Archive for the ‘Virginia’ Category

Monday Links

Monday, February 7th, 2011
  • After an anonymous tip, a female teacher in Ohio is accused of having sex with five of her male students. She “faces up to 81 years in jail if she is convicted of 16 counts of sexual battery and three offenses involving an underage person.” The sexual “battery” charge presumes that the sex was unwanted.  I’m guessing that’s probably not the case (although reality does not play a major roll when it comes to the legalities of sex with  minors).
  • Florida is going to consider banning “simulated” obscenity, whether clothed or unclothed, in material accessible to minors.  Perhaps next year they will outlaw having dirty thoughts within 1000 feet of a minor.  No more suggestive cheer leading moves or dancing in Florida.
  • to minors by adding a clause that says that “a suspected sexual predator purposely and knowingly sent obscene electronic messages to a minor”.   This is apparently a attempt to reconcile free speech rights with their desire to restrict free speech rights.
  • Biblical porn: “My lover thrust his hand through the hole, and my insides groaned because of him.”  Surprise!  The Bible is conflicted about sex!

Castrating sex offenders to save money

Thursday, January 27th, 2011

A Virginia state legislator wants the state to consider castrating sex offenders so they don’t have to spend all that money keeping them locked up indefinitely in psychiatric “hospitals” after they’ve completed their prison sentences.

From the HuffPo:

Republican Sen. Emmett Hanger’s bill would require the state to study the use of physical castration as an alternative to civil commitment for sexually violent predators.

The civil commitment program’s budget grew from $2.7 million in 2004 to $24 million this year. Gov. Bob McDonnell has proposed spending nearly $70 million over the next two years to meet the increasing demands.

According to the article, Texas and Louisiana already allow for physical castration.

It’s interesting to see government officials in a quandary over the high cost of using the gimmick of civil commitment to heap additional punishment on people who have already paid for their crimes.  There is no doubt that they would have no compunction about summarily executing sex offenders at the end of their prison term if they could only devise some fiction that could justify it.

And the public would applaud.

Thanks to Maggie McNeil for the link.

Virginia DMV sees child sex everywhere

Wednesday, January 5th, 2011

This license plate was found by Mr D. B. Smit of the Virginia DMV to be in violation of their license plate guidelines after a complaint was received from an “anonymous citizen”.

From jalopnik.com:

A man in possession of the world’s greatest license plate has lost his battle with the Virginia DMV, who ridiculously claim it encourages oral sex with kids instead of just cannibalism.

The website also includes a copy of the letter from D.B. Smit of the DMV to the holder of plates demanding that he return them.

Dear Mr D.B. Smit:

Congratulations!  You have managed to take an innocent bit of benign humor (something the world could use more of) and magically transformed it into an example of paranoid absurdity that only an idiot state bureaucrat is capable of.   When advanced alien life forms visit earth and declare that the only way to save it is to destroy it, they will probably be thinking of assholes like you.

Sex toy freedom fighter opens new store

Wednesday, November 10th, 2010

Sherri Williams, owner of two Alabama adult stores is opening a third store in a Huntsville building formerly used by a bank which gives the new store the novelty of having a drive-up window similar to neighboring fast food outlets.

Sherri Williams is known for waging a long court battle to get Alabama’s sex toy ban overturned.  The sex toy ban was introduced by State Senator Tom Butler (see the Sex Hysteria Hall of Shame), sailing through the sexually repressed state legislature with virtually no opposition.  Sherri Williams assisted by the ACLU sued to have the law overturned, taking her fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Needless to say, the law withstood the challenge.

It should be noted that Senator Bulter, who has served in the Alabama legislature since 1982, was roundly trounced by Republican Bill Holtzclaw in the 2010 elections.  Whether Holtzclaw is any better remains to be seen, but it’s a certainty that Alabama will continue to defend its reputation for being among the most sexually repressed populations in the country (and probably the world).

To be fair to other states that proudly take repression seriously, it should be pointed out that Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia also have criminal statutes targeting sex toys.

You people!

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

Before I started this site, I wanted to start a blog called youpeople.org because, folks, there are times when you just want to grab the public by the shoulders and yell, “What’s wrong with You People?

While everyone has heard the phrase, ‘sex sells’, it would be a challenge to find anyone more dedicated to that philosophy for their own personal gain than politicians.  And way out ahead of the pack you will find prosecutors.

Nothing exemplifies that approach to self fulfillment quite like the parade of state attorneys general who have hitched their wagon to the moral crusade against craigslist.  As described on Huffington Post, seventeen state attorneys general have signed a letter (PDF) demanding that craigslist remove its adult services section.

