Possible 20 years in prison for owning manga? Support the C

[exigence]

Women and booze is just a overall bad combo, but I think the idea that a chick who got drunk and a chick who was drugged up against her will are both considered rape, thats ridiculous cmon I know that chicks can't hold liquor well but if they made the decision to drink on their own they have no one else to blame for their choices.

Also men get raped too, watch Shawshank Redemption or American History X or Deliverance.
also note in Deliverance that the fat guy who got raped was too embarrassed to talk about it, even if they hadn't killed those guys i guarantee he wouldn't have reported it to the police.

Anyways I've followed this case off and on, while I may not agree with this guys choice in fap material I don't see any problem. this whole country would be a lot better if people stopped trying to say what is right and wrong and started to mind their own business. if my neighbor was a coke addict I wouldn't call the cops on him thats his problem, he can deal with it. and just the same if i was a manga addict I wouldn't want some one to stick their nose into my business. when I look at this case I don't look at it and think about the precedent I just think about how disgusting society has become, and how its impossible to live naturally anymore. just the same i hope this case gets thrown out because the last thing i want to see is more power in the hands of ignorant law enforcement agencies.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

...phyco's right on both counts.

Rape is severely underreported. The idea that cops are biased in favor of women in cases of rape is fundamentally out of touch with reality (the other part about "wanting to get laid" as the reason is misguided on all accounts--but considering it's based on a faulty premise, it doesn't really matter).

You could argue that the law favors women over men in terms of rape, but that's an issue of judges, not cops--and, rape charges would have to be filed in the first place for that to occur (and, as I said, rape is severely underreported).

Additionally, you can believe whatever definition of rape you want. But legally, if the woman can't consent, and that includes being sufficiently drunk, then if she presses charges, it's rape. (By your definition, dropping GHB in someone's drink then having sex with them while they're too weak to resist is fine. "Hey, they're still conscious and they didn't say no, so it's ok!") I don't expect you to actually agree with me here, but it doesn't matter as the law already does agree with me. KF

I guess GHB is a rufee or however you spell it. I mean they gotta say yes. Drunk people know what sex is and know the definitions of yes and no.

[Ruby]

Wow, this has been one crazy little thread that I've had the pleasure to skim through over the last thirty minutes or so. Wow. I find some of the notions expressed in this thread to be pretty frightening and kind of odd.

I would like to note that we generally tend to hold those under the influence of alcohol and other recreational substances they take of their own volition to be responsible for their actions while under the effects of those substances. So the example of a drunk person engaging in ill-advised sexual relations being considered raped is rather laughable as this person has inflicted this state upon themselves when they usually knew beforehand that doing so was going to affect their judgment. If you consider the drunk not legally able to make their own decisions and not responsible for their actions then there will be a lot of side effects to that thinking I'm sure you'll be very uncomfortable with.

What I do find most disgusting about this entire thread is that if you examine the constitution and compare it to our our modern day government the gross way that document is disregarded is staggering. (And this document is not written in some kind of alien code or old English or crazy moon language. It's written in the kind of simple language the mostly illiterate and uneducated populace at the time could wrap their head around and it's very plainly written and very clear. No abridging of speech. Not, "No abridging except when it's very mean and hateful and makes other people feel bad.") What's even more staggering is that this has been going on so long that people have accepted the state things are as the norm that they don't even question it. I've seen a few constructs thought up by the supreme court to effectively rewrite the constitution without amending it without any thought to how such gross violations of the original document actually are.

Also, the average citizen, not having adequate security precautions to stop a prepared attacker, are generally at the same risk of an attack be they man or woman. The fear you're citing Alun is something that's been taught to you, not an actual increased risk. Anyone who actually wanted to do you harm and is patient enough to case your home, wait till the right moment to attack, and isn't bothered by the consequences of their actions, is probably going to get to you regardless. Most people realize this but don't dwell on it since dwelling on those types of risks generally do more harm to one's mental state than the risks themselves.

