Please do not come here. I say again, Please do not come here. Especially if you love the cause of the FSP and Limited Government.
Quite frankly, I do not want the FSP to help sex offenders move here. I cannot imagine a better way to get the people here to be INCREDIBLY HOSTILE to us.
Tomorrow's Newspaper Article:
Free State Project arranging Sex Offender Moves to NH
In order to reach their stated goal of moving 20,000 government hating, law-detesting people to New Hampshire, they are reaching out to sex offenders. On one Free-State Project related website, a man who was convicted of committing sexual assault on a minor was organizing help to move to New Hampshire. ___________, a mother of a young child who lives in Manchester, near Porcupine row on elm street says, "I don't know why they want to bring baby rapists to attack children! They should be marginalized politically!". The police chief has said that there is nothing that he can do legally to prevent the Free State Project from organizing an effort to move sex offenders to New Hampshire, but that when the 80% of offenders who recommit their crimes on children here, they will be caught and arrested.
In fact, there is an organized effort by members of the FSP to start a chapter of an organization called "Reform Sex Offender Laws Now!", which opposes "vindictive" punishment of child rapists and is concerned with the shame the rapists feel. _____________ of Protect our babies from kiddy diddlers, says "They do not have the right to talk about shame, they should imagine the shame that young victims feel after the vicious attacks of these predators. These attacks haunt children for the rest of their lives, and the predator DARES to be concerned about vindictiveness. These predators are evil and I cannot believe the Free State Project is supporting them".
____________ of the FSP denies having an official program to assist Child Predators moving to New Hampshire. He did not mention "unofficial programs".
A. Hack
Newspaper Reporter and Sensationalist
See also:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080203/NEWS/80203007
QuoteHate to say it, but this post makes me feel "INCREDIBLY HOSTILE" to you.
If libertarians can't help out the victims of a government gone mad with the intoxication of its own power, who can? What other compromises and outright hypocrisies are you willing to stoop to as a result of your "delicate sensibilities"? Possessed of such (I calls 'em as I sees 'em . . .) cowardice, how effective do you think you could be in public office?
I would hope to be more effective than Goldwater's presidency. Oh that's right, he didn't get to be president.
I hope that I will not be the most principled man in the coffee house. I want to be one of the more principled men in the State House. Our freedom will either be advanced or lost there, not in a discussion about anarchy vs minarchy over a double espresso. In my mind the best way I can actually achieve positive change and a reduction in government is to act incrementally. I would vote for medical marijuana with a prescription, rather than vote against it, because it moves in the right direction. My goal would be that I don't want the government to care about adults freebasing clorox, but I will take what I can get. I would not go into the House and immediately try to pass a law that requires all state monetary transactions be done in silver or gold because it is Constitutionally required. I would, at the right time, propose a law to allow people who are owed money by the state to elect to be paid in silver or gold or FRNs.
I do not intend to ever vote for Unconstitutional actions. I do not intend to vote for anything increasing the scope of government. I do intend to try to make your life a little better, by getting The State to leave you to live your life a little more.
We will never succeed in doing anything of substance if the FSP becomes synonymous with kiddie diddlers, regardless of how right you might be.
I would argue that by saying something I believe in a place full of people who I respect and I knew would disagree with me, I would have shown my dedication to saying what I believe is correct. As far as cowardice is concerned, I am a former Marine. I might shit myself in fear, but I will still do my damnedest to do what I think is right for my Country and my Cause.
I think perhaps Digital Warrior would be happier on the NHLA forum with the rest of the "you're ruining it for the rest of us" folks. (Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.)
This will be the least of New Hampshires worries with whats coming on behalf of the gracious government.
Guess who I'm worried about more? Our government has been implicated numerous times for truly abhorrent
child abuse...'cept they never went to jail you see. Where's the outcry for those victims...unless the people
"complaining" are actually the perpetrators. Say it cant happen in New Hampshire? Go to the Anna Philbrook
center off of south Fruit street in Concord and volunteer sometime to help the kids who've been raped and sold
and traded like cattle. Its really sad. If you could read their files, and see the BS they had put up with
it would make your blood boil. Lets blame outsiders for the problems in NH. Classic political maneuver.
http://api.ning.com/files/b68Ajc075BWAwM*cDSwML8gp6-dxcMRImsLkaQWKPLEQNvP0KbakrcG6F8VH3AKXl8e5*bvu7RSsaENswPrc1-3uYvj7e4xv/FindersThroughaglassverydarkly.jpg (http://api.ning.com/files/b68Ajc075BWAwM*cDSwML8gp6-dxcMRImsLkaQWKPLEQNvP0KbakrcG6F8VH3AKXl8e5*bvu7RSsaENswPrc1-3uYvj7e4xv/FindersThroughaglassverydarkly.jpg)
(http://api.ning.com/files/b68Ajc075BWAwM*cDSwML8gp6-dxcMRImsLkaQWKPLEQNvP0KbakrcG6F8VH3AKXl8e5*bvu7RSsaENswPrc1-3uYvj7e4xv/FindersThroughaglassverydarkly.jpg)
I actually think that what Kat and Russel do is both courageous and important.
I think that the only real danger is from being associated with things that disconnect people's minds, such as sex offenders, nazis, and terrorists. It is one thing to be unfairly labeled as such, but it is another to place members of Al-Queda in NH.
And to be honest, I fear the FedGov's further assaults on the liberty of men than anything else I can thing of.
