Rumors About Linz

Rick Giles wrote:

"You've changed man. Seems like only yesterday you wanted to settle the flag burning debate with a fist fight. Has hell frozen over or what? Whoever stopped the sting by finally taking the lid off this jar of maturity....I loosened the lid for them!
What this debate needs is some over-the-top berserker on your side of the field to score own goals and bring the team into disrepute. Will I never say 'Whingefield' again?"

Rick it seems like only yesterday that you were spouting incomprehensible babble. Oh wait, it was yesterday - NZ time. I truly have no idea what you are cackling about. It could be that I have short-term memory loss or that I couldn't give a tinker's cuss or both.

As for your claiming the kudos for my mellow world-view - whatever floats your boat pal. Personally I'm flabbergasted that either you or Jim Peron would admit that I could hold a thought or perform an action that didn't originate in Linz' head first.

Post 81

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:17am

Linz,

We Randians are not the only people in the world to understand that often a decent man's "indignant decency leads him into understandable error." As Peikoff demonstrates in "The Ominous Parallels," our totalitarian enemies know it too, and use men's decency as a weapon against their minds and their freedoms. A man who permits his decency to be exploited by the enemies of freedom, in effect lets himself be used as a weapon against freedom by those enemies. "Self-imposed mental disability" was the gentlest phrase I could find for what happens when a man who should know better permits himself to be manipulated in this way.

Let us start by agreeing on something. I can think of only two evils hated by decent men with justification comparable to decent men's hatred of Communism: (1) sexual abuse of children, and (2) terrorist mass murder. With Communism fallen and defanged, those two are all that is left for the enemies of freedom to exploit in the same way that the Nazis exploited decent men's fear and hatred of Communism. Decent men today have a responsibility to discern the "Ominous Parallels" at work, and not to permit their decency - our decency - to be used as a weapon against their own lives and freedoms and ours.

Post 82

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:54am

Bill wrote:

The problem with criminalizing the advocacy of crime is that people can disagree about what should be considered a crime. Take the issue of abortion. Suppose a law were passed making partial-birth abortion illegal, and suppose that Objectivists who did not think it should be illegal were to advocate it as a right. Since it is illegal, they would be advocating criminal activity or what some consider to be the murder of an innocent child. If the advocacy of a crime were itself a crime, Objectivists would be denied freedom of speech - the freedom to express their views on this issue.

I think this can be solved by noting the difference between advocating breaking existing laws and advocating changing the existing laws. Taking the abortion example, a person could argue that the law prohibiting abortion be changed because it is not really a crime. This would not advocate criminal activity. Changing a law via voting or lobbying is not a crime. On the other hand if one were to argue that people should break the law and either have abortions or perform them, this would be advocating a crime.

The issue with Peron then is whether he merely suggested that the laws against paedophilia be changed or whether he advocated breaking the existing laws in the interim. As I understand PC his argument is that Peron�s actions fell into the latter category.

Bill wrote:

We make a distinction between mere advocacy and what is called "clear and present danger." For example, a person who supports violent crime in principle, but is not plotting a specific act of violence, is permitted to express his views. If, however, he is directly involved in the financing and/or material support of criminal activity, then he becomes an accessory to specific crimes and is no longer protected by the First Amendment.

As I understand it this is an important difference between U.S. and English Common Law positions on the limits of freedom of speech. This may explain the differences between U.S. and New Zealand objectivists. As I understand it, in the English system, free speech is limited by advocacy of a crime, clear and present danger is not necessary.

This may also explain why Jim was not arrested in the U.S. for aiding and abetting a crime and yet NZers like PC are arguing that he catered to paedophiles. If Jim advocated "man boy love" then under U.S. law this is not a crime because there is no clear and present danger and hence it is legitimate free speech. In NZ with the influence of English common law it would arguably be adovocating a crime and hence aiding and abetting.

I guess the question then is where an objectivist will draw the line on free speech. Do you need clear and present danger of intiation of force before you supress speech or is advocacy of intitation of force, the line one draws. It seems to be that Adam suggests the former and PC the latter.

