The pedophile's book is free speech

Do not think there is any support in this blog post for the disgusting pedophile this post is about. But sometimes, our most important freedoms in a community are articulated in the defense of someone who has done something terribly wrong.

By now, many may be aware that Philip Greaves II has written a book called, “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct.” The book has been called an instruction manual for abusing children. He claims it is a book meant to help men “avoid taking action that would cause them to be arrested.” In the book, he says, it discusses how men “can go about to improve their own lives.” But, apparently, it isn’t how to stop abusing minors, to seek help or to turn themselves in if they have had sex with a minor. It is how to keep their action legal. News articles state that he has sold 14 books.

Greaves, responding to a request from the sheriff department of Polk County in central Florida portraying themselves to be an interested person, sent a copy of his book from his Colorado home. Apparently in Colorado there aren’t any laws that would allow Greaves to be arrested. But, in Florida, the obscenity laws make it a crime to distribute material of an obscene nature depicting minors engaged in conduct that is harmful to them. In the book, Greaves writes about two encounters, real or not, about sex between a man and a 9 and 13 year old boy.

The author claims that it is a freedom of speech issue through his lawyer. Although, news articles about the arrest, Greaves himself has never taken that stand. Perhaps he will now. At Greaves’ arraignment, his lawyer claimed that the book is just words, not action. The prosecutor in the case, says that not only are the scenes in the book obscene, but that words can turn into action.

This case is certainly a speech issue. No right is absolute, so when action harms someone else, it needs to limited. In this case, the words in the book themselves do not harm anyone. The sheriff’s claims that the scenes depicted in the book are obscene is not enough to warrant arrest.

But, the sheriff’s claims that words can turn into action does have some merit. This is especially true because the words are about an illegal activity that is particularly repulsive to the culture. If someone using the book as a guide turn the words into action, it could do great harm to a minor, his family and the community.

It will be a tough case to find a path between protected speech and the sensibilities of the community. As an example, it is well understood that we do have freedom of speech unless we incite a riot. At that point, the speaker can be held accountable for the actions of the rioters.

But, what of a radio talk show hosts that may say someone needs to take action against a politician? Conservative talk radio hosts have been vilified by the liberals over the risk that their words will incite someone to attack a disliked politician. In their defense, conservatives have said that words are just words and the action of someone is their own responsibility. But, the sheriff of Polk County, a republican and a supporter of conservative causes, says that words have the chance to cause action and Greaves should be held responsible even before the action happens.

The subject of Greaves book is disgusting. It is not fiction which could be brushed aside. It is not a research paper that reports on how to treat pedophiles. It isn’t a legal advice book written by a lawyer to help people resolve their legal issues. It is a book, as even the title states, that guides pedophiles in their love relationships with minor children.

This book needs to be stopped. But, finding the very thin line between free speech and this view on the subject matter is difficult to impossible at best. Better to error on the side of free speech than censorship. At the very least, the community now has a better understanding of the issue because of this book. This knowledge can now be used to help prevent a very repugnant crime.

-----

The wall of separation

Yes, correct, the phrase, “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution.

The phrase, “right to privacy” doesn’t exist in the Constitution either. “The right to a fair trial”, “separation of powers,” “state’s rights” and “federalism” aren’t in the document as well. Who would deny that we don’t have a right to privacy or a right to a fair trial. All of these expressions are metaphors used to explain constitutional principals.

Politicians often create glib expressions and statements to support their point of view. One of the newest is “since the phrase wall of separation between church and state isn’t in the Constitution, the authors didn’t intend to keep religion out of government.” If that is true, the authors could have written a more direct statement in the First Amendment in support of religion and its role in the newly formed government.

The phrase “separation of church and state” is thought to have been first written by Thomas Jefferson. It was in a letter written to the Danbury Baptists who agreed with the founders that the Constitution was a guide to the civil government of the country. Their leader, Roger Williams, used the phrase before Jefferson. Williams believed that there needs to be a “wall of separation” to describe the relationship between church and state. He and many living at the time know well the corruption that follows when the civil government of a community has too close of a relationship with any with religion. Thomas Jefferson echoed this belief in his letter.