First its sex offenders, then its violent felons, then its non-violent felons, then its traffic offenders,
pretty soon everyone is on the verboten association list. Thats how incrementalists work
Quote"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Martin Niemöller
you kind of made your opinion known on the other thread. was this one really necessary?
you are entitled to your opinion and well ... i understand what you are saying.
other than this quick chime in ... i am staying FAR away from both of these threads from now on.
good luck to all parties involved ...
Digital Warrior there is already a FSP participant that moved to NH who was a convicted murderer. Humm who could that be? If you have listened to FTL you would know the answer. People can change some people make mistakes.
Prospects for the FSP would be anyone victimized by the government. As for the label "kiddie diddlers" for sex offenders is a ignorant. In different areas sex offenders can be many different things a 17 year old having sex with a 18 year old or it could be a 40 year old raping a 5 year old, or even a person pissing on a tree after a night of drinking.
I personally know a person that could have been arrested as a sex offender for having sex with his girlfriend he was 18 years old and his girlfriend who lived next door was 17. If her parents found out they were having sex they would have called the police (the girls parents did threaten my friend if they caught them) and my friend would have been thrown in prison. Was my friend a evil kiddie diddler?
let he who is without sin cast the first stone. . .
a lot of people have done pretty heinous things, they're either known by the public or not, but either way, you know what you've done. Some people have done things that society has found to be completely disgustingly heinous. . .and are thus told they have to wear symbols, have signs in their yards, or even be forced to move from an area because a "law" says you're not allowed there.
If these people are so dangerous, and trust me I think some people are VERY dangerous, why are they not in prison? Government has said they corrected these people in corrections facilities. If a child molester moves in next door, and you're worried about your child. . .
1) TALK TO YOUR KIDS: tell them that the person next door has done something very bad and that you restrict them from interacting with that person. Be honest with your kids of age about what that person has done, and how other children have felt being victims of such things.
or if that doesn't work, or you're too closed minded . . .
2) MOVE AWAY.
must we slap the scarlet letter on so many different people for so many different crimes? Child sex was pretty normal in ancient Greece wasn't it?
Listen, I dispise child molesters' actions. I think it's gross, it's sick, it's despicable, and it's downright effed up. I don't want to live next to them. I do NOT think they should not be allowed to live in certain towns. These lepers will never live down their past mistakes if you never allow them a chance to.
please note: 3-5 years ago I would have never even imagined ever saying anything anywhere near towards the above. I'm sure I'd had more than one thought of "enacting vengeance" on such people. I will also say that someone in my family has been molested. I've got nothing to hide, I must stand by my principles, and I have been given a chance to repent for my heinous actions (drunk driving).
thanks for letting me vent.
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 28, 2008, 06:10 PM NHFT
We will never succeed in doing anything of substance if the FSP becomes synonymous with kiddie diddlers, regardless of how right you might be.
What have we succeeded in doing for the past thirty-six years? Libertarians are already synonymous not only with "kiddie diddlers," but with "Republicans who smoke dope," "hating poor people," "cruel and heartless," and a thousand other knowingly false smears promulgated by people who have to twist the truth around to obfuscate their own criminal points of view. All that caution, trying to please everyone, and little progress has been made. Drop it, and adopt a properly in-your-face attitude--it can't work any worse than your suggested technique has.
Consensual sex with teenagers is not "kiddie diddling".
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 28, 2008, 06:10 PM NHFT
I hope that I will not be the most principled man in the coffee house. ... Our freedom will either be advanced or lost there, not in a discussion about anarchy vs minarchy over a double espresso.
I love Manchester and all, but there
is a rather troubling lack of good coffee houses here.
what you don't like Dunkin Donuts haha
I made this thread because SpeedPhreak asked that the thread not be hijacked. I figured people would continue to want to share their thoughts, and I was interested in reading them. I think the best argument so far has been the incrementalism of the bad association.
I am going to have to think about that one a while.
I have never heard of Libertarians being synonymous with kiddie diddlers.
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on October 28, 2008, 08:49 PM NHFT
What have we succeeded in doing for the past thirty-six years? Libertarians are already synonymous not only with "kiddie diddlers," but with "Republicans who smoke dope," "hating poor people," "cruel and heartless," and a thousand other knowingly false smears promulgated by people who have to twist the truth around to obfuscate their own criminal points of view. All that caution, trying to please everyone, and little progress has been made. Drop it, and adopt a properly in-your-face attitude--it can't work any worse than your suggested technique has.
Extremely well said. I was going to try to say something like that but I don't think I could put it any better.
There have already been some FSPers, and they weren't radical out-of-the-system types, fighting new over the top sex offender laws in Manchester. Just bares repeating that while there are horrendous child rapists out there, they don't make up the bulk of who gets labeled "sex offender". When someone tries to twist the truth to further their own political ends, we should be trying to untwist it; not tucking our tails and hiding like cowards. If someone wants to join the enemy rather than confront the lies for the sake of their image, let them, but I'll have no part of it. Speaking out against this hysteria is not radical. There is a growing group of people, far beyond libertarian types that understands how ridiculous this has gotten. I saw a pretty prominent news program about it recently. I can't recall who it was but it was on network television. May have been John Stossel or maybe I saw one by him and by someone else. This hysteria is actually a somewhat recent phenomenon that started within the last 20 years or so. I'll see if I can find clips.
Quote from: AntonLee on October 28, 2008, 08:27 PM NHFT
let he who is without sin cast the first stone. . .
Well I never molested a child. Is that good enough?
Quote
2) MOVE AWAY.
