And I'm wondering how that lets someone relax and become a good citizen, when they're constantly reminded of what a BAD citizen they really are.
I have to wonder if the parole system itself leads to a higher crime rate, just because already-marginal people are under undue stress because of it, thus less likely to think straight and more likely to do Stupid Things.
That's the brilliance of Niemoller's famous poem. It's true across the entire spectrum of "different from me-ness", whether that's Jews or sex offenders or hog farmers from Iowa. ANYONE can be branded one of those "others" and become a target, if only it starts with that so-small target of "really really other".
The difference between the McCarthy era and now is that now we have many, many small "others" being targeted, both by government (TFA's example) and by private groups seeking to enforce their own morality (frex, PETA). And in my observation, it's much easier to stop (or escape from) a large and obvious persecution than to stop many small ones.
In short, I think we're doomed, because we'll be too far down that road before most people realise that "there is no one left to stand up for me."
Hardly unique to Americans. Look up the French Revolution someday... it was less a revolution than a mob frenzy against anyone perceived as "not one of us".
Also, when there are no witnesses to the contrary, some cops Make Shit Up... or at the very least, write such slanted reports that there is no way to counter them or defend yourself without sounding like you ARE guilty.
Rather like the old jape, "Have you stopped beating your wife??"
"It's not intended to "appeal to the prurient interest."
There are a couple problems with that. Firstoff, if you were to take these examples from religious tomes and WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE, show them to ordinary people who don't know those passages exist, I think you'd find that most "right thinking" persons OF THAT RELIGION would find those passages "prurient".
Second -- Historically, what qualifies as the "prurient interest" has been dictated by a very few powerful men, who then force that "morality" on everyone else. A good case could be made that such people become control freaks and seek power largely because they have trouble controlling their OWN urges, thus almost anything can be "prurient" in their eyes.
Example -- the Puritans. Do you really think the average *normal* person of the era believed that showing a woman's ankle was "prurient"?? Yet the Powers That Be prohibited such displays of feminine flesh, and browbeat everyone else into submitting to their version of morality.
Anyway, my points are that the source should not define whether something is "prurient" since not everyone will know the context, and we must be very careful who is allowed to create these definitions in the first place. As noted, these definitions are not usually the product of normal people ordinary to their culture.
Haha, boy, are you ever right about that... and Delany, lordy!! Burn before reading!!
Piers Anthony becomes even more indefensible if you're aware that he made much of his living writing porn... tho most SF fans only know about Pornucopia (far as I know, the only one published under his usual SF pen name).
Side note: I think Piers Anthony's general type of SF is a stage most readers go through -- I stopped reading him over 20 years ago, tho I still have all the books. But that was before he got, uh, bold about it. -- This gives me another thought: If PA's later works were to become banned under the new thoughtcrime, could possession of his earlier/tamer works be regarded as "intent"??
========= I'm reminded that "intentcrime" already exists: Right now there is such a furor over dogfighting that possession of ordinary canine training and health gear is being used as "evidence of intent" even if there is NO evidence nor even the faintest reason to suspect someone is involved in dogfighting. -- So far this hasn't been used in court, but it HAS been used to confiscate dogs from legit breeders -- which are then SOLD (at a very good profit, often in the mid-six-figures) by the "rescuing" agency. Follow the money.... one has to wonder where the money trail flows from in the arena of kiddieporn thoughtcrime. I doubt it's absent.
Agreed this is more about empowering the Thought Police than about protecting children. If it were actually about protecting *real* children from *real* crimes, no one would give a rat's ass about =simulated= kiddie porn.
Tho come to think of it... wasn't there a similar hue-and-cry over a simulated snuff film a while back? I don't remember anything else about it.
Excellent example. Someone posted a link that does likewise for the Koran. So... under the legal theory of Fantasy Equals Reality, not only are the Bible and Koran banned (and probably most other major religious tomes as well) but also those people who read and preach them must go to prison!!
