Earlier this month, the Arkansas Supreme Court sentenced thirty-five year old John McEwen to two years jail for the crime of possessing images depicting cartoon children engaged in sexual acts. McEwen’s sentencing sparked an internet protest movement, with supporters calling the sentence ‘draconian’ and demanding that it be repealed. Peter van Bruen, a civil rights lawyer and one of the founders of the movement, is here today to explain why he and many others oppose the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Good morning, Mr van Bruen.
Good morning.
The Arkansas Supreme Court and those who welcome John McEwen’s conviction maintain that they occupy the moral high ground, that they are the good guys fighting against the evil influence of vices like cartoon pornography. Yet you see it otherwise.
Essentially, it’s a witchhunt. It’s a really ugly manifestation of our Puritan legacy. We’ve inherited a hysterical and hypocritical moralism that breeds all these ‘holier-than-thou’ types. Anyone who thinks they’re morally superior because they don’t whack off to cartoon kids is just as odious as a straight guy who thinks he’s morally superior because he doesn’t stick his dick in another guy’s ass.
Think about it, not even five decades ago in this country, if a black man so much as looked at a white woman with desire, he’d be verbally – and probably physically – abused by white folks who were utterly convinced that the two races should never mix. Well, that same kind of vitriol being thrown at people like John McEwen is just as unwarranted. Viewing sexual images of fictional, non-existent cartoon kids is the new miscegenation.
So, are you saying that it’s OK to view sexual images of cartoon children, or to be aroused by them?
Now, let me make it very clear; I’m not suggesting that people accept or endorse the viewing of cartoon porn depicting children. I’m not even suggesting that they just grin and bear it, no matter how much this sort of thing offends their personal sensibilities. But what I am arguing is that it’s not right to destroy a person’s life just because their victimless sexual perversions disgust you. We’re talking about the criminalization of deviancy here. John McEwen’s name is going into the sex offenders registry along with those of actual child molesters, where it will stay for life. The impact that this will have on his life is so obscenely inappropriate to the harm he’s caused, which is none. How can this be considered justice?
But many would certainly disapprove of McEwen’s sexual deviancy, perhaps rightfully so. The general consensus is that he deserved to be punished for what many see as disgusting behaviour.
Let me use a comparison. Personally, I find binge-drinkers disgusting, and with binge-drinking there’s actually a chance of innocent people getting hurt or killed. But I wouldn’t push to criminalize binge-drinking per se, in a situation where there’re no actual victims involved, whether of a crime or an accident. Sure, book ‘em if they’re driving under the influence, because the risk of being in an accident when drink-driving has been statistically quantified through numerous studies. But the anti-cartoon kid porn campaigners have yet to produce any data as solid as that of the drink-driving studies to back up their arguments. With them, it’s all mainly emotive, moralising rhetoric.
But surely there have been convicted pedophiles found to possess both real and cartoon kid porn?
Look, I’m not saying that there’s absolutely no connection between sex crimes and cartoon porn. But as any statistician will tell you, correlation does not mean causation. There are so many other factors involved in the creation of a sex-offender, apart from having a taste for porn. There are sex-offenders who don’t even like porn!
Now, it would be hypocritical of me to confuse correlation with causation here, but statistics show that Japan, which produces most of the cartoon kid porn in circulation, has a far lower rate of sex crime compared to the US. Of course, this shouldn’t imply that Japan’s low sex crime levels are a result of abundant cartoon porn, but neither should this correlation be ignored. If the anti-cartoon porn campaigners really cared about the safety of our children, shouldn’t they be open to the possibility that access to cartoon kid porn may actually reduce sex offences, by providing potential offenders with a harmless outlet for their urges? I find it suspicious that for all their carrying on about fighting to keep children safe from sexual predators, the moralists seem more interested in proselytizing on abstract concepts like good and evil – often in a religious context – rather than looking into pragmatic solutions. It will be a test of their true motives if ever conclusive evidence shows an inverse correlation between consumption of cartoon kid porn and sexual abuse of children.
Creators of cartoon kid porn claim that the attacks directed at them and their work violate their basic right to freedom of expression. Is this a fair claim?
I think it’s not very effective to simply play the ‘freedom of expression’ card as a defense. After all, that right can be, and often is, abused. I think it’s necessary to actually provide compelling reasons why it’s unjust to persecute a segment of society that views cartoon kid porn. There needs to be a point-by-point rebuttal of the common accusations made by the moralists: that consuming cartoon kid porn leads to actual sexual abuse of children, that pedophiles start out as cartoon kid porn enthusiasts, that fans of cartoon kid porn will graduate to real kid porn, that it contributes to the decay of social mores and traditional values, and all the usual suspects. There’s not one iota of evidence that proves the sort of causality the moralists keep harping on about.
You said that consumption of cartoon kid porn is a form of victimless crime. Many people, like Arkansas judge Francis Adams who presided over the case, would disagree. Prior to handing down the jury’s verdict, Justice Adams stated that “the mere fact that the figures depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a 'person'.” Can cartoon characters be considered people?
What really astounds me, for its sheer stupidity, is Justice Adams’s suggestion that cartoon drawings of children have the same legal status as real children. This ridiculous claim obscures the fact that there are no actual victims in the so-called crime of cartoon porn viewing. I mean, c’mon, they’re drawings! By contending that cartoon kids are no different from real kids, lawmakers and judges like Francis Adams demonstrate not only a failure to differentiate between fiction and reality, but also – and this is really pernicious – a refusal to acknowledge the crucial distinction between actual child abuse and harmless deviancy. They’re actually trivialising the truly horrible crime of child sexual abuse by equating its real flesh-and-blood victims with two-dimensional, paint-and-ink children who don’t even exist!
I imagine that your spirited defense of cartoon kid porn possession would cause much outrage.
This issue, for all its prurient aspects, is at heart about the attack on fundamental civil liberties by moralists who couch such complicated matters in strictly black-and-white terms. They don’t care whether actual victims are involved or not, or if any kind of exploitation has actually taken place. If such-and-such behaviour doesn’t match their values, they’ll persecute it, simple as that. Let me remind them that every case brought against people like John McEwen means one more opportunity to waste time, funds and manpower that could have gone towards catching and prosecuting bona fide sex offenders. Now that’s the real outrage.
Peter van Bruen, thank you for your time.
Thank you.
28.11.09
No comments:
Post a Comment