Now, back to the original issue that that thread was about. Freedom means a lot of things. It means letting people make choices, many of them bad by at least one other person's accounting. However freedom has a number of benefits and without it in it's entirety a society is doomed to continue down the slide to tyranny. It doesn't matter if the manga Christopher Handley was viewing were the worst, most depraved piece of filth of the planet, with such fell powers as the ability to reprogram his mind into a rabid child-raping monster with but the merest glance. Until he actually causes harm to someone else he hasn't committed a crime. Crimes require harm to have been done. End of story.

Of course, legally, there's loads of "crimes" which have no victim or harm inflicted on them. See the above notes about people learning to accept the slow destruction of our liberty over time. Why so many? Well you just can't ensure your nice legislator's job with sticking to the constitutional stuff and net yourself some nice bribes from lobbyists doing that, now can you? I mean, there's no money to be made in tracking down thieves and murderers these days.

[phyco126]

Well said Ruby. I've become increasingly disenfranchised with the laws around here, be they on a local, county, state, or federal level. I got pulled over 3 times for not having a license plate on the front of my car. People tell me its my fault, I should have put it on (which, in of itself, was difficult to do). However, the last cop to pull me over didn't use his turn signal when making a left turn. Since when was a license plate missing on the front of a car more dangerous than not using your turn signal?

There are other laws as well, such as seat-belt laws. Granted seat-belts save lives, and I believe with a full heart that children should wear them. However, when an adult chooses not to wear their seat-belt, who does that harm? Just them, and by not wearing their seat-belt, the choose their fate. So why do we have laws that tell then they need to wear them, when there really is no real victim? (I also count victims as, mostly, unwilling, wereas if I made the choice to not wear my seat-belt and I die in an accident, then I am certainly not a victim).

I have been against so many new laws that target cyber stuff, from porn to illegal downloads. Not necessarily because I take part in these activities (I'll never tell, mua haha), but because its such a gross negligence to take away our freedoms.

[Ruby]

Yes seat belt laws are a pretty good example. New Hampshire is currently the only state in the US to not have a seatbelt law. They seem to take the state motto, "Live Free or Die" pretty seriously up there. Just to add to it, not only do they enforce such a law, but then they steal your money and force you to contribute to adds nationwide threatening you to wear your seatbelt or else you'll be shaken down by the police for your money.

Of course the only reason these things occur is because it's a huge revenue stream. If you look at the activities the police are most involved in you'll find that they have a direct relation to gaining revenue for the department in the form of money going to the state and then budgeted back or in the form of property directly stolen from "offenders". Things like red-light camera and speed traps don't do anything to make anyone safer, they're just a way to make money because most people don't challenge the tickets, and it's hard to make a case for it. Of course it's not surprising that it's hard to make a case for it since the goal of the ticket is for the government to make money and the ticket is issued by a government agent, who often gets paid additional pay for court time, and tried by a government agent, who is motivated to ensure the fee ends up in their coffers. In Europe a company is peddling a tire-tread camera which measures the thickness of a tire's tread and weather the car has winter or summer tires installed. How do they promote this wonder? Buy advertising how much increased revenue can be generated by installing such a camera.

There's a number of serious problems with the entire system of roads, licensing, and registration in general. It just usually tends to not be the focus of my attention of much when compared to other things.

[Kizyr]

I guess GHB is a rufee or however you spell it. I mean they gotta say yes. Drunk people know what sex is and know the definitions of yes and no.

This is different from your previous metric, though, which was a simplistic "if they're conscious and don't say no, then it's ok". It's possible to be conscious but your judgment impaired past the point where you can make decisions. I think you'd agree that consent is the main issue, but in your earlier post you neglected the fact that there are a lot of situations outside of just being unconscious where consent isn't possible.

There's a key word in my post, and that was sufficiently drunk. I don't mean if you'd had a few and are buzzed, or even if you've had a lot and are hammered. But, if you're at the point where you don't have control over what you do or say. More on that in a second.

