News Update

June 26, 2010 by Bradley Jardis
Filed under: Issues, News

1. This is an example of a “child pornography” offense that actually has a victim. The Durham, NH man referenced in this article *produced* child pornography, which usually involves child sexual abuse. That is victimizing someone. That should be met with punishment. In my opinion, severe punishment.

Someone standing at the street corner with a USB flash drive in his pocket containing three hundred pictures of children being abused is not an act that is hurting someone. As reprehensible as I find someone who feels the need to collect/possess/view these images, it does not justify the initiation of state violence. Merely holding a collection of 1′s and 0′s that translates into a picture does not harm anyone else.

2. “A police officer was slightly injured this morning when he ran into a piece of old farm equipment while chasing some kids, according to authorities.”

According to this article, the kids were standing around and took off running when the police approached. There is no evidence that the kids were doing anything illegal… although it IS illegal to start running if you see the police appear. Did you know that? Running at the sight of someone who potentially will put you in a cage for holding a plant or liquid in your pocket is illegal in this state.

Can one really blame a group of kids from running when the police show up? Often the police do things to hurt people who are not doing anything wrong.

3. The Portsmouth, NH Police have been “cracking down” on drug dealers in town. Funny, it seems like they’ve been doing that for years now with absolutely no success in ridding their community of drug dealers. They never will. They’re completely wasting their time and the money of taxpayers. They’re also perpetuating the violent black market.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

4. “The Hudson Police Department has a message for its liquor stores: Check for ID or face the consequences.“ I beat the drinking age like a dead horse on these news updates… but as a reminder, an eighteen year old can do the following:

- Buy a rifle.
- Buy a shotgun.
- Carry a handgun.
- Star in pornography.
- Be drafted and forced to fight and die for the United States government.
- Be conscripted and forced to serve the State of New Hampshire.
- Be elected to serve in various state government positions.
- Become a police officer with the authority to use violence to enforce “crimes” which have no victim.
- Use tobacco… the most dangerous drug in the United States (more deadly than all the various ways alcohol leads to death combined).
- Be punished as an adult for drinking/possessing liquor.

… but they cannot have a beer, legally. Good god, man.

5. More news of Nashua, NH Police arresting ten people on a massive “drug sweep” in their city. Refer to #3.

6. All felons in New Hampshire must now submit to mandatory DNA testing. You can become a felon for doing some of the most harmless things. These include:

- Selling a beer to someone.
- Driving your car down the street.
- Consensually selling a chemical substance to someone.
- Being caught for the second time carrying a firearm with an article of clothing covering it from view.
- Being caught for the second time carrying a firearm with a single round of ammunition in it while in a vehicle. (Because a piece of paper is all that it would take to stop someone who wants to do a drive-by shooting.)

I’ve seen numerous examples of people who would have to forcibly give the state their DNA at PorcFest under this new law. None of them harmed a hair on anyone’s head.

cjs

Responding to the fist story .

You believe receiving stolen merchandise is ok because the person buying someone else's stolen property was not involved in the theft ? Same type of thing right ? I did not steal your TV / guns ? whatever … so it's cool if i posses them ?

Defending a guy with a stash of pictures of children being exploited / assaulted makes you look like an idiot , I guarantee people will be turned off by this train of thought .

I asked you on another forum what you think the age of consent should be and you avoided the question … so I will ask again .

At what age should we stop protecting children / young adults ?
Bradley Jardis

You believe receiving stolen merchandise is ok because the person buying someone else’s stolen property was not involved in the theft ?

Of course not. A photograph of someone is not stealing someone's property.

Defending a guy with a stash of pictures of children being exploited / assaulted makes you look like an idiot , I guarantee people will be turned off by this train of thought .

I'm not defending this guy. I think he should be punished severely.

I understand a great many people think that possessing child pornography is something that should result in someone being punished. I agree it is disgusting, but it really is a victimless crime.

What if someone hands me a USB drive that I know is full of child porn. I never look at it… but I walk around with it for a week. Am I harming someone?

At what age should we stop protecting children / young adults ?

I think it should be case by case. Having an arbitrary line drawn in the sand makes absolutely no sense. I believe that under some circumstances two eleven year old children could be capable of consenting to having relations with each other… whereas in other circumstances they could not.

I caught a fifteen year old girl having sex with her seventeen year old boyfriend… was I wrong for not arresting him?
LibertyShepherd

@cjs

All the liberty minded people that I know find child pornography to be highly detestable. There is a difference between having possession of child pornography and stolen property. If someone knowingly purchases items that they know have been stolen from another, then they are complicit in the crime. However, if they unknowingly purchase stolen property, then I can't see how they could be complicit. If I go to a garage sale and purchase a stolen couch without knowledge that the couch has been stolen then I can't be complicit in the crime. If I later discover that the property I purchased was indeed stolen and I find the owner, then I would return the property and report to the owner where I purchased the item. Yes, I might be out a few bucks, but that's a chance I took purchasing the property.

One of the main problems with the ownership of child pornography is proving how the person came in possession of the pornography. It is quite simple to put child pornography on another person's computer and then report them. There have been several documented cases of this occurring. If I discovered someone I associated with possessed child pornography, I would quit associating with them since I find it highly detestable. But I won't put them in a cage at my and my neighbors' expense. As detestable as it is, actually owning the material isn't harming anyone.

