italics following are taken from the article. . .
to the few that have posted thanks,
to those that haven't i suggest you read this because this can affect us all in the future if this mentality spreads to other realms
personal thoughts are exactly that, personal. . .IMO
example,
if i fantasize about one of my coworkers have i cheated on my girlfriend?
can my co-worker accuse me of sexual harrasment for fantasizing about her?
think about this,
think about a private thought of yours, now imagine being arrested for it,
now imagine having written about it,
that can be used as evidence for intent to act upon it, \
this is what the court said by sentencing him to 7 years
this is what happened to this kid,
he wrote down his most twisted thoughts and was sent to jail for it,
had he not written it, and only thought about it
would he still be a criminal, who would have known?
"Short of the ability to read minds, I don't know how one could come closer to punishing thought than convicting a man as a felon for the contents of his private diary,"
what i find scary is not so much the fact of what Dalton wrote but more the fact that he was prosecuted for writing it without having acted on it,
i believe this is a direct infringement on privacy,
i agree that the kid has issues and that he needs help,
but is it right to covinct someone for a thoughts written in a journal? and if so, isn't there another way to handle such a situation? some type of preventive action other than jail?
perhaps a mental institution would have been more appropriate. . .
the following are excerpts from the article for anyone who hasn't read it. . .
Dalton's parents turned the journal over to authorities earlier this summer in hopes that their son would be forced into sex-offender treatment; instead, he received a seven-year prison sentence for daring to commit his inmost thoughts to paper. He has never acted on his dark impulses, preferring instead to record his icky dreams in a secret journal.
The sad irony of Dalton's predicament is that, if placed in treatment rather than prison, he likely would have been encouraged to confront his demons in writing. As writer Joe Loya noted in a Los Angeles Times op-ed on the case, "To write out fantasies in order to avoid creating real victims is therapy, not pornography." Ohio's message to the sick is clear, and troubling: Bottle up your wicked thoughts, or risk hearing a knock on your door.
willy, my questions to you. . .
granting you that he created it,
if i write about adultery, does that make me a cheater?
if i write about torture, does it make me a sadist?
if i write about murder, does it make me a killer?
you stated that it is the story or the pictures themselves that are the crime.
if indeed that is the case, wouldn't the news be breaking the law every night?
believe me pedophiles have issues, and those that act on it are sick, but my concern here is not so much the crime but the extreme punishment for writing personal thoughts,
conflicted hit the issue right on the head with this statement
If a man can be sent to prison for writing a pedopheliac story, a man can be sent to prison for writing a story involving ANY other crime as well.
The Dalton case is groundbreaking in its criminalization of uncirculated text. Until recently, the private ownership of obscene material was constitutionally protected, provided no children were involved in its creation. In a 1969 decision, Stanley v. Georgia, the Supreme Court concluded that "the state may no more prohibit mere possession of obscene matter on the ground that it may lead to antisocial conduct than it may prohibit possession of chemistry books on the ground that they may lead to the manufacture of homemade spirits. . . . A state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or films he may watch." . . .
you can't criminalize people for having bad thoughts or creating material that will induce others to have bad thoughts,
again it was uncirculated,
we have a man putting his thoughts on paper for his own personal reasons, he is venting and possibly trying to get a grip on his thoughts, no crime commited yet. . .
unless it can be proven that he was planning on distributing or selling or somehow making it accessible to others, then it would be a crime,
as to what this rational exhibited by the court could lead to if not checked. . .
One potentially dicey case is that of American Beauty, in which actress Mena Suvari bares her chest while playing an underaged temptress. That Suvari was over 18 could be immaterial—the filmmaker's intent to depict a naked high schooler would be all that mattered. Even had director Sam Mendes made the movie on his bedroom Macintosh, using nothing but computer-generated figures, and shown it to no one, he might still face criminal charges. All it would take is an ambitious prosecutor hankering for publicity.
comments please,
i know there are many here who have interesting things to say on this,
peace
dc