Matthew Flannagan

Post 83

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:19am

This posted twice, could a moderator please delete this post.
(Edited by Matthew Flannagan on 7/15, 4:45pm)

Post 84

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:34am

Matthew,

You are factually correct about the difference between US and Commonwealth law regarding freedom of speech. This difference is not an accident; it is rooted in the fact that British law is largely a result of pragmatism and history; US law is rooted in the Enlightenment thought of the Founding Fathers, and therefore it was intended to be shaped by a principled, conceptual epistemology. The principle here is that no liberty is to be limited by law any more than is unavoidably necessary to protect other individual rights. Laws that go beyond this unavoidable limit are a violation of individual human rights, and in countries that still have such laws they ought to be changed.

Post 85

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:23pm

Bill Dwyer:

"...of all the defamations that he is guilty of, perhaps the worst is the defamation of libertarianism - associating it with the idea that children have the same rights as adults and the capacity to make the same decisions as adults. Peron is not alone in this view, by the way. It is more common among libertarians than you might think."

After checking in on my last post, I feel obligated to enter a brief response to this statement by Bill Dwyer, since it is at the very heart of this "discussion", (which, depressingly, has happened already some time ago, in great length on A2 and SOLO)...

As was pointed out to Bill before (on A2) using the word "children" in this context is next-to-meaningless, without proper qualifications.

It is most appropriate to ask (in relation to Bill's assertion), what is a child, and at what age is it reasonable to believe that the individual has a reasonable amount of control over his or her self-faculties, in order to make a reasonable judgement call with regard to sexual relationships? The history of "age of consent" laws is varied and quite interesting, and it is something that really ought to be considered when discussing such topics. What is reasonable? 10? 12? 14? 16? 18? 20? Or maybe 11? 13? 15? 17? 19?

I happen to believe that most 14 years olds, for example, are more than qualified--from a legal perspective--to make rational decisions about sexual relationships (as well as huge variety of other things and circumstances) and ought to, in general, be afforded the same rights and considerations as any 18 year old. And further, I believe that the "age of consent" ought to be lowered to around this age (in order to be a rational law).

I know many of my peers (male and female) who engaged in sexual relationships at this age, (and earlier) and are certainly none-the-worse for the experiences. This is not to say that there weren't any "difficulties", but when in life aren't there?

This entire "discussion" (if it is too be more than a smear campaign) is really an age-of-consent debate, which in all likelihood can not really be objectively settled (past a certain, foggy point), since all human beings ARE INDIVIDUALS whose rational, emotional, and sexual faculties develop at wildly different rates.

In my humble opinion, throwing about loaded terms like "children", in this context, without proper age qualifications, quickly reduces a valid discussion into emotive nonsense.

RCR

Post 86

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:52am

A self-important jackass who calls himself Scott DeSalvo wrote the following semi-literate post:

"Linz is about the last guy on Earth who who [sic] underhandedly and sneakily screw [sic] someone over. He has the fortitude and honesty to let people know when he doesn't care for them, a trait which ought to be much more common. Are the Linz-bashers SO short an [sic] material that they have to post garbage like this?"

I replied:

"I started this thread and have read all 69 messages on it (up to this one) and have seen nothing I would characterize as 'Linz-bashing.' Who exactly is guilty of such bashing? Name names or shut up."

The self-important, semi-literate jackass rejoined:

"Read the fucken [sic] message, you moron. Did I write that anyone was engaging in 'Linz-bashing' or did I write that this rumor was being leveled by Linz-bashers?

"Learn to read. Please."

I'm sure those following this thread can judge for themselves who the moron is here.

JR

Post 87

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 3:57pm

Jeff Riggenbach:

I'm sorry that I sometimes mis-spell or repeat words. I am really rather a terrible typist, especially for someone who does it so often, and for so long. FYI, "fucken" is how leprechauns spell "fucking" (per this sort of interesting novel "American Gods" I read a few months ago) and I thought it was a cute usage, so I have adopted it.

I'm too busy to spend alot of time poring over and responding to these posts, especially from real jackasses like you.

I especially like how you criticize my typing skills, and thereby COMPLETELY ignore the fact that I pantsed you on the simple fact that you were WRONG. I didn't claim that any Linz-bashing was going on in this discussion (arguable, perhaps), but rather, that "Linz-bashers" are fucken desperate to piss on him when they have to start a rumor thread like this. Ya twat.