How about THEY move away? Wouldn't that be less hassle all around?
Quote
must we slap the scarlet letter on so many different people for so many different crimes? Child sex was pretty normal in ancient Greece wasn't it?
If child molestation doesn't qualify for a scarlet letter then nothing does.
Ancient Athens started out with a crude and limited but mostly working democracy and then fell to Macedonia. Ancient Greece as a whole went into an unpleasant decline. If we follow their example too closely we may suffer a similar fate.
Lots of things are pretty normal in cultures that are headed for disaster. That doesn't mean these things are a good idea. It's pretty normal for an infection to fester.
Ancient Athens had: slavery, ostracism of the successful and misogyny. They had pederasty and sodomy too as part of the package. All these things were pretty normal there.in that time.
Cultural relativism never really worked for me. Maybe it's because I read too much history. Maybe it's because I read the history of a culture all the way to the end.
By the way I'm not completely without sympathy. I recently found out a guy I know once committed a crime along these lines. I don't go out of my way to give him a hard time about it but I'm not going to treat him quite the same as I would anyone else. I have some sympathy for the problems he has but there are limits to that sympathy. After all it IS his fault.
Quote from: rowland on October 29, 2008, 08:08 AM NHFT
If child molestation doesn't qualify for a scarlet letter then nothing does.
That's usually not what gets someone the label of "sex offender" though. And when it is, the measures they take to protect children aren't really what's effective. The vast majority of child molesters are molesting someone they know, their own child or a close relative's that has been put in their custody for a while. The cinematic images of strangers hanging out in playgrounds or coaxing kids to their homes with candy don't match the reality, so the measures they take to protect kids just provide false security to ignorant parents who don't want to take the real measures necessary to protect their kids, i.e. take on some responsibility for better parenting. They prefer to project their fears out onto strangers rather than watch for signs of abuse within their own family and close friends where the highest risk is. They may end up having to face some very uncomfortable truths.
Like others, you're just appealing to emotionalism to make the case for these draconian measures. We have to use some common sense if we actually aim to protect children.
Is a 15 year old who has consensual sex with his 15 year old girl friend a sex offender? In some states he is, but she isn't!
In other states a 15 year girl who takes nude pictures of herself and mails them to friends is now a sex offender!
Quote from: AntonLee on October 28, 2008, 08:27 PM NHFT
Child sex was pretty normal in ancient Greece wasn't it?
Yes. So was slavery.
I have changed my mind, and would like to say that I was wrong for suggesting that we not assist people convicted or accused of certain criminal acts. I have two reasons
First, as was pointed out to me, it is a slippery slope and how long until they in all seriousness declare the lot of us "Terrorists". While assisting some people might be turned around on us, it would be morally wrong to avoid the right action because it could be misinterpreted. To paraphrase Brother Kipling "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, yours is the Earth and everything that's in it and - which is more - you'll be a Man". I appreciate everyone that took the time to correct me.
Second, kind of like the legal principal of safe harbor for computer networks, we do not concern ourselves with filtering content, because if we did it in one case, we would have to do it in all. The FSP is a transportation medium, which hopefully carries far more good than bad...
Digital "belly full of humble pie" Warrior
DW - Thanks for starting another topic.
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 28, 2008, 06:10 PM NHFT
QuoteHate to say it, but this post makes me feel "INCREDIBLY HOSTILE" to you.
If libertarians can't help out the victims of a government gone mad with the intoxication of its own power, who can? What other compromises and outright hypocrisies are you willing to stoop to as a result of your "delicate sensibilities"? Possessed of such (I calls 'em as I sees 'em . . .) cowardice, how effective do you think you could be in public office?
I would hope to be more effective than Goldwater's presidency. Oh that's right, he didn't get to be president.
I hope that I will not be the most principled man in the coffee house. I want to be one of the more principled men in the State House. Our freedom will either be advanced or lost there, not in a discussion about anarchy vs minarchy over a double espresso. In my mind the best way I can actually achieve positive change and a reduction in government is to act incrementally. I would vote for medical marijuana with a prescription, rather than vote against it, because it moves in the right direction. My goal would be that I don't want the government to care about adults freebasing clorox, but I will take what I can get. I would not go into the House and immediately try to pass a law that requires all state monetary transactions be done in silver or gold because it is Constitutionally required. I would, at the right time, propose a law to allow people who are owed money by the state to elect to be paid in silver or gold or FRNs.
I do not intend to ever vote for Unconstitutional actions. I do not intend to vote for anything increasing the scope of government. I do intend to try to make your life a little better, by getting The State to leave you to live your life a little more.
We will never succeed in doing anything of substance if the FSP becomes synonymous with kiddie diddlers, regardless of how right you might be.
I would argue that by saying something I believe in a place full of people who I respect and I knew would disagree with me, I would have shown my dedication to saying what I believe is correct. As far as cowardice is concerned, I am a former Marine. I might shit myself in fear, but I will still do my damnedest to do what I think is right for my Country and my Cause.
I am assuming from this post that you are running for offices? I would happen to agree w/your baby steps approach because I happen to think that will work better than an all or nothing approach - after all it is "Liberty in our life time" not "Liberty next week or I give up". If felons are allowed to vote in NH I would consider supporting you (obviously I would need to do more research - but that is another topic). Your incrementalism is, in my opinion, how we got where we are today just in reverse - a lot like the incremntalism quote you refered to as needing to ponder further. The coffe house/state house comment I would partially disagree with - most if not all revolutions started in bars & other places where "common" folk congregated. I would argue your principled man status by saying your principles may or may not reflect other peoples principles &, as free men, you can't force your principles on others.