One can hope that the next national witch hunt is also self-limiting, but we're in such a broad-spectrum funnel effect right now that I suspect it'll go a long, long ways overboard before the pendulum swings back.
Did he overstep the line, or run into sufficiently powerful opponents?? not quite the same thing. (I don't know the inside history of that era, so am actually asking here.)
"Democracy: That ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel
Unfortunately, he's right. Democracy ceases to work, and becomes mob rule, as soon as you get away from a homogenous population (already free of dissenters), or as soon as the under-educated segment grows large enough that the majority are subject to being swayed by emotion on topics they know nothing about. (See California Prop 2, recently passed by the voters -- it effectively outlaws eggs.)
There is a distinct drop in the number of sex crimes concurrent with the rise of BBSs ca. 1988, since now anyone with a modem could (slowly) download their pr0n fix.
There is a much sharper drop ca. 1996, the point where the internet became a far more widespread and much faster way to get that pr0n fix.
'You've incorrectly conflated "age of the media" with "age of the actors" to lead to an apparent absurdity.'
I think that was the whole point -- to show just how absurd it is to regard cartoon kiddie porn as legally equivalent to real-child kiddie porn, to be prosecuted with equal zeal.
Rather the point I made up above -- if fantasy depiction of one crime is illegal, and is to be penalised as if it's the real thing -- then ALL fantasy depictions of crimes must, in fairness, be equally penalised as if they are real.
And there goes the contents of most libraries, most film/TV, and anything else that might depict persons or property or intent.
I'm reminded that some cultures and religions prohibit depictions of humans -- the stated reason is that it's idolatry or soul theft or some such, but one wonders if the foundation might have been something akin to what we're discussing. Imagine the caveman arguing his case before the hetman: "Og drew a picture of me with a knife in my head! Og wants to kill me, and for that Og must pay!" To which the hetman, tired of this argument, responds: "No more drawings of people! And if you disobey me, the sky gods will strike you dead!"
Let's make them cartoons depicting gruesome murders -- but note that as with the kiddie porn, no actual person is harmed. Or at the other end of the scale -- cartoons depicting someone smoking pot, even tho no actual marijuana was grown, harvested, or smoked.
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT??
Under a worst-case interpretation, a cartoon depiction or written description of a crime becomes legally the same as doing the crime itself, and subject to the same penalty as the real thing.
Under worst-case enforcement, that would pretty much empty most libraries, just for starters.
I don't have time to wade through and wrap my brain around all the legalese in the decision, but I do know we definitely do NOT want to go down the road of enforcing real penalties against fantasy depictions of crimes, regardless of what that crime may be.
Apparently they've misspelled the old saw. It's supposed to be 90% *perspiration*!!
Tho that does explain the increasingly superficial understanding of the world I see in the younger generation...
I agree, for ordinary software and ordinary uses, charging by the hour would make me jump ship real quick.
And how is watching the clock, lest you go over budget, supposed to improve education, or any other use for that matter?
And imagine the next generation of parental nags: "Hurry up and do that homework, and remember to close those apps when you're done! Last year you cost me over a thousand bucks with your dilly-dallying and forgetting programs running afterward! If it happens again this year, it's coming out of your allowance!"
And while I'm there, I'll look for data on that immortality thing that's supposed to happen in the next few decades. Grandchildren will just have to fend for themselves.
I have a PC that says the year is 2094. Clearly it is from the future. This does not bode well, as it's a buggy P90 (well, a P75 with delusions of grandeur).
Slashdot Mirror
And how quickly will such passwords be sold to and used by vigilantes bent on getting all "sex offenders" incarcerated for life??
Not to mention there are crooked cops who'd cheerfully do likewise.
Their own logic processes are probably being suppressed by it as well, which may be even worse for us than if they were doing it deliberately.
Frex, our Calif. Governor Ahnold... whom I otherwise like, but mention "children" and he absolutely cannot think beyond that.
And I'm wondering how that lets someone relax and become a good citizen, when they're constantly reminded of what a BAD citizen they really are.