Religion is only mentioned in the Constitution twice. Both times it is to limit the role of religion. Of course, there is the First amendment that expressly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is to be read that government is not to make any law that establishes or prevents any religion. That means that government is to stay entirely out of religious activity.

The second time is in Article VI. The third paragraph states that:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

An oath is to be taken supporting “this Constitution” not a deity and that no “religious test shall ever be required” to hold any office or public trust in the Federal government and all the states. Powerful words that can only be interpreted one way, that everyone who is involved in the government; elected or not, at the federal or state level; must be true to the Constitution and not a deity.

It is a dangerous game if we allow religion to have a say in government. Let’s stay true to the Constitution and keep religion as a matter of personal worship.

-----

Road commissions are getting the heat

Road commissions everywhere are feeling the heat after the winter storm that hit Oakland County and other areas of the country.

In Oakland County, Michigan, the last snow fall wasn’t really that bad. Historically, it was just about average for a winter storm. It dumped about three inches on top of icy slush. The drive to work on Monday morning was slow going and dangerous. Some people took up to two or three hours to get to work because of accidents caused by road conditions.

The road commission is being blamed for the mess when we only have ourselves to blame.

Municipalities are under tremendous stress because of budget short falls in the last couple of years. The tax system that has been developed to provide funding for all the services we have come to expect from city and county governments is flawed. With housing values falling, foreclosures taking homes, income dropping from those that are still working and unemployment reaching record levels, the flow of cash has been reduced.

No one wants to pay more for anything, including taxes, for the goods and services that we need. On a personal basis, much of what we purchase are things that we really don’t need and can be placed on hold until we have better income. But, much of what we spend our money on is for the important things like fuel to get around, insurance and health care.

Cities and counties provide some of the most basic services. Police and fire protection, water, sewer services and road maintenance. When budgets are cut because of the loss of tax revenue, those services need to be curtailed or eliminated.

Politicians only have two choices when it comes to budgets. They can either cut expenses or raise taxes. Right now, they are cutting expenses on some of the most needed services. In some cases, they are eliminating the some services completely. Some municipalities are disbanding their police protection or are partnering with other communities to share their fire services.

Raising taxes seems to be out of the question for most politicians. The anti tax movement in the United States has taken hold of the voters. Residents won’t even examine the situation that their community is in to consider a short term tax increase. This would allow the services that are important to a community to be maintained while moving through the slow economy.

There is the argument that raising taxes would increase the cost and harm a recovery. But, better the cost you know than the one you don’t. If the situation of curtailing services continues such as road maintenance during a winter storm, social costs are going to rise. These costs we often don’t know the exact amount and once they are part of the cost structure, they are difficult to impossible to get out. Keep in mind, people that arrive to work late cost their employers money that goes into the cost of the product. Every accident that is a result of poorly cleared roads during a snow storm will increase insurance rates. Pot holes and broken pavement increases the cost of auto repairs. The increase in crime because of poor police protection will have an effect on the cost of everything. Fire protection that is subpar will allow fires to destroy more, increasing the cost of building materials and insurance. The cost of curtailing services will also mean people will lose their lives.

Communities need to do two things. First, they must decide what level of services is important to the safety of the community. This can be set by the residents but most also consider industry standards, social costs and the priorities of other communities. Then, they need to understand that in order to sustain the level of service that they expect, there needs to be a tax revenue stream that provides enough funding. That means that during a slow economy, as we are experiencing, there may need to be a short term tax increase to get the community through.

No one, as said before, wants to pay more than necessary for anything, including taxes. But, paying less than what is needed to maintain an adequate level of services only means that the social cost of everything else will increase.

-----

Govenment should not be involved in morality

Government has no compelling reason to involved themselves in morality, only the law.

