Harmful to Minors;
304 pp.
In the book, Levine lambastes US laws concerning child pornography, statutory rape, and abortion for minors using a variety of studies and interviews with teenagers and adults alike (see Acknowledgments). Levine also analyzes abstinence-only sex education, which Levine considers counter-productive and dangerous.
The book also examines the terms "harmful to minors" and "indecency," which Levine considers to be umbrella terms for censorship, ...
;
In the book, Levine lambastes US laws concerning child pornography, statutory rape, and abortion for minors using a variety of studies and interviews with teenagers and adults alike (see Acknowledgments). Levine also analyzes abstinence-only sex education, which Levine considers counter-productive and dangerous.
The book also examines the terms "harmful to minors" and "indecency," which Levine considers to be umbrella terms for censorship, ...
Decent Exposure?,
Apr 29 2009
I’ve been peeved all month about the latest panic: “sexting.”
More and more states are bringing child-porn charges against teenagers who take racy pictures of themselves and send them electronically to lovers or pals.You might call sexting a dunderheaded act — who knows where your immortalized nipples might end up — but also a victimless “crime.”
Yet here is the amazing part: Child-porn law is based on the minor’s inability to consent to being photographed; the model is ipso facto a victim of the photographer. Sexting, in which the model is also the photographer, is a crime in which a person can be both perpetrator and victim at the same time.
U.S. sex law is like a black hole: Once reason falls in, it can never re-emerge.
Can all this get any stupider?
;
I’ve been peeved all month about the latest panic: “sexting.”
More and more states are bringing child-porn charges against teenagers who take racy pictures of themselves and send them electronically to lovers or pals.You might call sexting a dunderheaded act — who knows where your immortalized nipples might end up — but also a victimless “crime.”
Yet here is the amazing part: Child-porn law is based on the minor’s inability to consent to being photographed; the model is ipso facto a victim of the photographer. Sexting, in which the model is also the photographer, is a crime in which a person can be both perpetrator and victim at the same time.
U.S. sex law is like a black hole: Once reason falls in, it can never re-emerge.
Can all this get any stupider?
Standing Member,
Oct 25 2006
Judith Levine critisizes Foley as a hypocrite: 'protecting the children', in the meantime having intimacy with his page. She also critisize the comments on Foley, naming him 'a pedophile', as well as the laws and other measures to 'protect children' against their own sexuality: "The words child and protection lose all meaning.
;
Judith Levine critisizes Foley as a hypocrite: 'protecting the children', in the meantime having intimacy with his page. She also critisize the comments on Foley, naming him 'a pedophile', as well as the laws and other measures to 'protect children' against their own sexuality: "The words child and protection lose all meaning.
Doing Justice,
Feb 06 2008
Judith Levine tells the story of falsely convicted Baran, who has been freed after 21 years in prison.
;
Judith Levine tells the story of falsely convicted Baran, who has been freed after 21 years in prison.
Redeeming the Worst,
Jul 21 2010
What we’re watching is a morality play about the meanings of crime and punishment, a play whose antagonists have shaped the history of the American penal system.
On one side are those who seek retribution. To them, criminals, especially sex criminals, are unchangeable (or, in modern parlance, incurable), their sins indelible. The state’s duty, therefore, is not just to protect society but also to avenge the victims.
The other side believes, foremost, in rehabilitation — in moral language, redemption. To their supporters, Polanski has attained secular redemption through art; Berkowitz, divine redemption through worship.
Evidence overwhelmingly favors rehabilitation.
The rehabilitation principle dominated American criminology for much of the 20th century.
But in the law-and-order 1980s, the punishers began to win.
I spent a recent weekend with [...] people — ex-sex offenders, along with their families and allies, at the national convention of an extraordinary national movement, gathered under the umbrella of RSOL, or Reform Sex Offender Laws.
;
What we’re watching is a morality play about the meanings of crime and punishment, a play whose antagonists have shaped the history of the American penal system.
On one side are those who seek retribution. To them, criminals, especially sex criminals, are unchangeable (or, in modern parlance, incurable), their sins indelible. The state’s duty, therefore, is not just to protect society but also to avenge the victims.
The other side believes, foremost, in rehabilitation — in moral language, redemption. To their supporters, Polanski has attained secular redemption through art; Berkowitz, divine redemption through worship.
Evidence overwhelmingly favors rehabilitation.
The rehabilitation principle dominated American criminology for much of the 20th century.
But in the law-and-order 1980s, the punishers began to win.
I spent a recent weekend with [...] people — ex-sex offenders, along with their families and allies, at the national convention of an extraordinary national movement, gathered under the umbrella of RSOL, or Reform Sex Offender Laws.