I have to wonder if the parole system itself leads to a higher crime rate, just because already-marginal people are under undue stress because of it, thus less likely to think straight and more likely to do Stupid Things.
That's the brilliance of Niemoller's famous poem. It's true across the entire spectrum of "different from me-ness", whether that's Jews or sex offenders or hog farmers from Iowa. ANYONE can be branded one of those "others" and become a target, if only it starts with that so-small target of "really really other".
The difference between the McCarthy era and now is that now we have many, many small "others" being targeted, both by government (TFA's example) and by private groups seeking to enforce their own morality (frex, PETA). And in my observation, it's much easier to stop (or escape from) a large and obvious persecution than to stop many small ones.
In short, I think we're doomed, because we'll be too far down that road before most people realise that "there is no one left to stand up for me."
Hardly unique to Americans. Look up the French Revolution someday... it was less a revolution than a mob frenzy against anyone perceived as "not one of us".
Also, when there are no witnesses to the contrary, some cops Make Shit Up... or at the very least, write such slanted reports that there is no way to counter them or defend yourself without sounding like you ARE guilty.
Rather like the old jape, "Have you stopped beating your wife??"
(Correct answer: "Which one?" :)
Well... depending on your point of view, it may be preferable to some GIRL screwing your daughter...
"It's not intended to "appeal to the prurient interest."
There are a couple problems with that. Firstoff, if you were to take these examples from religious tomes and WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE, show them to ordinary people who don't know those passages exist, I think you'd find that most "right thinking" persons OF THAT RELIGION would find those passages "prurient".
Second -- Historically, what qualifies as the "prurient interest" has been dictated by a very few powerful men, who then force that "morality" on everyone else. A good case could be made that such people become control freaks and seek power largely because they have trouble controlling their OWN urges, thus almost anything can be "prurient" in their eyes.
Example -- the Puritans. Do you really think the average *normal* person of the era believed that showing a woman's ankle was "prurient"?? Yet the Powers That Be prohibited such displays of feminine flesh, and browbeat everyone else into submitting to their version of morality.
Anyway, my points are that the source should not define whether something is "prurient" since not everyone will know the context, and we must be very careful who is allowed to create these definitions in the first place. As noted, these definitions are not usually the product of normal people ordinary to their culture.
Haha, boy, are you ever right about that... and Delany, lordy!! Burn before reading!!
Piers Anthony becomes even more indefensible if you're aware that he made much of his living writing porn... tho most SF fans only know about Pornucopia (far as I know, the only one published under his usual SF pen name).
Side note: I think Piers Anthony's general type of SF is a stage most readers go through -- I stopped reading him over 20 years ago, tho I still have all the books. But that was before he got, uh, bold about it. -- This gives me another thought: If PA's later works were to become banned under the new thoughtcrime, could possession of his earlier/tamer works be regarded as "intent"??
=========
I'm reminded that "intentcrime" already exists: Right now there is such a furor over dogfighting that possession of ordinary canine training and health gear is being used as "evidence of intent" even if there is NO evidence nor even the faintest reason to suspect someone is involved in dogfighting. -- So far this hasn't been used in court, but it HAS been used to confiscate dogs from legit breeders -- which are then SOLD (at a very good profit, often in the mid-six-figures) by the "rescuing" agency. Follow the money.... one has to wonder where the money trail flows from in the arena of kiddieporn thoughtcrime. I doubt it's absent.
Agreed this is more about empowering the Thought Police than about protecting children. If it were actually about protecting *real* children from *real* crimes, no one would give a rat's ass about =simulated= kiddie porn.
Tho come to think of it... wasn't there a similar hue-and-cry over a simulated snuff film a while back? I don't remember anything else about it.
Excellent example. Someone posted a link that does likewise for the Koran. So... under the legal theory of Fantasy Equals Reality, not only are the Bible and Koran banned (and probably most other major religious tomes as well) but also those people who read and preach them must go to prison!!
Interesting combination of factors, for sure.