I respect you sticking by your beliefs & your service as a Marine. I also respect the people on here who are opposing you & have the "in your face" approach.
I (as apparently many others) agree that child molesting is wrong, sick, dispicable. Where it looks to me we differ is that it appears to me that you are like the majority of the population that thinks every SO is some one who molests pre-pubescent children. I am in a unique postition to have actual experience with several SOs & I have seen almost the entire range - from the guy who forces his piece into an infants mouth - to the guy who was living w/his girlfriend he thought was 21 because she had a fake ID & her mother helped them move in together. The fact is their are a lot more of the 2nd guy than the 1st. The laws as they are hurt way more kids than they protect - what do you think of all the kids who don't have a father in their lives because of hysterical laws? Again I will point out my case - mine was not a familly member, was a teenager, was consenual (regardless of the legal definition), & I have passed BOTH state required benchmarks when only 1 is required. How is this law benifiting/protecting my daughter? She is the real victim here. She is 2 1/2yrs old & really only knows me threw a video I made her last christmas. She will watch it 4 or 5 times a day sometimes & talk to me like I can respond.
I agree that the condition of a child trumps the feelings of an offender - again our definition seems to differ. When a child (or any one for that mater) is truly sexually abused the victims trauma should be #1.
I can see your point about my (& other SOs) moving for the FSP because of our label (justified or not), as the general public generally does not share our majority view that, as many others have stated, you can't pick & choose who gets liberty. As sovereign human beings everyone is entitled. People who make wrong decisions will be ostricized, shunned, ignored, etc... into leaving or what ever. Proof is the guy who tried to get me fired... everyone thought he was an asshole & ignored, shunned, & treated him like the bad guy - he couldn't deal with it & left.
Ultimately I am sticking by my beliefs - people are physically ready for sex at puberty. That is what puberty was designed for. It is only societies notions that makes it wrong. If people don't want their teens having sex then they need to raise them to be prepared to make these decisions, get it off regular tv & out of popular culture or simply don't let your child participate in regular tv & popular culture. America idolizes sex & youth. Many models & actors/actresses are teens (young adults). Children are pre-pubescent. Over 50 countries around the world have ages of consent of 14 or less - including many 1st world countries... raise the number to 15 & its at least 50% (I did the math at one point but dont remember exact numbers).
As I said in the other thread - it needs to be judged on a case by case basis. Some 13yos are mentaly capable & some 20yos are not... again mentaly capable is a product of society & parenting.
What
I did was in fact wrong. Not because she was a teen but because I hurt my girlfriend & as a result my daughter. If she would have been my wife - I would not have been arrested. A similar case in Denver was just like that - a 20 something had a 14 or 15 yo wife & nothing could be done.
I also respect your ability to take new information, analyze it, & change your postition if you choose too.
I ran and lost my Primary. I will try again in two years. I do think that bad law exists in most things.
I think a legislator should be like a physician: First do no harm. If the law is bad and I can make it 5% better, I will take it and try for more. It is especially important to consider unintended consequences. For instance, if the legislature thought it was a good idea to stop men with a history of beating their wives from owning guns, they might prevent men convicted of such crimes from legally owning guns. However, before that law was enacted, there were men who pled out to misdemeanor wife beating rather than risk a jury finding them guilty of felonious ass-whooping. That plea had certain terms known to him, but now a law was passed which currently adds to the punishment he faces. It appears to me that this is violation of ex-post-facto, though I am assured it is not, because it is simply additional punishment for an act that was already criminal. This is unjust.
Some men are required to pay child support for children that are not theirs because of some very badly written laws.
I also think that the coffee house (or Murphy's Taproom, or here) is very important because it is there that the philosophy and guidance is developed. However I think it is critical to get philosophy out of the coffee house too.
I apparently differ with you about the Age of Consent, not the illusion that all registrants are demonic hell-spawn. In fact a registry might not be a great idea at all. However as a legislator, I would likely support different punishments for different sex crimes. Like the boy who snaps a pic of himself on a cell phone and sends it to a girl he likes should almost certainly have to see a counselor, who would determine if he suffered sex abuse (inappropriate acting out may be a sign) and to treat him if he cannot determine a correct and age-appropriate way to act on sexual impulses. He certainly shouldn't be forced to be a registered sex offender, nor would jail be the best place for him. I might support bashing a baby raper's skull in with a rock (not really, since I oppose the death penalty, but it is a close call).
So that I am not misunderstood, It sounds like you were an adult, she was under 16, and if that is the case, I would support Jail and a Felony conviction for you. Not sure about the registry, because if there is a significant danger of recommission, It should be handled psychiatrically. Punishment, then rehab is a good model in my mind. There is a delicate balance of interests as far as the registry, and I would have to spend a lot of time finding a good course of law for that.
Digital "Good thing I ain't Emperor" Warrior
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 29, 2008, 11:25 AM NHFT
I ran and lost my Primary. I will try again in two years. I do think that bad law exists in most things.
I think a legislator should be like a physician: First do no harm. If the law is bad and I can make it 5% better, I will take it and try for more. It is especially important to consider unintended consequences. For instance, if the legislature thought it was a good idea to stop men with a history of beating their wives from owning guns, they might prevent men convicted of such crimes from legally owning guns. However, before that law was enacted, there were men who pled out to misdemeanor wife beating rather than risk a jury finding them guilty of felonious ass-whooping. That plea had certain terms known to him, but now a law was passed which currently adds to the punishment he faces. It appears to me that this is violation of ex-post-facto, though I am assured it is not, because it is simply additional punishment for an act that was already criminal. This is unjust.