I would like to note that we generally tend to hold those under the influence of alcohol and other recreational substances they take of their own volition to be responsible for their actions while under the effects of those substances. So the example of a drunk person engaging in ill-advised sexual relations being considered raped is rather laughable as this person has inflicted this state upon themselves when they usually knew beforehand that doing so was going to affect their judgment. If you consider the drunk not legally able to make their own decisions and not responsible for their actions then there will be a lot of side effects to that thinking I'm sure you'll be very uncomfortable with.

Your first point is that we generally hold those under the influence responsible for their actions--on this, yes, I agree (DUI is the obvious example that I presume you were going for). Yet there's a big difference in the case of rape, as that's something where the action is being perpetrated by someone else, not on the part of the person who's drunk.

The implication of not holding someone under the influence responsible for their own actions is dangerous, and I agree (I actually never cut people slack for being drunk--in college, if someone I didn't know stumbled into my dorm room drunk then I would throw their ass out). However, being drunk is not license for anyone else to do whatever they want to you, nor is it license for them to do whatever they can coerce you into. You've equated these two situations in your last point of that paragraph, when there isn't an accurate comparison to be made.

This brings me back to the key word, sufficiently. If they're drunk past the point where they can't put up resistance to anything you do, or if they're not aware of what's going on, then yeah, it's rape. If they're drunk but still know what's going on, it's another issue (and B_G's example is more on someone who's a bit buzzed, not completely hammered). The key thing, though, isn't the level of inebriation, but it's the ability to consent.

What I do find most disgusting about this entire thread is that if you examine the constitution and compare it to our our modern day government the gross way that document is disregarded is staggering. ...

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. There is the Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition outcome that I cited earlier in this thread. There's also a quote by Thurgood Marshall I saw enscribed at the Newseum last weekend, that I found particularly apt:
"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man sitting alone in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch."

Also, the average citizen, not having adequate security precautions to stop a prepared attacker, are generally at the same risk of an attack be they man or woman. The fear you're citing Alun is something that's been taught to you, not an actual increased risk. Anyone who actually wanted to do you harm and is patient enough to case your home, wait till the right moment to attack, and isn't bothered by the consequences of their actions, is probably going to get to you regardless. Most people realize this but don't dwell on it since dwelling on those types of risks generally do more harm to one's mental state than the risks themselves.

The truth though is still, on balance, women will have more to fear from a given situation then men. You can find specific circumstances (a prepared attacker as opposed to a random act, e.g.) where the danger is equal, but those don't really indicate what the norm is. KF

[Agawa]

Since when was a license plate missing on the front of a car more dangerous than not using your turn signal?

There are other laws as well, such as seat-belt laws. Granted seat-belts save lives, and I believe with a full heart that children should wear them. However, when an adult chooses not to wear their seat-belt, who does that harm? Just them, and by not wearing their seat-belt, the choose their fate. So why do we have laws that tell then they need to wear them, when there really is no real victim? (I also count victims as, mostly, unwilling, wereas if I made the choice to not wear my seat-belt and I die in an accident, then I am certainly not a victim).

Occupants of a car who don't wear seatbelts have a much higher chance of serious injury in a crash than those who do. A serious crash effects other cars on the road, the emergency staff cleaning up the staff, and the hospital treating the patients. In countries with federal medical plans, those expenses are being payed for collectively. Even in a place like the US where there is no universal health care, the cleanup costs raise with a more damaging wreck.

Secondly, the question depends on the role of government, and how far you believe the government's responsibility to protect its citizen's from preventable harm goes.

A license plate missing on a car would stand out to a cop because it's the source of your vehicle's identification, although it's true that many places do not require a front license plate in addition to the rear.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

Not wearing a seat belt increases the chances of being thrown from the vehicle. You ARE a danger to others if the force of the impact turns you into a PROJECTILE. That's enough reason to me for wearing your seat belt to be a law.

