Post a response:
|
That's what you claimed on your Reddit post, which I found due to Brian Ribbon's article about being a harmless pedophile. Which you put on r/Epstein. Which is a subreddit dedicated to discussion about the genuinely abusive sex trafficking operation run by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Your anti-free speech campaign has fuck all to do with that. It is an off-topic post and should be removed. I don't condone that sex trafficking operation. Epstein was a rapist. I too have a passion for helping the most vulnerable. That's why I advocate for youth liberation. Including youth sexual liberation. Kids, pedophiles, youth sexual liberationists, and child sex offenders are among the most vulnerable, and need help. The abolition of adultist laws, like the age of sexual consent and child porn laws, would greatly benefit kids. Those laws don't really help kids. What they do is try to help them against their will. Which is the definition of paternalism, and means they actually harm kids. Like a lot of paternalistic laws, part of the harm is making it hard for victims to speak out. Consider the case of a kid who makes their own porn, and then has it distributed without their consent. They cannot report it, as that would require them to confess to the crime of making CP. I use the term "pedophile" as I have indicated here. For the demographic other pedophile advocates tend to call "MAPs". I believe that embracing this term reduces stigma, by making it harder for antis to say we're sugarcoating pedophiles or anything like that. You antis keep lying about why many of us say "MAP" rather than "pedophile". Including you, Patrick. It's not just about "pedophile" being stigmatised, but also because its proper meaning in psychiatry is someone primarily or exculsively attracted to significatly-younger prepubescents. I suppose that while antis are happy to use "pedophile" for all MAPs and even for child sex offenders and youth sexual liberationists, that pedophile advocates tend to be linguistically-prescriptivist and limit it to prepubephiles. By the way, I've also seen people be prescriptivist and limit it to child sex offenders. I personally am prescriptivist and limit it to MAPs. As for youth sexual liberationists, do you know why free speech exists? Because it is essential for human rights, democracy, and the betterment of society. If you truly support free speech, you cannot exempt youth sexual liberationists from it. Free speech means that you need to tolerate people expressing any view, no matter how unsavoury it is, unless there's genuinely a good reason to censor it, like privacy violation or incitement. You can't expand "incitement" to include expressing youth sexual liberationist perspectives. That would make it harder to deal with actual incitement, and by that same logic, anyone expressing a view that anything that's currently illegal should be legal would be guilty of incitement. This includes people who want to legalise marijuana, abortion, conversion therapy, or loosen/abolish intellectual property laws, for example. It should be common sense how undemocratic that is. What I find disturbing is that many people seem to assume that expressing youth sexual liberationist views is already illegal. It isn't. It could be soon if our society gets more dystopian, though. And onto child sex offenders, I know that some are genuinely abusive. They need to be held accountable for their crimes. But the criminal legal system as it currently operates is fucked up. Even if someone has done something really bad, they still have human rights. They need to be treated humanely and with rehabilitation in mind. Sex offender registries must be abolished and the privacy of criminals must be upheld. But a lot of child sex offenders haven't really done anything all that bad. They've had a consensual sexual relationship with a kid, or looked at child porn, or produced/distributed child porn that didn't violate anyone's privacy, etc. I found some inaccuracies in your article. I already mentioned your misrepresentation of the reason for the term "MAP" above. There's also the fact that you called Free Spirits a "pedophile network". This is a term for child sex trafficking rings, so it's not appropriate for an advoacy group. And the fact that you somehow think "AMSC" is supposed to replace "CSAM". AMSC does not require that the sexual contact be filmed. "CSAM" is a sexually-adultist term to replace "CP", reframing consensual and even fictional CP as abuse. "AMSC" actually replaces "CSA", removing the sexually-adultist framing of consensual sexual contact as abuse. And Brian Ribbon actually suggested "CIM" (criminalised images of minors) for child porn, which you should have seen as you posted a link to his article about his interview with the darknet child porn site admin. [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst] |