Some men are required to pay child support for children that are not theirs because of some very badly written laws.
I also think that the coffee house (or Murphy's Taproom, or here) is very important because it is there that the philosophy and guidance is developed. However I think it is critical to get philosophy out of the coffee house too.
I apparently differ with you about the Age of Consent, not the illusion that all registrants are demonic hell-spawn. In fact a registry might not be a great idea at all. However as a legislator, I would likely support different punishments for different sex crimes. Like the boy who snaps a pic of himself on a cell phone and sends it to a girl he likes should almost certainly have to see a counselor, who would determine if he suffered sex abuse (inappropriate acting out may be a sign) and to treat him if he cannot determine a correct and age-appropriate way to act on sexual impulses. He certainly shouldn't be forced to be a registered sex offender, nor would jail be the best place for him. I might support bashing a baby raper's skull in with a rock (not really, since I oppose the death penalty, but it is a close call).
So that I am not misunderstood, It sounds like you were an adult, she was under 16, and if that is the case, I would support Jail and a Felony conviction for you. Not sure about the registry, because if there is a significant danger of recommission, It should be handled psychiatrically. Punishment, then rehab is a good model in my mind. There is a delicate balance of interests as far as the registry, and I would have to spend a lot of time finding a good course of law for that.
Digital "Good thing I ain't Emperor" Warrior
You are understood w/your assumptions of my case.
I agree w/you on most everything you have written thus far. Obviously,as you stated, we differ on the AOC & your supported punishment of my case. In my case in particular - did you speak w/the young woman? did you take my previous community standing, civic duty, & character statements into account? what factors allow you to support a felony & jail time?
The particular therapy I am in focuses on victims & their potential trauma. I have learned a great deal about different traumas & possible outcomes & it is very sad. However, their "Bible" & their "messiah" regarding my circumstances conclude there is little to no chance for trauma - that her age & our circumstances have no history of causing trauma. Again - some people are ready & others are not - it needs to be case by case.
You can be a registered sex offender for opening an email with kiddie porn in it. Even if you didn't request said email. Even if it was spam.
This is not an exaggeration.
Each case should be handled individually, for any accusation. There is no 'one size fits all' crime, or punishment.
DW, kudos for rethinking your position.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised, there was a level of maturity and rationality I wasn't expecting. Thanks for thinking critically and being open to change, Digital Warrior.
I think it's crucial to respect the rights of those we disagree with. There wouldn't be anything important about protecting liberty if there were no threats to it. Every tyrrant in history has had " a really good cause".
Another thing to think about in terms of the sex offender issue is "mission creep". It began as a registry from really, really "bad people". Now that America has had ten years to acclimate to putting a portion of the population on a list and tracking their movements, demanding they check in with the government, it's expanded to other areas. In specific, New York City and Baltimore both have Gun Offender Registries and they're intentionally modeled after Megan's Law. Registered Gun Owners must update their address with the police when it changed, and 4 times a year even if it doesn't.
In Maryland, open carry without a permit it a gun crime. Just something to think about.
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 29, 2008, 10:08 AM NHFT
I have changed my mind, and would like to say that I was wrong for suggesting that we not assist people convicted or accused of certain criminal acts...
Digital "belly full of humble pie" Warrior
Whaaaat? :o
I don't even know how to react to that. There's no place on Internet forums for that kind of mature and open-minded attitude. We must ban you! ;)
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 28, 2008, 06:06 PM NHFT
Please do not come here. I say again, Please do not come here. Especially if you love the cause of the FSP and Limited Government.
Quite frankly, I do not want the FSP to help sex offenders move here. I cannot imagine a better way to get the people here to be INCREDIBLY HOSTILE to us.
Tomorrow's Newspaper Article:
Free State Project arranging Sex Offender Moves to NH
In order to reach their stated goal of moving 20,000 government hating, law-detesting people to New Hampshire, they are reaching out to sex offenders. On one Free-State Project related website, a man who was convicted of committing sexual assault on a minor was organizing help to move to New Hampshire. ___________, a mother of a young child who lives in Manchester, near Porcupine row on elm street says, "I don't know why they want to bring baby rapists to attack children! They should be marginalized politically!". The police chief has said that there is nothing that he can do legally to prevent the Free State Project from organizing an effort to move sex offenders to New Hampshire, but that when the 80% of offenders who recommit their crimes on children here, they will be caught and arrested.
In fact, there is an organized effort by members of the FSP to start a chapter of an organization called "Reform Sex Offender Laws Now!", which opposes "vindictive" punishment of child rapists and is concerned with the shame the rapists feel. _____________ of Protect our babies from kiddy diddlers, says "They do not have the right to talk about shame, they should imagine the shame that young victims feel after the vicious attacks of these predators. These attacks haunt children for the rest of their lives, and the predator DARES to be concerned about vindictiveness. These predators are evil and I cannot believe the Free State Project is supporting them".
____________ of the FSP denies having an official program to assist Child Predators moving to New Hampshire. He did not mention "unofficial programs".
A. Hack
Newspaper Reporter and Sensationalist
See also:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080203/NEWS/80203007
This post does almost nothing to explain what this thread is about. I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Please try to be more clear in the future.