Post 88

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:03pm

R. Christian Ross:

"I happen to believe that most 14 years olds, for example, are more than qualified--from a legal perspective--to make rational decisions about sexual relationships (as well as huge variety of other things and circumstances) and ought to, in general, be afforded the same rights and considerations as any 18 year old. And further, I believe that the "age of consent" ought to be lowered to around this age (in order to be a rational law)."

Are you COMPLETELY out of your mind? I do not mean this to be insulting, I just am agog at this.

Compare the mental capacity of a high school freshman to that of even a college student. Are you saying you think the average 14 year old is prepared to fend for themselves in the world? Listen to some 14 year olds at the shopping mall some time. This is a real mistake.

And, I don't care a whit about historical consent laws. Most historical laws on every topic are rubbish. I don't care if ancient Sumerians used to fuck 11 year olds. That doesn't make it right.

Post 89

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:43pm

I don't know, Scott, when you said, "Are the Linz-bashers SO short an material that they have to post garbage like this," I think it was a fair assumption to make that you indeed were making a "claim that. . . Linz-bashing was going on in this discussion." (Emphasis mine.)

Post 90

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:44pm

Listen to some 14 year olds at the shopping mall some time.

Listen to some 24 year old males at the shopping mall (read bar) some time. Compare and contrast.

Sarah

Post 91

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:59pm

As was pointed out to Bill before (on A2) using the word "children" in this context is next-to-meaningless, without proper qualifications.

It is most appropriate to ask (in relation to Bill's assertion), what is a child, and at what age is it reasonable to believe that the individual has a reasonable amount of control over his or her self-faculties, in order to make a reasonable judgement call with regard to sexual relationships? The history of "age of consent" laws is varied and quite interesting, and it is something that really ought to be considered when discussing such topics. What is reasonable? 10? 12? 14? 16? 18? 20? Or maybe 11? 13? 15? 17? 19?

It is not necessary to embark on an age of consent debate. Opinions would vary (mine is probably around 14-16 but includes consent and responsibility in every sphere accross the board, requires a certain type of responsibility based society to exist first and damn good parents). Reality tells us that some 14 year olds have their heads screwed on better than some 18 year olds, maturity and responsibility are different for everyone and age of consent laws are arbitrary, they have to be in the same way the definition of the moment of dawn is somewhat arbitrary.

Solid ground is probably easiest found in the extremes, we know that most pre-pubescent children are going to incapable of consent, we know that most twenty-somethings are capable of consent. We know that paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children, we are not talking 14-16 year olds, therefore the children we speak of in this context probably cannot consent, it is at least reaonable to assume they cannot.

Narrowing our focus to Jim Peron and the matters discussed, the paedophiles he catered to that were convicted were convicted of offenses on children under 12, some as young as age 6. One of these paedophiles had kept a record of some 139 children he had molested, average age 8 and he himself was HIV positive. (I may be off slightly on numbers as this is from memory but I am not far off)

Madeleine

Post 92

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:00pm

For what it's worth, the age of consent in North Carolina is 14. That doesn't tell us what it ought to be, but I find it interesting that it is currently so young. I think the law also stipulates that a minor can only have sex with another minor. I guess this arrangement aims at letting immature teens fool around while protecting them from adults. It begs enough questions to demand a full book to answer. I will leave it to the others here to write that book.

Post 93

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:01pm

Listen to some 14 year olds at the shopping mall some time.

Listen to some 24 year old males at the shopping mall (read bar) some time. Compare and contrast.

Listen to some university graduates some time...

Madeleine

Post 94

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:19pm

Adam et. al. you may find this helpful. Peronally, if the founding fathers think harbouring paedophiles is a form of freedom then the founding fathers were wrong. (I don't think the founding fathers did think this)

Madeleine

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/nambla-KRON.transcript (program aired around 1991 - NAMBLA moved from Jim Peron's store to the Librarary around August 1989. Eisenman led the raid on Jim Peron's store in 1987 and arrested Peron's friend of 16 years and employee who got 12 years jail for paedophilic acts.)

