In what is probably the best news report I've seen all week, Brian Dalton has had his 11-year conviction for
writing in his private diary overturned. There's no doubt that what Dalton wrote is offensive and disgusting to the average reader: it apparently contained violent sexual fantasies involving very young children. But, as the Supremes have ruled time and again:
thinking such things creates no victims and records no crime. Dalton has a right to his private thoughts.
Dalton was already on probation for a child pornography conviction when his mother turned the journal over to the authorities. His conviction rested mostly on a psychologist's assertion that the writings "would encourage him to commit the crime." While I'm quite sure I wouldn't want Dalton around my kids, I must applaud the ACLU's decision to defend any human being's most private thoughts from government intrusion.
In the absolute most
bizarre interpretation I have seen of the case, right-wing psychofreak Ann Coulter claimed that since the journal was not meant to be read by anyone but Dalton, it does not qualify as "speech" (ideas communicated between two or more people, in her assessment) and so isn't protected. Would everybody please fire her already?
The FBI apparently
interviewed a man after a woman spotted him reading
this article, entitled Weapons of Mass Stupidity, and turned him in. I'm not sure what made her suspicious, and neither is the poor man, who turned out to be a writer for the local weekly.
Brazil admits that condoms have
cut the national HIV infection rate in half. Unfortunately, it looks like the programs they have to distribute and hand out condoms will have to be reconfigured; the new Bush Administration plans call for the withdrawl of any funds that acknowledge and "assist" prostitution.
A bill working its way through Parliament in England will make it
illegal for two teenagers under the age of sixteen to kiss. The law is so vague that kissing and petting are apparently covered. The government has assured its citizens that it will not actually get involved in any underage prosecutions unless one of the two parties involves lodges a formal complaint.
Yeah, I believe that. It works so well here, too.
Yay! A defense attorney with a brain has
defended Ohio citizens' rights to purchase and enjoy pornography in the privacy of their own home under the liberty clause in
Texas v. Lawrence. It's not likely to work, at least not at first, but if
Lawrence really is a sign that the Supreme Court is interested in individual liberty and was not merely following popular liberal opinion, this case might not survive a trip to the Supremes.
It offends me greatly that "some speech" is "naturally" not protected under the First Amendment, and everyone nods their head and agrees with that statement.
Hah. I always thought so, myself: A study out shows that intense religiosity, including an unwavering acceptance of the notion that a virgin gave birth to a god, is
indistinguishable from psychotic delusion.
Here's a sad one for you. The political machine in the Ayodhya province in India has asked Muslims to "give up their fight" for the three religious sites, one of which was the motive for the riots last year that I described a few weeks ago. The head of the Hindu political party said that the "Muslims have adopted a rigid attitude, and cannot be allowed to live in society. They should not challenge the self-respect of Hindus."
Man, I can't tell you how badly it churns my stomach to watch such tribalism. It's vicious, ugly. They may as well reach into their pants and sling shit at each other. At least they'd survive the encounter.
READ: An
interview with Brad Fitzpatrick, the inventor of LiveJournal.
Hey, remember that hotel I said was so awful I was afraid to wank in the shower for fear of contributing to the next occupant's misery? You think I could sue them for interrupting my daily
prostate cancer prevention regimen?
Or was that Too Much Information?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}