Quote from: doobie on October 29, 2008, 09:22 AM NHFT
In some states . . . a 15 year girl who takes nude pictures of herself and mails them to friends is now a sex offender!
In at least one instance mentioned on FTL, the
recipients were sex offenders!
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 29, 2008, 10:08 AM NHFT
I have changed my mind, and would like to say that I was wrong for suggesting that we not assist people convicted or accused of certain criminal acts. I have two reasons
Wow. Now I'm feeling all apologetic for my, uh, vociferous enthusiasm. . . .
Quote from: Radical and Stuff on October 29, 2008, 01:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 28, 2008, 06:06 PM NHFT
Please do not come here. I say again, Please do not come here. Especially if you love the cause of the FSP and Limited Government.
Quite frankly, I do not want the FSP to help sex offenders move here. I cannot imagine a better way to get the people here to be INCREDIBLY HOSTILE to us.
Tomorrow's Newspaper Article:
Free State Project arranging Sex Offender Moves to NH
In order to reach their stated goal of moving 20,000 government hating, law-detesting people to New Hampshire, they are reaching out to sex offenders. On one Free-State Project related website, a man who was convicted of committing sexual assault on a minor was organizing help to move to New Hampshire. ___________, a mother of a young child who lives in Manchester, near Porcupine row on elm street says, "I don't know why they want to bring baby rapists to attack children! They should be marginalized politically!". The police chief has said that there is nothing that he can do legally to prevent the Free State Project from organizing an effort to move sex offenders to New Hampshire, but that when the 80% of offenders who recommit their crimes on children here, they will be caught and arrested.
In fact, there is an organized effort by members of the FSP to start a chapter of an organization called "Reform Sex Offender Laws Now!", which opposes "vindictive" punishment of child rapists and is concerned with the shame the rapists feel. _____________ of Protect our babies from kiddy diddlers, says "They do not have the right to talk about shame, they should imagine the shame that young victims feel after the vicious attacks of these predators. These attacks haunt children for the rest of their lives, and the predator DARES to be concerned about vindictiveness. These predators are evil and I cannot believe the Free State Project is supporting them".
____________ of the FSP denies having an official program to assist Child Predators moving to New Hampshire. He did not mention "unofficial programs".
A. Hack
Newspaper Reporter and Sensationalist
See also:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080203/NEWS/80203007
This post does almost nothing to explain what this thread is about. I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Please try to be more clear in the future.
The post was an example of what a news paper article
could look like if a SO moved to NH for the FSP.
The factors that I have to support jail time for this crime is committing sexual acts upon a person with no legal ability to consent. It does not matter if the person you had sex with was an exceptionally rational girl from a two parent household, well cared for, nurtured, with no history of criminal activity or acting out. Simply put, a contract with a 15 year old is legally null. A verbal agreement between a 15 year old and an adult related to sex is null because she cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape. I believe the sentence should be lighter than for forcible rape, but that is where I am.
Radical, I am sorry, this was a comment I made to a convicted sex offender who was asking about moving here. As I said later, this is no longer my opinion, because while the fear of bad press may be justified, we cannot be paralyzed by the fear that our truth will be twisted by knaves and made a trap for fools.
On receiving unsolicited pictures: I have thought it would be absolutely terrible to have a situation where a bad man kept mailing illegal substances to random powerful people and then turning them in for possession to police when the package was in their hands. "I swear officer, its not mine" says every governor in the US.
I have to say I liked the idea of quoting a hysterical woman shouting through tears "They should be marginalized politically"
Thanks for the clarification - let me pose this:
You, I, & the young women in question all live in Spain where the AOC is 13. Where someone 13 & over can legally give "informed" consent to another person (teen or adult). Would you still support a felony conviction & jail time?
Thanks for explain the point of this thread.
QuoteYou, I, & the young women in question all live in Spain where the AOC is 13. Where someone 13 & over can legally give "informed" consent to another person (teen or adult). Would you still support a felony conviction & jail time?
I would likely support changing the AOC to 16. It is a guess, because I am not familiar with the culture there. Maybe I am seeing this issue through the lenses of my experiences and my awareness of the children of that age I have met in conjunction with the little to no research I have done on the topic. Perhaps there is no ill effect of having the AOC that low in that area, in which case: no harm no law. I certainly would not say you were not criminal in that case since it was legal at the time in your place and because not all unethical or wrong things are crimes.
That said I would be surprised to find out that there was no harm from having an AOC of 13...
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 29, 2008, 01:55 PM NHFT
On receiving unsolicited pictures: I have thought it would be absolutely terrible to have a situation where a bad man kept mailing illegal substances to random powerful people and then turning them in for possession to police when the package was in their hands. "I swear officer, its not mine" says every governor in the US.
ter?ri?ble? ?/?t?r?b?l/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-buhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. distressing; severe: a terrible winter.
2. extremely bad; horrible: terrible coffee; a terrible movie.
3. exciting terror, awe, or great fear; dreadful; awful.
4. formidably great: a terrible responsibility. That would be terrible . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 29, 2008, 02:33 PM NHFT
I would likely support changing the AOC to 16. It is a guess, because I am not familiar with the culture there.
So it's OK in Spain (Italy, S Korea, Germany, Iceland, etc..) because it is culturally acceptable? Is America not the melting pot of culture? How do we decide a law where some people came from places where you can't have sex until after you are married & others come from a place where the AOC is at puberty? Mobocracy? If there were no law - Culturally these people could possibly still live w/in their "microculture" they brought here. Maybe not.
