In America, every person arrested for violating the law is considered innocent until proven guilty. Each person also has the right to remain silent and to have an attorney appointed to them if they cannot afford one.
But, what if your already an attorney, assuming your the kind of attorney familiar with criminal law? And, what if your breaking federal law, the same federal law that you had worked for years to resist as a defender of the accused? What if you willingly acted to thwart, or ignore, that law for your own personal interest? What if you were a former president of a chapter of the ACLU, an organization that dreams, and works, among other unsavory things, for virtually no control of pornography availability and consumption? Pornography of any kind.
I suspect a great deal of minimizing and overlooking the gross details of this case will take place. I would add shame and embarrassment, but i’m not sure that’s part of the lexicon of, just so you know, a group of lawyers founded by communists. No hyperbole here, communists.
Here’s their pornography policy:
Why does the ACLU support pornography? Why are you in favor of child porn?
The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring “bad” ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.
I’m not going to overplay the blindingly obvious here. The man was arrested after an international investigation caught him downloading the worst kind of child porn, pre-pubescent girls, some tied down, subjected to forcible, violent rape. The next step in severity is to kill the victim.
What I’m waiting for are the psychoanalysts and victimologists to invent a defense. Don’t be surprised.
“Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors”. Yes, that seems to be the problem here.
I’m not kidding.