[Ruby]

Occupants of a car who don't wear seatbelts have a much higher chance of serious injury in a crash than those who do. A serious crash effects other cars on the road, the emergency staff cleaning up the staff, and the hospital treating the patients. In countries with federal medical plans, those expenses are being payed for collectively. Even in a place like the US where there is no universal health care, the cleanup costs raise with a more damaging wreck.

Secondly, the question depends on the role of government, and how far you believe the government's responsibility to protect its citizen's from preventable harm goes.

A license plate missing on a car would stand out to a cop because it's the source of your vehicle's identification, although it's true that many places do not require a front license plate in addition to the rear.

None of those are reasons for a law. Laws force people do something at gunpoint. I don't believe violence is an acceptable recourse to make people wear a seatbelt. Inconveniencing to others if there is a crash does not justify this.

And if you want to talk about studies there are studies that show people who wear seatbelts drive more dangerously because they feel safer. Of course, that really doesn't matter to the issue.

The purpose is government is to provide for the common defense and keep the peace (IE: Stop actual crime such as theft, murder, rape, etc.) and that's about it. Note that doesn't include paying for roads, their upkeep, health care, or the myriad hundreds of other things people have gradually become accustomed to government providing and have been told by their government education are necessary for a peaceful society. Especially when private industry can almost always do the exact same function with less cost, more efficiency, and all while not forcing people to pay for things they dont' support.

Of course, now we're getting a little bit on topic. So, I'll just leave you with a link to my favorite radio program that's also broadcast on the web, Free Talk Live and just assume that if you have any other points on the subject or the role of government that it's more or less similar to the views expressed here. And yes, it is going to shock you the first time you hear it.

Oh and I'll leave you with a quote too.

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... the course of history shows that as a government grows liberty decreases."
- Thomas Jefferson

[phyco126]

Just a note; I wear a seat-belt and anyone who rides in my car must wear their seat-belt as well (cause I don't want their ticket). They don't click it, I turn off the car and wait until they do. However, I do not and I will not support forcing people to do something that affects them. I'm not talking about a mental or inconvience, I'm talking about actual safety.

B_G does have a point that we can become projectiles... but I have never once heard of anyone being thrown from a vehicle causing any harm to anyone else.

With the points given though, the law exists to protect people from harm, mental anguish, inconvenience, and cost. Taking away drivers license's from the elderly would do the same thing. So would gun control laws. Heck, a totalitarian state could do it all. Yeah... not gonna happen. Believe me, if laws were passed to protect the overall good of society, I'm sure we would be in a utopia by now.

[Agawa]

The purpose is government is to provide for the common defense and keep the peace ...

Of course, now we're getting a little bit on topic. So, I'll just leave you with a link to my favorite radio program that's also broadcast on the web, Free Talk Live and just assume that if you have any other points on the subject or the role of government that it's more or less similar to the views expressed here. And yes, it is going to shock you the first time you hear it.

The purpose of government is an issue that has been debated for over 2000 years of human history.

From the quick look at that radio link you gave me it looks like a libertarian radio station, but I don't see why it would shock me since I'm familiar with the concept. You seem to assume I have my political beliefs because I'd never examined the alternatives, which is incorrect.

phyco126, I don't necessarily agree with seatbelt fines (although here they charge the passenger, not the driver) but I did want to point out that there are reasons for them whether you or I personally feel they are adequate.

[Ruby]

The purpose of government is an issue that has been debated for over 2000 years of human history.

From the quick look at that radio link you gave me it looks like a libertarian radio station, but I don't see why it would shock me since I'm familiar with the concept. You seem to assume I have my political beliefs because I'd never examined the alternatives, which is incorrect.

I realize looking at my post that it's possible for it to be read that I'm specifically addressing you by the statement that the station "will shock you". That is not the case. The statement is directed at everyone else here, not you specifically. Though considering this radio program doesn't screen out calls, well, there's a healthy number of on air shock moments from callers. ;p