Letters to the Editor
DurianJoe
Published Letters: 1494 Editor's Choice: 69
-
I sure do, AKASmith
[Read the article: Pedophile blogger unfairly targeted?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am of the opinion that the Skokie nazi march ought not to have been allowed to happen.
Even nazis have the rights of free speech and association, and under normal circumstances, I support their right to rally, march, and in general demonstrate their stupidity for all the world to mock. However, the town of Skokie (as the nazis were well aware) had an higher than average population of Holocaust survivors. For them, a nazi march could be emotionally and mentally traumatic; it could even be argued that given the advanced age of the Holocaust survivors, emotional or mental trauma could easily lead to physical trauma.
For that reason, I think the Government had a compelling interest in outlawing that particular march, and I think aggressive legal representation could have prevailed on that point.
As you point out, freedom of speech has its limits in our society, and it's the grey areas that are the hardest to resolve. In the hardest cases, perhaps common sense and decency should tip the scale. I wish that had happened in Skokie.
-
No, Muhadi
[Read the article: Pedophile blogger unfairly targeted?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is no flaw in my argument. A sexual attraction to infants is a mental disorder. Acting upon that attraction is a crime.
I've already stated several times that McClellan's case is complex and should be resolved by the courts. His arrest, however, was for the crime of violating a restraining order. Whether or not that order was unfairly issued can be argued, but the fact is that it was issued, and McClellan did violate it: a crime.
You undermine everything you are trying to argue here by comparing the treatment of pedophiles to the treatement of Jews and other victims of Nazi Germany. Or, are you sympathetic to pedophilia? If so, say so.
-
AKASmith
[Read the article: Pedophile blogger unfairly targeted?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perspective is everything, isn't it?
Lawmaking would be much easier in a rational and compassionate world; as it is, though, hysterical emotions and prejudices and superstitions make life very hard for the rest of us (except the GOP, which thrives on those three human weaknesses).
As for the Anonymous troll, you and I seem to have reached the same conclusion. As long as he constantly twists peoples' screen names and otherwise exists only to be an insulting pest, he's best ignored.
And as far as Mahadi goes, I'm sorry I ever responded to him. His equation of McClellan and the treatment of other pedophiles with the victims of Nazi Germany is so offensive as to not deserve the dignity of a response.
-
Canuckistan Bob, and Anonymous 1:28 p.m.
[Read the article: Pedophile blogger unfairly targeted?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]CB, I do not think we (society) should ignore pedophiles' websites, just like we should not ignore white supremacist or jihadist websites. Ignoring them won't make them go away, and, at least with the latter two and similar sites, law enforcement is of the opinion that the Internet has allowed these hateful and dangerous groups to organize in unprecendented ways.
As for McClellan: he and other Americans have the right to speak out in defense of pedophilia. He has the right to try to change our minds about it and make it socially acceptable. We can always say no, and unlike a lot of other minority viewpoints which one day become the status quo, I highly doubt pedophiles will win out in the end.
On the other hand, McClellan may have crossed a legal line when he started advising others on how best to commit the crime of pedophilia. A more dramatic version would be a website that exults in murder and then goes on to tell people how to do it and get away with it. I'm not a First Amendment scholar, but it's obvious that society has an interest in not allowing that sort of thing. Still, though, it may be legal up to a point, which is why, yet again, I hope the best legal minds duke out this issue in court and render well-reasoned opinions. They may be found wrong in the future (see Dredd Scott), but for now it's the best system we have.
For what it's worth, I think that McClellan is a very disturbed individual. Like Ann Coulter, he seems to relish being hated, and so he goes out of his way to ensure that it happens. Pitiful, ain't it?
Anonymous, I recognize the slippery slope argument you make about attempts to restrict speech based upon how badly it might upset some people, but I still think that there are extraordinary situations where it might be justified. In Skokie, you had the extraordinary circumstance of a high concentration of people who endured an extraordinarily terrible situation: Holocaust survivors, and the Holocaust. Disallowing nazis from marching through Skokie would have been, IMHO, a justifiable exception which proves the rule (of free speech rights). Still, your point is important and obviously, the Courts in that matter saw things your way. It's not always the case, though: the GOP managed to convince the courts to restrict protesters against Bush to "free speech zones" based on arguments that security concerns trumped absolute free speech rights. That, I disagreed with, but that is why we have courts and case law and a democratic political process -- to figure out these things and, hopefully, proceed in the most just manner.