ACLU and Child Pornography

This is a disturbing subject for me, as well as it should be for any parent and civilized person.

The operative word here, being “civilized”.

What is the meaning "civil"? The American Heritage Dictionary lists several definitions, I will use what the "C" in the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) stands for. The term civil is defined as: "Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized"; Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical; Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized."

So, given these interpretations, one can conclude that the ACLU is a civilian organization, dedicated to preserving the "liberties of civilized society".

Why would the ACLU try to legalize the possession of child pornography? I know their official stance is that it should not be created by using "actual" children. That is, if someone "virtually" creates child pornography, it is free speech, and it is a right that should be protected. And, once child pornography is in possession, viewing it is "free speech".

How far is too far when it comes to "free speech"? Recently, Richard Hawes, 63 was arrested on taking sexually explicit pictures of his two-year-old GRANDDAUGHTER! Now, it is speculation to comment on his personal life, but what if viewing "virtual" child pornography was the "gateway drug" to the "real thing"? I can't think of ANY legitimate reason or benefit for the creation or possession of child pornography, real or virtual. It is a danger to our children, they are in our care and protection until they are adults that can make decisions for themselves. Who are these people that create these "videos"? Do they have children of their own? Would the ACLU say the child is safe with that person that creates virtual child pornography? It would be interesting to find out.

To me, it is wonderful to be in the U.S.A. We DO have constitutionally protected free speech. But, I do not think ALL speech is "free". Speech that harms others, does not come "free", the expense is the person it harms. This is the case with this subject. Even virtually created child porn is a danger to our children, because they are not consenting adults that can make their own decisions, and this "virtual" creation surely raises the risk to the "real" version.

I'm not about to say that all porn should be banned. I think it should be a legal personal matter to those who view it, as long as it is of adults, which we as a "civilized society" have established to be 18.

You cannot have a completely "free" world. It would surely be anarchy. Just as the age of adulthood has been established to be at the age 18. Some people are "adults" before this time, and some, never seem to "grow up". But, because we have to maintain this veneer of civilization, we as a society have to come up with a "happy medium" to bestow the rights of voting, credit, marriage, responsibility of others, and what-not. We've come up with "18" as that number. That's my take on "civil". Making rules and laws that benefit society as a whole, and not for the individual. To protect the people as a unit with rules and laws, because one bad apple can spoil the bunch.

Shouldn't this same principle be applied to child pornography? Shouldn't we make it completely illegal to produce or possess it in any form because it is of children, who in this society, need to be protected? I would think that most of us in this country would never conceive of viewing/producing child porn. And, I would also find it safe to assume that the few that DO view or produce this are a far greater threat to children than the rest of us who don't. A study done by the University of New Hampshire concluded that MORE THAN HALF of the 600 people who had been convicted of child pornography crimes on the internet had either molested a child or tried to. And the ACLU wants to defend this as free speech. Free at what cost?

Having a ban on this subject can only do good for children. The only detriment comes to those who want to make money off of the production, or those who want to possess it. And, hopefully, wouldn't this be a very few percentage of the population? Do we not have rules and laws in place to protect and benefit the majority, such as the age of 18, or driving at 16? You do not see the ACLU (that I'm aware of, it's hard to keep up with all their law-suits) bringing a 14 year old before the courts, demanding he has his driver's license because he exhibits more maturity than the average 16 year old. That age is in place to provide the "civil" in a "civilized society".

Producing or possessing child pornography is NOT "civil" and does NOT benefit "society". In fact, it is quite the opposite, and the ACLU should change it's stance on this, because children require the protection of a civilized society. I thought that is what the ACLU was supposed to be about.

The ACLU's efforts should be the opposite, to defend the children against child porn, not defend those who want to exploit it, BECAUSE we need to be civil to maintain society!

Posted by Lisa Zeimetz at June 16, 2005 10:24 AM