In Auburn Hills, Michigan, Planned Parenthood has purchased a building to convert into a clinic. 60 pro-life advocates attended the Auburn Hills City Council meeting a week ago to express their objections to the possibilty that the city will approve it.  Crossroads Pregnancy Center, Citizens for a Pro-Life Society and many other individuals would like Auburn Hills to prevent it.  Their concern is that Auburn Hills could become an “abortion capital” in the family oriented community.

The Auburn Hills city attorney, Derk Beckerlet, said that the city has no legal grounds to refuse Planned Parenthood’s clinic based solely on the groups abortion operations. He also said that abortion is a federal issue, not the city’s, and that the city council meeting was not the correct forum for debating the issue.

Beckerlet is absolutely correct. The city has no more right to refuse the clinic based on abortion then to disallow a church because of its religion. Or to make a law banning speech based on prior approval.

Government must not involve themselves in the prevailing morality. That isn't its proper role.  By giving government that power, when the prevailing morality shifts the other way, the new morality will impose their own rules.

-----

It must be Christmas

It must be Christmas in America. The annual rite of paying for and setting up a Nativity scene by the government of a small town somewhere is being challenged. And, rightly so because government should not be involved in sponsoring the celebration of any religious holiday.


But that isn’t what this post is about… that will come in a later post.

This post is about not standing up for what you believe in.

In Brookville, Indiana, a Nativity scene has been purchased by tax payer dollars and is being displayed on town property. A letter was sent by the Freedom from Religion Foundation to the small town’s leaders asking that the crèche be removed. The foundation is based in Madison, Wisconsin. The organization found out about the crèche because someone in Brookville snitched. That has town leaders and supporters of the crèche all upset.

Hazel Graves, a resident of Brookville, says she is a Christian and believes in Jesus. Graves thinks the person who informed the Freedom from Religion Foundation needs to come forward. "There's somebody here in town, and they should step forward if they're so brave, and want to take down our Nativity scene," says Graves.

Agreed. The person who sent the notification to Freedom from Religion Foundation should come forward. This country was not founded on mysterious people making statements and not standing up for them. Wasn’t it John Hancock who is to have said, “I will sign my name big enough so the King doesn’t need his glasses to read it.” Sure enough, right there in the middle of the Declaration of Independence is his name as big and bold as anything. He agreed with the words in the document and was willing to sign his name to it.

But, it appears that the person or persons who didn’t reveal themselves is concerned about the backlash from the small town. If they own a business, some neighbors may not shop there anymore. If an employee, he or she may have a hard time finding a job. Neighbors may even picket the snitch’s home to express their outrage.

But, an issue that conservatives support, those who provide money to political action committees and other organizations need not reveal themselves. Most conservatives support the issue because then individuals and corporations can financially support hotly contested issues and not be concerned about the backlash from individuals that disagree with them.

In Washington state, conservatives argued remaining anonymous on political issues was a right. A petition was circulated and submitted that asked the state to submit a question on the ballot to disallow gays and lesbians the right to marry. Opposing groups in the state asked for copies of the petition so all could see who had signed it. Those that signed the petition and the organization that circulated it argued that people may be subjected to harassment if the opposition know who they were. Ultimately, the Supreme Court did rule that there is no expectation of privacy on a petition.

Hazel Graves stance on the issue and likely many others in town, is a little hypocritical. First, Graves and her fellow town folk, were hoping that no one would tell the world about their crèche. They wanted to keep that little secrete for themselves. But, Ms. Graves, if you are asking the person that snitched to come forward, “if they’re so brave” why are you hoping to hide behind anonymity. You should be brave enough yourself to let everyone know about the Nativity and challenge anyone to come forward to contest it so that the issue can be debated in public.

But there is even a wider reason why that stance is hypocritical. This reasoning does assume that a conservatives in the town of Brookville is the same as a conservatives anywhere in America. The residents of Brookville want to know who the snitch is that informed Freedom from Religion. But, on the other hand, conservatives support the Supreme Court decision that ruled that individuals and corporations have the right to remain anonymous when taking political positions, because they are also concerned about anger being taken out on them by those opposing.

