THe picture of her on the bed could be a teenager… Of course, many people’s ideas of what actual teenagers look like get confused by Hollywood’s tendency to cast twenty-somethings in their high school dramas? 
Teenager, yes. But not 13-14 except in particularly rare circumstances.
The two last points. If a man has a serious problem “proving” he didn’t own child porn while the RL actress was over 18, can you imagine how impossible it’d be for a man with fictive characters?
Although being Sankaku, they can’t just report the bad news (which is indeed bad) without trying to find some way to twist it, making stuff up, dropping details that don’t suit them and adding slams against people they don’t like. I don’t want to give them the attention needed to go through that point-by-point, but I’d plead with people to read the news story through a less ludicrous source and do not click on the link of evil.
I’d already heard about the Supreme court decision through feminist circles, who were decidedly mixed on their reactions for the obvious reasons. Indefinite detention is creepy and very much open to abuse. Certain classes of sex offender really do have an extremely high rate of recidivism and no current treatment program exists that can make any headway on them. Certain sex offenders do get away with offending over and over again. Chances of this sort of law being applied to dangerous predators who are charming, higher-class, and repeatedly assaulting targets other than children? Probably slim. Chances of this sort of law being applied to people other than kiddy-fiddlers if they do anything sufficiently unpopular with public/media panic attacks? A lot less slim.
At least in my liberal circles, would they love to see, say, several Catholic priests who are actually serial abusers locked up indefinitely? Hell yeah. Are they happy about this ruling? No.
(The ruling itself changes little in terms of holding “sexually dangerous” people because that law was already in place and the ruling wasn’t about whether that was a good law or not, but about whether or not congress had the right to pass such a law in the first place, as I understand it. Stating that congress does have such a right is potentially dangerous for a lot more than just sexual cases.)
Hey, I don’t take sankaku seriously either. In the meantime, here’s something to look at:
That Supreme Court ruling has generated a lot of political attention. Though people feel no pity for sex offenders, they are gravely concerned about the implications that: an individual is sentence, serves his time, and yet can still be incarcerated without judicial hearing.
The entire idea of it, sounds horribly wrong to people… and even some ultra conservative supporters on FOX News was decrying the ruling.
HOWEVER!!! As already pointed out, it’s nothing new… nor is it unconstitutional, because the Constitution states that:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Read that closely. Your right to request freedom from unlawful imprisonment cannot be suspended (except in rebellion or invasion).
So basically Congress makes a law that says the public safety requires it. That’s within their power to perform. Of course if making such a law is morally sound, would be another matter. Case in point: Congress has the power to make slavery legal again, since they can repeal any Amendment higher than 10.
In any case, even people who hate child offenders, are uncomfortable with this ruling… so it’s probably not the last we’ll hear of it.
EDIT
On a side note: I do find it funny how more people are suddenly fearful that the US government can lock people away for nothing. The last President was doing that left and right. This is more or less, a different angle of the same core problem.
[sarcasm]Deep down they believe they are child molesters.[/sarcasm]
But really, I think its because it has come to light that the government can keep any citizen locked away forever if they deem it so. They can also ammend the constitution itself (the only section they cannot is the bicameral congressional system which spells out specifically that it cannot be ammended. That said, I doubt they would go that far. Probably they would just legislate requiring some independent and regular review of such a status if they do anything.
it all depends on the skin colour of the people being locked away, the same apply to displaying the bodies of victims, the bodies of black victims can be displayed without consequences, the bodies of white victims won’t be shown, instead the pictures of them when they were alive and smiling will be shown.
the above is one of the things the locals in Tanzania have proven to me about the media. And now it seem to apply to the fear of being locked upped as well.
I was thinking the same thing, but thought it so obvious that it need not be said.
Hmmm… the post about that porn actress got me thinking that it might not be really safe for a youthful-looking Asian like me, to travel in parts of the US. I mean… can you imagine? Going on a date and having the poor man being arrested for “indecency with a minor”. Or if not, landing the gynecologist in trouble. :lol: “Her ID/passport said that she was 30 years old, I swear!” “We don’t care… she looks like 12 years old so you’re officially convicted upon charges of being a sex offender.”
Sorry… just being particularly evil. :twisted:
Porn actress Kitty Jung mentioned in an interview, that she and her husband get stared at when making out in public. She mentioned that cops have bothered them, but after showing ID, there’s nothing they can do. Can’t punish someone, because they look young.
Just keep your ID with you that’s all.
Given all that’s going on, that’s the new state motto of Arizona… so you won’t feel left out. 
That’s reserved for when the US starts to get its act together and get its nose out of people’s bedrooms and look for actual perpetrators of real sex crimes.
If they arrest me for bedding a loli elf, then they must also arrest Santa Claus for child labor.