“Only Craigslist has the power to stop these ads before they are even published,” Kansas attorney general Steve Six said in a statement.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.  That’s because the First Amendment prevents the government from doing it itself.  Unfortunately, being good students of the persuasion techniques practiced by organized crime, state governments are masters at intimidation when it looks like it could gain them some votes.

The campaign against craigslist didn’t start as a grass roots movement.  It started as a crusade by a noisy minority who are adept at stirring up public emotion with visions of children being exploited.

“No amount of money, however, can justify the scourge of illegal prostitution and the suffering of the women and children who will continue to be victimized, in the market and trafficking provided by Craigslist,” the letter said.

Women who advertise on criagslist are invariably described as idiots with no will of their own to resist exploitation by evil pimps and slave masters.  They have to be victims, otherwise who would get worked up about it?  And, of course, a lot of them have to be children for the same reason.

While wearing sheets is out of fashion, there should be no mistake that these state attorneys general are using persecution of a favorite target as a means to inflame the public’s mob mentality.  They might as well be carrying torches and pitchforks.  And the public, knowing that it would be impolite to demand actual numerical evidence that rises above the level of guesses and delusional claims, mindlessly goes along with the hysteria.  Who would oppose those whose only wish is to “help women and children”?  But, the last time I heard, a willingness to be your brother’s keeper wasn’t sufficient reason to burn the Constitution.

My message to the people of these states is this:

Well, folks, your wish is coming true.  In your fervor to impose your narrow personal values on everyone else, You People have created a monster who will enthusiastically piss on free speech in order to carry out your will.  But, be warned.  The monster is pretty kinky.  He likes a threesome, so don’t be surprised to find him in your bed as a supervising partner deciding what does or doesn’t constitute acceptable behavior between you and your lover.

P.S.  I intentionally avoided mention of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley simply because if I started writing about her, this post would have turned into a book.  She is probably one of the most self-serving and parasitic of politicians, having mastered the craft of exploiting children and sex hysteria for her own personal benefit.  In a contest to be the antichrist, Coakley would be a leading contender.

Sexting: There ought to be a law.

Friday, April 9th, 2010

Sexting is the new crack.   It’s the latest epidemic that is “destroying our youth”.  If you Google it, you will be swamped with statistics that tell you one in five teens has done it.  And in virtually all states, those one in five teens could be prosecuted as criminals (probably felons).

When it comes to news about sexting laws, North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, and Virgina pop up at the top of the search results just for this weeks sexting news items.  And rare is the voice that cautions against over-reacting.

The latest trend is the rush to pass new legislation that creates a special crime of sexting just so prosecutors aren’t forced (yes, forced!) to prosecute mere children as predatory child sexual abusers.  Not content to just leave it to parents and schools to instruct children as to the dangers of sending nude photos to other kids, state legislators feel compelled to make the activity a matter for state control.  And the only tool (blunt instrument, actually) the state has to do that is to treat it as a crime.

There is no doubt that in today’s world, playing doctor would be considered a warning sign that someone is on the path to sexual  deviancy.  The first response to any sex-related activity by kids that elicits press coverage is to pass a new law.  Laws are modern civilization’s answer to the wishing well.

Pass a law= problem solved.

The kids who are sending these pictures obviously don’t share the fear and hysteria of  adults and the serious criminal ramifications don’t occur to them.   Any why would it?  How can sending a picture of yourself to someone else make you a criminal?  It defies logic, but just as the seriousness doesn’t occur to kids, the panicky over-reaction doesn’t occur to adults.

The bottom line is that kids are injured far less by the act of sexting  than they are from society’s paranoid over-reaction to simple nudity.

Viginia man convicted by a judge of indecent exposure in his own home is acquitted by a jury

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

Last October, Erick Williamson was arrested for indecent exposure in his own home when two women reported to police that they saw the man naked through his window.

According to the New York Times:

In December, a judge [Ian O'Flaherty] in Fairfax County’s General District Court convicted Williamson of misdemeanor indecent exposure, but imposed neither jail time nor a fine. Still, Williamson appealed his case to the county’s circuit court, risking a maximum punishment of a year in jail to clear his name.

I don’t know if I would have the balls to do that, but being convicted of a sex crime pretty much terminates any chance of a normal life regardless of the seriousness, so it’s certainly understandable that the guy would see even that minor blemish on his record as being an all-or-nothing proposition.

”This isn’t a case about being naked in your house. This is a case about intentional exposure,” [Prosecutor Marc Birnbaum] said.

No, Marc, this is about justice going off the tracks and the prosecutor that made it happen.  Laws against nudity are essentially a declaration that the human body is inherently offensive, a position that oozes of puritanical zealotry straight out of the Middle Ages and is totally devoid of even a hint of reason.

When Williamson stated that he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong, Judge  O’Flaherty compared him to John Dillinger who also “thought he was doing nothing wrong when he walked into banks and shot them up.”