John Hancock must be confused by all of this. He, perhaps having more to fear in the days before the Revolutionary War with England, was more than willing to stand on his convictions. His signature is the largest on the Declaration of Independence. The person who snitched on the town of Brookville needs to come forward (and be applauded). But, all individuals and corporations that support political issues in the community need to also come clean.

Our republic was founded on the idea that openly debating issues was the best way to run a community. Let’s return to that concept.

-----

Courts should not do what congress should

Whenever the courts are asked to do what the congress and president should, it is a sloppy and irrational business. Of course, that is to suggest that the way they make laws and set policy is any better.

President Obama a month ago asked the Supreme Court to place a stay on a lower court ruling that ordered the military to stop enforcing the “Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask” policy on gays and lesbians in the services. He wanted time for congress and his office to come to terms with the certainty that the court would rule in favor of gays and lesbians. The court agreed, at least for a while, but now there is a deadline for action. If Senator John McCain gets his way, it will be back into the courts when the deadline passes.

Working its way through the court system are a few other issues that would not be there if congress was working properly. One of the biggest issues, yes bigger than “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, is immigration. Decisions from various jurisdictions will leave a confusing and disruptive policy that will not work.

As an example, Arizona, wishing to solve a overstated problem there, is being challenge on a host of immigration laws in the courts. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007. It states that businesses that knowing employee undocumented workers could have their license revoked by the state. It is being called the business death penalty by opponents. The United States Chamber of Commerce and the Obama administration are challenging the law. They say that immigration is a federal issue, so that states should not be able to take action.

Businesses that hire undocumented workers is at the core of the issue. That is why Arizona enacted and is enforcing a law like the Legal Arizona Workers Act. If there are no jobs available for undocumented workers, they wouldn’t be arriving. In a post to this blog in April, End Immigration in Five Steps, one of the steps suggested was to enforce laws at the federal level that require employers to make sure every employee was properly documented. Plus, employers must learn to fear I.C.E. (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) by unannounced audits of businesses on a national and local level.

But the creation and enforcement of immigration laws must made at the federal level. Each court, like with any issue, will make decisions based on individual cases and circumstances. Overlapping and overreaching decisions will create a loose policy that will confuse employees and employers. This will waste resources in an attempt to meet various standards from all across the country.

The reason we have government is to enforce a consistent set of rules that we can all agree on. Congress needs to act on immigration reform and many other issues. Then, allocate money to enforce the laws. If not, individuals and businesses will be caught not knowing what to do.

-----

Senator McCain is wrong on gays and lesbians in the military

Senator John McCain is wrong to oppose the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the United States Military.

The policy is on the verge of being overturned by the courts. In a blog post previously, “The Military has done well with gays and lesbians”, the history of the issue was explored. It was a policy that came out of a legislative fight 17 years ago. The policy said that if the recruit doesn’t speak of his or her sexual orientation, the military won’t ask. But, someone who spoke up and was kicked out, took the issue to court. The courts agreed that the policy violated his rights and over turned it. The only reason it hasn’t been tossed aside right now is because the Supreme Court has allowed time for the legislative process to make a change.

The military doesn’t think that it is a problem they can’t handle. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a report issued by the military on the repel of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. It reported that more than two thirds of the service members who answered surveys did not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

Senator McCain was not convinced. He said, “I remain concerned, as I have in the past, and as demonstrated in this study, that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more we encounter concerns about whether ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ should be repealed.” He has expressed in the past that he is concerned that the military forces will not be able to focus on the mission because the person next to them is gay.

Adm. Mullen said in response, “I’ve been serving with gays and lesbians my whole career,” he said. “I went to war with them aboard a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam. I knew they were there. They knew I knew it. We never missed a mission, never failed to deliver ordnance on target.”

The military over the last 17 years has done just fine. In all that time, and longer as evidence by Adm. Mullen’s remarks, the military has done what it has been asked to do and it can’t be document that there would be any harm from the repel of the policy.

Mr. McCain, you are outdated on this issue.

-----