In Reply to: Re: Clarification on "hate speech" law posted by juni on September 24, 2003 at 04:51:39:
Juni,
But by saying that pedophilia is disgusting, you are making a judgment. Don't you see that? Aare you saying that it's okay to judge pedophilia as "disgusting" as log as it's illegal?
What if it became perfectly legal? Would you then take the position that it is not disgusting?
You have also falsely assumed that homosexuality is legal. That may be the case in Australia, but it is not true everywhere. Even the U.S. still has around a dozen or so states with anti-sodomy laws. They are rarely enforced, nevertheless, they still exist. The recent Texas V. Lawrence case that the U.S. Supreme court ruled on overthrew the Texas anti-sodomy law based upon "the constitutional right to privacy."
Constitutional scholars (among others) are in a tizzy over the far-reaching rammifications of this ruling. If the right to privacy can be used to permit sodomy in the privacy of your home, them ____ (use your imagination to fill in the blank) can be permitted by this ruling.
It's just a matter of time before a convicted pedophile uses Texas V. Lawrence in a defense against charges of pedophilia. What's next? Bestiality? "Hey man, it was consentual, and we did it in the privacy of my home..."
Like the saying goes...the devil is in the details. Activitist judges and brainless politicians often enact laws or make rulings which have far-reaching implications they never bothered to consider.