One can hope that the next national witch hunt is also self-limiting, but we're in such a broad-spectrum funnel effect right now that I suspect it'll go a long, long ways overboard before the pendulum swings back.
(How's that for miscegenated metaphors :)
Hell, I want to go and hide my entire library, and it's almost all science fiction. :/
Did he overstep the line, or run into sufficiently powerful opponents?? not quite the same thing. (I don't know the inside history of that era, so am actually asking here.)
"Democracy: That ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel
Unfortunately, he's right. Democracy ceases to work, and becomes mob rule, as soon as you get away from a homogenous population (already free of dissenters), or as soon as the under-educated segment grows large enough that the majority are subject to being swayed by emotion on topics they know nothing about. (See California Prop 2, recently passed by the voters -- it effectively outlaws eggs.)
The FBI's stats on that are interesting.
There is a distinct drop in the number of sex crimes concurrent with the rise of BBSs ca. 1988, since now anyone with a modem could (slowly) download their pr0n fix.
There is a much sharper drop ca. 1996, the point where the internet became a far more widespread and much faster way to get that pr0n fix.
I don't think these represent coincidence.
'You've incorrectly conflated "age of the media" with "age of the actors" to lead to an apparent absurdity.'
I think that was the whole point -- to show just how absurd it is to regard cartoon kiddie porn as legally equivalent to real-child kiddie porn, to be prosecuted with equal zeal.
Rather the point I made up above -- if fantasy depiction of one crime is illegal, and is to be penalised as if it's the real thing -- then ALL fantasy depictions of crimes must, in fairness, be equally penalised as if they are real.
And there goes the contents of most libraries, most film/TV, and anything else that might depict persons or property or intent.
I'm reminded that some cultures and religions prohibit depictions of humans -- the stated reason is that it's idolatry or soul theft or some such, but one wonders if the foundation might have been something akin to what we're discussing. Imagine the caveman arguing his case before the hetman: "Og drew a picture of me with a knife in my head! Og wants to kill me, and for that Og must pay!" To which the hetman, tired of this argument, responds: "No more drawings of people! And if you disobey me, the sky gods will strike you dead!"
Once again I'm reminded of the old Soviet jape:
"All things not compulsory are forbidden."
Let's change the scenario slightly.
Let's make them cartoons depicting gruesome murders -- but note that as with the kiddie porn, no actual person is harmed. Or at the other end of the scale -- cartoons depicting someone smoking pot, even tho no actual marijuana was grown, harvested, or smoked.
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT??
Under a worst-case interpretation, a cartoon depiction or written description of a crime becomes legally the same as doing the crime itself, and subject to the same penalty as the real thing.
Under worst-case enforcement, that would pretty much empty most libraries, just for starters.
I don't have time to wade through and wrap my brain around all the legalese in the decision, but I do know we definitely do NOT want to go down the road of enforcing real penalties against fantasy depictions of crimes, regardless of what that crime may be.
"90% presentation, 10% inspiration"
Apparently they've misspelled the old saw. It's supposed to be 90% *perspiration*!!
Tho that does explain the increasingly superficial understanding of the world I see in the younger generation...
I agree, for ordinary software and ordinary uses, charging by the hour would make me jump ship real quick.
And how is watching the clock, lest you go over budget, supposed to improve education, or any other use for that matter?
And imagine the next generation of parental nags: "Hurry up and do that homework, and remember to close those apps when you're done! Last year you cost me over a thousand bucks with your dilly-dallying and forgetting programs running afterward! If it happens again this year, it's coming out of your allowance!"
That's a good idea. I'll get right on it!!
And while I'm there, I'll look for data on that immortality thing that's supposed to happen in the next few decades. Grandchildren will just have to fend for themselves.
I have a PC that says the year is 2094. Clearly it is from the future. This does not bode well, as it's a buggy P90 (well, a P75 with delusions of grandeur).
Ah, I missed that. I live in a cave. :)
One was named by a poet. The other was named by an engineer.