Another problem is that people are being accused of owning child pornography for having innocent pictures of their own children. My parents have plenty of pictures of myself and my brothers totally naked when we were children. Either in the bath tub, playing in the lake or just goofing off. I have several pictures of my two year old naked as well. This isn't child pornography, but many people have been charged with child pornography for having the same kind of innocent family pictures.

As for the age of consent, that is going to be up to the individual. Some people mature much more quickly than others. I've have known 14 year olds who are much more mature and able to make decisions for themselves than many 22 year olds. Having an arbitrary age is ridiculous. If I have sex with a girl who is still seventeen but will be turning 18 in a day or two, then that is a crime. But if I just wait the two days, suddenly it's not a crime? Has the person really changed/matured that much in just two days? No. People can decide for themselves when they are ready for certain activities. Its not for you to judge when they are ready.
Paul

I agree, LS, that the question of whether a person knowingly acquired the stolen property is key. In the case of child pornography, I think it's obviously stolen. There is no legitimate source of pornographic pictures of kids.

Of course not. A photograph of someone is not stealing someone’s property.

I disagree, I think privacy rights are legitimate, even if no other abuse occurred. I have no right to place covert cameras, for example, to capture elicit pictures of people in their homes or other private situations, to use telephoto lenses, to barge in on people, etc. I think if a person does so, they owe those individuals restitution.
Bradley Jardis

I disagree, I think privacy rights are legitimate, even if no other abuse occurred. I have no right to place covert cameras, for example, to capture elicit pictures of people in their homes or other private situations, to use telephoto lenses, to barge in on people, etc. I think if a person does so, they owe those individuals restitution.

That is a very good argument… one I have not considered before.
KDus

Do kids have a right to privacy? Are they responsible for keeping their own privacy? I say: no.

Bradley, you've made several references to punishment. I challenge you to make one more step and realize that punishment doesn't help anyone; but continues violence.

We should stop protecting young people when they are responsible for their own actions.
Paul

I disagree KDus, a young kid is not capable of making certain decisions for themselves. Consider a baby or toddler, to take it to the extreme. They are clearly not capable of "consent" on any number of matters, at that point, including sex or serious drugs. One must be careful not to replace reasonableness with dogma.

I think by "punishment" Brad was referring to restitution for victims. In the case of sexual assault, this would be considerable indeed. And, in the case of someone who is an ongoing, imminent danger to others, as many sexual predators are, labor as restitution should be done in a secure environment.

It's not about "getting back" at the perpetrator, it's about righting the imbalance and injustice that the aggressive actions have caused. This means removing any benefit the perpetrator recieved, and restituting any harm to the victim.
Paul

On second thought, perhaps just reconstituting harm … for example, if a person stole food to avoid starvation, I certainly don't think they should be killed, I just think they should replace the food.
Paul

Restituting, that is.
KDus

I'll let Brad speak for himself.

The superiority of restitution was implicit in my comment.

I'm left very confused by your comment. Consent wasn't at issue.

Children don't have rights, for which they are not responsible.
Gabe

We should stop protecting young people when they are responsible for their own actions.

@KDus – do you have children? If so, how old?
http://www.shirephotography.com Anton Lee

would it matter how many children he has? Parenting is tough. Passing the blame on to them using phrases like "kids will be kids" and etc. is only a cover for the real problem.

If your kid isn't ready to go out on his own after age 12, my opinion is that they haven't learned how to do so. In my humble opinion, this is most likely because the kid is being treated like a child and not as an adult. They're being trained to remain children until they hit age 25 and then it's all downhill from there.

If your kid isn't capable of doing for themselves then what the frig have you been doing as a parent?
bil

I think in this world today,kids have to be able to make their own decisions in their early teens,some older,some younger.I also think that a parents job of teaching does not end there,as situations will certainly arise that are beyond their control.As for those that continue to be the controling or enabling parent when the kid is in their 20s,there is something wrong there,and you aren't doing them any favor.Anyone that has kids will also realise that you still think of them as your kids and worry long after they are really grown up.My mother still worries about me sometimes,I am glad she has no real idea…. —bil
Paul

I’m left very confused by your comment. Consent wasn’t at issue.
Children don’t have rights, for which they are not responsible.

Yes, they do, and consent, as well as the capability for consent, is very much is the issue. A baby should be changed, even if it expresses opposition to that idea. It shouldn't be fed ecstasy, even if it thinks the little pills are pretty and would like to eat them.

A young kid is not capable of consent on some issues, plain and simple, because it doesn't understand the ramifications. To say the "baby is responsible for its own actions" is absurd to the level of farce. Again, one should be careful to not let rigid dogma replace common sense, and reality.
KDus

@Gabe. Yes, 2,5,8,9

@Paul, you seem intent to argue, yet, we are in agreement.

The issue was the child's right to privacy. My comments clearly state that young people are not responsible for their own action.

@Bil, I still call my Mommy for advice.
Paul

Sorry KD, I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that young kids don't have a right to privacy, that they're responsible for their own actions, and that we shouldn't protect them.

I can see that there could be other ways to read your comments — my apologies for any misunderstanding .