And then there's this: the "NAMBLA Bulletin", published ten times a year.
Now in here you'll find articles telling you where to meet kids, how to
avoid getting caught, how to teach children to lie to their parents.

Well, is this just talk? Are these people really dangerous? We asked
Kathy Baxter, director of the San Francisco Child Abuse Council. "It is
a group, in my opinion, of men primarily who get together to network with
one another on where to find young boys, how to pick them up, how to get
them involved, and how to feel good about what you're doing."

That opinion is shared by San Francisco police sergeant Tom Eisenman.
He asked us to hide his face so he won't be recognized by the child
molesters he investigates. "I don't believe they're harmless at all.
I believe that, because of their meetings, children get molested. And,
as long as that happens, it's a subject of attention for the San Francisco
Police Department."

...

[Wilson:] Because then they would be discussing what would be an illegal
act.

[Lyon:] Yes. One of the questions is, isn't it conspiracy for people to
get together to talk about an illegal act? Apparently not, according to
San Francisco police. If they merely talk about the illegal act, no crime
as occurred. It's not until the act was committed that conspiracy occurs.

....

This is sergeant Tom Eisenman. He asked us not to show his face so he
wouldn't be recognized by the child molesters he investigates. He says
NAMBLA is a threat. "I think, in the last five years, I've personally
done about 12 people from NAMBLA, or people that I've tied in, that were
closely involved."

These are some of those people. One of them, Jeff White, who Eisenman says
was convicted for his involvement in a child-sex ring. Eisenman says White
is a member of NAMBLA and, in fact, in this mug shot you can clearly see
a NAMBLA T-shirt. And look at this: Eisenman says it's a list White kept
of 139 victims he molested. The youngest, five years old; the average age,
nine and a half. One other thing you should know about Jeff White: these
medical records indicate he is HIV-positive.

And what about those NAMBLA members Target 4 uncovered quietly meeting
every month in the San Francisco Public Library? Well, this is a copy of
the request form they filed for the meeting room back in August of 1989.

These are pictures Target 4 obtained of NAMBLA member and spokesman Joe
Power speaking to a gathering on child abuse in the East Bay. "We're
not going to change. All the therapy in the world isn't going to change
a boy-lover to be something else."

Post 95

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:35pm

Anthony, we agree. You don't know.

Couldn't "garbage like this" mean spreading rumors? In fact, isn't that the by far more likely interpretation? Rather than "bashing Linz" which I never said anyone was doing, anyway?

Post 96

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:36pm

Sarah, seriously. Are you REALLY granting 14 year olds mental and maturity equivalence with 24 year olds?

Post 97

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:52pm

Scott,

Mental, no. Maturity... ... ... hold on, I'm thinking.

Sarah

Edit: Only talking about guys here, of course.

(Edited by Sarah House
on 7/15, 6:22pm)

Post 98

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 6:11pm

Madelaine,

My judgement is to wait until the man gets a chance to present his side of this story. From what I've heard, his abstract cognition is superior but his social cognition is subnormal, enough that he may have been manipulated into helping NAMBLA without fully understanding what they were doing. If he is getting competent advice now, he will not respond until he's had a chance to go through his archive. Human memory is fallible, and if he gets anything wrong - which is nearly unavoidable without access to his archive after two decades - he is cooked. Possibly, one reason to deny him access to his records is to keep him silent until the public gets the impression that he is guilty. If he is innocent then I hope he knows to wait, and I hope that will be is allowed to prepare his defence with access to his records.

From the snippet you posted, San Francisco police sergeant Tom Eisenman does not sound like a man who would let a suspect go if there were any evidence that the man knowingly helped child molesters. I'd like to hear him tell why he did not arrest JP before I make up my mind about Peron's case.

I liked some of the articles JP has written, but I've never met the man and hold no brief for him. However, now that a government has acted, this is about bigger things than Peron. Now there is another case here, a case that is about the rule of objective law, about due process, about the presumption of innocence. Please do not let the state manipulate your decency into sacrificing the latter to the former.
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/15, 6:22pm)

Post 99

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 6:29pm