Quote
Maybe I am seeing this issue through the lenses of my experiences and my awareness of the children of that age I have met in conjunction with the little to no research I have done on the topic.
THAT is perfect - the proof is in the pudding. The pudding, in your experience, is the Trauma... I can respect that. However there are cases where there is no Trauma & even benefits - which is why I support a case by case law. My experience shows what yours does - but it also shows that young teens can be fully capable of making that decision - & some people that are 20 can't. In my late 20s I dated 4 women that were 17 (my brothers friends) - I only continued to see 1 because the others were not "mature" enough for me.
Quote
Perhaps there is no ill effect of having the AOC that low in that area, in which case: no harm no law. I certainly would not say you were not criminal in that case since it was legal at the time in your place and because not all unethical or wrong things are crimes.
That said I would be surprised to find out that there was no harm from having an AOC of 13...
Again - case by case. Just because it is technically
legal doesn't mean an act of force or deceipt hasn't occured. I would go so far as to say most 13yo would have a neg experience either now or later - I would also say that parental influence & preperations have something to do with that. & if an AOC is 13 does that mean a 35yo man/woman should go out & do it because "they can" - absolutely not.
I also remember being 13/14/15 & I would have sold my soul to have sex w/some of my moms friends, friends' moms, & teachers... some of them well into their 40s... I seriously doubt that experience would have negatively effected me.
The nature of the rule of law is that our legislative bodies create a formal list of forbidden activities and their punishments. In a just nation, the purpose of those laws is to prevent force and fraud.
I also specifically did not say that it was OK in Spain, just that it was legal, as is honor killing in some parts of the world. I also stated that in that situation I would look at the effect and see if I should advocate the change in law. I think that different societal situations make for different just laws (quotas in state college admission rates may have been necessary at one time, but cannot be justified now).
I probably felt the same way at that age. The fact that we valued sex at such a high premium might be reason to suspect that we were not responsible enough to make that judgment, though we might have tried everything in the book to make it happen... I know now I would have made a crappy father as a seventh grader too.
OK I am pretty sure I see your POV on AOC - I hope you see mine. I'm not trying to change your mind on anything (yet am glad you changed your position already to some degree) I just want my points to be clear.
I think that your statement
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 29, 2008, 04:27 PM NHFT
The nature of the rule of law is that our legislative bodies create a formal list of forbidden activities and their punishments. In a just nation, the purpose of those laws is to prevent force and fraud.
Prevention of force & fraud (albeit usually noble) will repress the will of the free. You can't base a law on the what mights & what ifs.
IE, IMO, you can't say the AOC is 16 because at 15 you are not ready to be a father/mother. You can say (again my opinion) the AOC is puberty because that is when nature/creation has deemed you ready for intercourse.
& if it were really about teen pregnancy - then why do some states have close in age laws? In CO its legal w/in 4 years... so 14/18, 13/17, 15/19, etc. That is actually worse because both parents would be teens/young. If I were to get my partner pregnant I have already demonstrated responsibility as a responsible father to an infant.
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 29, 2008, 10:08 AM NHFT
I have changed my mind, and would like to say that I was wrong for suggesting that we not assist people convicted or accused of certain criminal acts. I have two reasons
First, as was pointed out to me, it is a slippery slope and how long until they in all seriousness declare the lot of us "Terrorists". While assisting some people might be turned around on us, it would be morally wrong to avoid the right action because it could be misinterpreted. To paraphrase Brother Kipling "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, yours is the Earth and everything that's in it and - which is more - you'll be a Man". I appreciate everyone that took the time to correct me.
Second, kind of like the legal principal of safe harbor for computer networks, we do not concern ourselves with filtering content, because if we did it in one case, we would have to do it in all. The FSP is a transportation medium, which hopefully carries far more good than bad...
Digital "belly full of humble pie" Warrior
Very nice. Thank you for not only coming around on this topic, but being big enough to post about it. :)
The ability to enter into legally binding contracts should not be given to a three year old who can sign their name in block letters. Just because he can physically do it doesn't mean he understands it.
I have never heard protection from force and fraud repressing the will of the free. Is there something I can read about that, because it seems a bit odd to me?
I imagine that if they were both minors, you wouldn't want to punish them as adults, but 4 years is a hell of a spread too...
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 29, 2008, 02:33 PM NHFT
I would likely support changing the AOC to 16. It is a guess, because I am not familiar with the culture there. Maybe I am seeing this issue through the lenses of my experiences and my awareness of the children of that age I have met in conjunction with the little to no research I have done on the topic. Perhaps there is no ill effect of having the AOC that low in that area, in which case: no harm no law. I certainly would not say you were not criminal in that case since it was legal at the time in your place and because not all unethical or wrong things are crimes.
That said I would be surprised to find out that there was no harm from having an AOC of 13...
By the way, the AoC
is 16 in New Hampshire. It was in the 13–14 range in several U.S. states up until the pedophile panic got into full swing, whereupon they slowly started pushing it upward.
And the first AoC law was passed back in the 1850s in England. It was
10.
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 29, 2008, 04:59 PM NHFT
The ability to enter into legally binding contracts should not be given to a three year old who can sign their name in block letters. Just because he can physically do it doesn't mean he understands it.
This is a good point - but his ability to not be able to read can be but 1 of several possible traits that would lend to the knowledge he can't enter into a contract. Also - he is biologically a child.
Quote
I have never heard protection from force and fraud repressing the will of the free. Is there something I can read about that, because it seems a bit odd to me?