Nice work, Prosecutor Birnbaum and Judge  O’Flaherty.   You got your name in the New York Times and established your legacy for all eternity.  You might as well have just tattooed the word “IDIOT” on your forehead.

Today Williamson was acquitted by a jury the county circuit.

”It’s really a weight off my shoulders after these last six months,” Williamson said after his acquittal. ”I think (the verdict) kind of sets the record straight. It was an innocent action.”

It’s unfortunate that the state can bring this kind of misery and financial ruin down on someone’s head, call it justice, and then walk away with impunity when the case collapses.

Thanks to theagitator.com which has been following this story from the beginning.

Is govmt coming between you and your doctor?

Monday, April 5th, 2010

The answer is yes if you live in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas or Virginia.

According to blackbookmag.com:

Manhattan’s East Side gynecologist, Dr. Scheinfeld, is the first American doctor to sell sex toys in his office.

Even aside from whether patients appreciate it, selling sex toys is illegal in the eight states listed.

I know what you were thinking when you saw the title of this post, though.  You probably thought I was going to talk about the federal ban on medical marijuana.  And, you’re absolutely right, of course.

Roanoke Times ponders the question of sexting

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

With no laws specifically targeting the practice of sexting, prosecutors in various Virginia counties view and treat sexting cases differently according to the Roanoke Times.  One thing persecutors seem to agree on is that when a private phone message includes a nude picture, it’s the government’s business.

Offenders can be charged with manufacturing or distributing child pornography and, if convicted, may be required to register as a sex offender.

Child porn laws were originally intended to protect children from being exploited in the production of pornography, but the justice system has diverged from the task of protecting children in favor of punishing fantasies (ie: thought crime).   Prosecutors now prosecute cases where no children were involved in the production of the porn by using obscenity laws.  Likewise, as prosecutors now target children for sexting under child porn laws, they have clearly lost sight of why the laws were enacted to begin with.

None of the six to eight juveniles charged in the past year has actually been convicted, Hapgood said. Most were given “strict probation.”

Interesting.  I always thought punishment required conviction.  Apparently the juvenile justice system permits handing out “strict probation” without a conviction.  Does anyone in the press ever think to question statements like that?

“You can not legislate everything,” Roanoke prosecutor Caldwell said. “Putting another law on the books is not going to make girls and boys less curious about their bodies.”

[...]

“It’s important for young people to understand, nothing prohibits a police officer and prosecutor from bringing the charge of child pornography,” he said. “They are engaged in production of child pornography in the definition of the law. But a prosecutor has to use discretion and judgment.”

Caldwell seems to be a bit more rational than most prosecutors, but his warning is chilling.  He makes clear that sexting can, at the discretion of some over-zealous prosecutor, can utterly ruin a teenager’s life.

No activity is too intimate or trivial for government to pass a law regulating it and it never occurs to them how many new criminals they are creating with the stroke of a pen.

Pastor removes art from Norfolk Public Library

Sunday, March 14th, 2010

The pastor of a Baptist church group that meets for Sunday morning services at the Norfolk Public Library, thought two paintings hanging in the library were inappropriate and promptly removed them.

Jaesun Duggan of Franklin says he was a little irked to find his oil paintings that had been in the library’s community room as part of a display by the Franklin Art Association were taken down and placed in a closet.

The artist seems to be handling it well, although he clearly isn’t going to be a flag bearer for freedom of expression anytime soon.

Duggan said he has since talked to the pastor, a town resident.

“He tried to explain to me why they were offensive,” Duggan said. “We have to respect all belief systems and people have a right to be protected from others encroaching upon them.

“He admitted they should not have touched them. They have a right to the space and group. We have a right to have our work hanging and not for them to touch it,” Duggan added. “I thought it was a little out of control. It’s up to the library to censor work, not other groups.”

No, Mr. Duggan, we don’t have to respect other belief systems, but we should keep our hands off their stuff.  Mr Duggan probably needs to have a look at the website of the National Coalition Against Censorship, paying special attention to their on-going fight with the city of Temecula, California.  At the NCAC wesbite he will find letters written to officials of Temecula, California about their role in censorship.  It is most certainly not “up to the library to censor work”.

“We took them down because some of them were kind of offensive. We felt with little children there, we thought it wasn’t appropriate,” Pastor Mark Lukens said. “We forgot to hang them up. It was just an oversight. A group was coming in after us, and we left in haste.

In any case, my question is this:  What gave Pastor Lukens the idea that he had any friggin’ right at all to touch property that was not his, regardless of whether or not he planned to put it back?   If he doesn’t like the decorating in the library, he should find someplace else to go.   He doesn’t get to sanitize it to satisfy his personal sense of morality.