deeply ingrained in American society for the average American to grasp the flaw in 'community standard' (a tyranny of the majority by virtue of 'moral pressure'.) This tyranny is well played by the People (read: The State). The People have lost their ability to express their Consittutional Rights because the 'People' begin with the least defensible exercise of freedom and then spread like mold in a wall, usurping freedoms that offend those who claim the moral high ground.

This is in no way meant to demean the religious of any faction or belief. Nevertheless, this interpretation of Freedom of Speech has become Freedom of Speaking what I want to hear by the strong and vocal Religious Right. The tactic is simple. Begin by ostracizing the most indefensible. Broaden the ‘label’ to include those who would not fit under the original label. Move from that success to imply a relationship between one thing and another that does not exist. Once the first label is expanded, irrational relationships do not require linkage with something as inconsequential as proof. The ‘community’ has learned to ignore fact and accept belief. If there is one thing that is true about American society it is; It is easier to accept an untruth and keep a belief than it is to understand a truth and have to change a belief. Americans epitomize ‘tell me what I want to hear, so I don’t have to leave my comfort zone’.

The point is if there is to be Freedom of Speech, the freedom must be in the words, not in the speech. The next time you catch yourself using a label, pornographer, sex offender, Christian, or American understand that you are using a label to identify a person who may not fit the label. Understand that the label is a mold in which you must jam the person/object without regard to fit. You are applying the Virginia community standard. I agree wholly with the point Elizabeth makes. If we do not speak out, the standard will have to be renamed from ‘community standard’ to Staunton Standard.

Posting this

ED — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:18:02 -0700

Found this via Susie Bright's blog. Am posting it to usenet. Agree with you about both the slap to freedom that it is to prosecute for selling legal vids with a legal license etc, and also agree with what I believe you imply, that the sup court decision needs to be changed, too. And thanks for voicing something I'd thought/said before myself, what the HELL is the problem with something "prurient" in the sense of "arousing the audience sexually" So it's OK to affect the audience in 101 other ways like terrifying them, subjecting them to violence and gore,as well as make them sad, happy, joyful, hopefull, depressed, anxious, etc, etc, etc, but that one aspect of human reaction, arousal, is a no-no?? Come on folks. If we have to limit (not ban) anything it would be the violence extreme graphic de-sensitization ones that make it like "oh, they are torturing some people? Well, that's just life.." type of reactin in our citizenry

Short question/request: is there a page for action/alert/letters, etc, so I can include that next time I pass this long to others on other boards, so people can get off their butts (or stay on them, and let their keyboards to the walking) but do something? both on this case but more importantly,to take action to change the fed as well as state laws and to put pressure on prosecuters not to do this? any/all of the above..thanks!