From Wiki -
Law - is a system of rules, enforced through a set of institutions, used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience, politics, economics and society. Law serves as the foremost social mediator in relations between people.
Liberty - the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force. In modern time, is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will.
So by definition they are opposite - inversely proportional. Every law acts to suppress the will of someone. I don't personally use drugs - I personally am unaffected by anti-drug legislation - but it is wrong & I oppose it because people who enjoy drugs are being denied their free will.
From - http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/duke/040121
There sure is a way freedom can be measured and it's really quite simple: a nation's degree of freedom will be inversely proportional to the number of laws it has enacted. In other words, the more laws you have the less free you are. This is because a law by definition is the removal of a freedom; it states that there's something you cannot do or something you must do. And, needless to say, if there's something you cannot do, you're not free to do it — if there's something you must do, you aren't free to do otherwise.
I'm not suggesting, though others may, that we live with a complete absence of law. However, it needs to be very limited. Thou shall not murder (or initiate force), thou shall not steal, anything other than that really is personal/parental responsibility. I would support prison for real child molesters & rapists because it is an initiation of force... denying them choice.
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Quote
I imagine that if they were both minors, you wouldn't want to punish them as adults, but 4 years is a hell of a spread too...
According to you a pregnancy is a rather large "punishment" - an adult sized one. Even 13/13 getting pregnant would leave them with an adult sized punishm... result - regardless of court. Therefore if both are capable of producing an adult sized result (infant) they should be considered adult enough to make that decision for themselves.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 29, 2008, 05:05 PM NHFT
And the first AoC law was passed back in the 1850s in England. It was 10.
Wow.
I used to work with a preditor, he spent time in jail for a 14Yo neice and in front Me and some friends who did NOT see what he did, his litte girl kept on hitting his crotch, like a game of tag, he said to his 4 yo girl, "We don't play that game here".
I saw it, almost killed him! I called the police, they didn't believe me as the other guys didn't want to get involved (there was a qp of pot there).
I havn't seen him sence. He took off unaccosted, the cops told me to stay away from him.
I think of his kid all the time, is she safe? Has she been molested? I herd 4 years ago he went away again.
grasshopper, you showed more self control than someone else I know might have been able to. I don't even think they would have thought to drag him out of the room so the 4 year old didn't see them kill the abuser.
By the way, it is important to recognize that the girl is another victim of the war on some drugs, resulting in her continued sexual abuse.
Quote from: SpeedPhreak on October 29, 2008, 05:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 29, 2008, 04:59 PM NHFT
I have never heard protection from force and fraud repressing the will of the free. Is there something I can read about that, because it seems a bit odd to me?
From Wiki -
Law - is a system of rules, enforced through a set of institutions, used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience, politics, economics and society. Law serves as the foremost social mediator in relations between people.
Liberty - the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force. In modern time, is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will.
So by definition they are opposite - inversely proportional. Every law acts to suppress the will of someone. I don't personally use drugs - I personally am unaffected by anti-drug legislation - but it is wrong & I oppose it because people who enjoy drugs are being denied their free will.
From - http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/duke/040121
There sure is a way freedom can be measured and it's really quite simple: a nation's degree of freedom will be inversely proportional to the number of laws it has enacted. In other words, the more laws you have the less free you are. This is because a law by definition is the removal of a freedom; it states that there's something you cannot do or something you must do. And, needless to say, if there's something you cannot do, you're not free to do it — if there's something you must do, you aren't free to do otherwise.
I'm not suggesting, though others may, that we live with a complete absence of law. However, it needs to be very limited. Thou shall not murder (or initiate force), thou shall not steal, anything other than that really is personal/parental responsibility. I would support prison for real child molesters & rapists because it is an initiation of force... denying them choice.
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. ~George Bernard Shaw
re-written
Quote from: grasshopper on October 30, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
I used to work with a preditor, he spent time in jail for a 14Yo neice and in front Me and some friends who did NOT see what he did, his litte girl kept on hitting his crotch, like a game of tag, he said to his 4 yo girl, "We don't play that game here".
I saw it, almost killed him! I called the police, they didn't believe me as the other guys didn't want to get involved (there was a qp of pot there).
I havn't seen him sence. He took off unaccosted, the cops told me to stay away from him.
I think of his kid all the time, is she safe? Has she been molested? I herd 4 years ago he went away again.
Due to the circumstances - it, sadly, was probably what it appeared to be.
what if it wasn't? what if the game was one where he taught her to hit men there if she was in danger?
That would get his attention but for the undenialable fact that he had sopent time in Prison for screwing his Neice forcably, it wouldn't have botthered me.
Years ago I was kind of violent, I have changed. I could have gotten into a he said he said war with no way to win but, What would you have done?
No, the kid was laughing and having fun, evidently it was a game.
Children being abused has been something that came up in my 4th grade year.
I had a girlfriend (ya, a kiddie in love) and she told me the things her Mom made her do to her boyfriend, she committed sewicide in the early 90s and her Brother died of an overdose. Those adults, if they are still alive are directly responcible for their deaths.
sAs a kid, I didn't know enough to tell my Mom, I had nothing to go on, no starting point.
I have a friend that was raped when she was 14. i met her and she was a mess. No. preditors are the types pf people that need to be monitored for ever, even if they turned a new page in their lives, trust but with verification.
Quote from: DigitalWarrior on October 30, 2008, 12:07 PM NHFT
By the way, it is important to recognize that the girl is another victim of the war on some drugs, resulting in her continued sexual abuse.
good point Digital!