Child porn cases are often in the news. It creeps me out that anyone could get their jollies from that. But human sexuality is very varied. Even if only 1% of men (it’s virtually all males) partake, that’s still a lot of people.
One of those news reports recently concerned John Hotaling, 62, of Esperance, who previously served five years in federal prison for child porn; this time he’s pleaded guilty — “To photo-shopping the faces of children onto images of naked adults having sex,” the newspaper stated.
Child porn is a crime because children are harmed in its production, unable to properly consent. Even just being a consumer of such material is harmful by encouraging the genre.
Hotaling’s pictures, however, could well carry the disclaimer, “No children were harmed in the production of these images.” He made that argument in the prior case, but courts rejected it.
“Zero tolerance” might superficially appeal but it often devolves into zero sense. Humans have a tendency to go overboard on anything, to extremes. That seems to apply to Hotaling’s case, which zeal against child porn cannot justify. What he did got the damning label “child porn” even though entailing none of the harms we associate with that category.
He was just playing around making collages for himself on his computer, pasting different heads on bodies. Maybe weird, but people should have a right to weirdness — as long as no one else is harmed. That’s a fundamental principle of a free society. One we often forget — forgetting that government was created in the first place to protect people from harm by others — not as a vehicle to punish folks we disapprove of.
Indeed, our current culture war craziness gives free reign, across a wide spectrum of issues and behaviors, for seeking to punish people and ideas one simply dislikes. Talk about “weaponizing government!”
Another local case, in Saratoga Springs, concerned Charles Ross, accused of posting “salacious videos of women and girls filmed without their consent.” Now there is a thing (rampant particularly in South Korea) with men hiding cameras in, like bathrooms, where privacy is expected. But Ross was filming in public — gals out walking or jogging. Some in “sportswear.” Woo-hoo! He did attach labels like “#hotchicks” or “sportsbra.” Even zoomed in on their chests.
But still — how the heck is this a crime?? Everyone knows if you’re out in public you can be photographed. While the 9/9 news story reports an arrest warrant, the exact charges seem uncertain.
Another thing baffling me about such cases, even the bathroom cams, is — hello, this is the 21st century! With an internet! With all the porn you could want, for free. Naked body parts galore, for every taste (or perversion), just a few clicks away. So why do people do all that weird shit landing them in jail? What pathetic stupid losers.
But again, being a pathetic stupid loser by itself should not be a crime.
If today some government scourges can punish what Hotaling or Ross did, harming no one, think how you yourself could be vulnerable for something you consider innocent but someone else does not.
First they came for the Jews . . . .
