Sunday, February 16, 2014

Implicit content problem: another redux

To build on some analysis of the “implicit content” problem made here Nov. 6, 2011 and March 5, 2013, and in Chapter 3 of my “DADT III” book, upcoming:
  
Generally, I’ve said that the legal line is crossed only when the “perpetrator” makes an overture to a specific person he believes to be a minor (whether a real one or possible decoy).  But of course, it would be illegal in most states to post an ad for such an encounter, as on Craigslist, or simply directly ask for people to contact you.  This could be true of any illegal activity (involving drugs, weapons, etc).
  
A statement that admits one could be vulnerable to temptation should not itself cross a legal line. If for no other reason, our whole western culture (at least from the New Testament on) is heavily influenced by the Temptation of Christ story.  Actually anyone could experience temptation.  In theological terms, that is part of the reason for the need for Grace.
  
Then the issue seems to come down to what I’ve called, on my main blog, “The Privilege of Being Listened To” – being heard (and fully) before one further agrees to tale any responsibility for supporting others and providing for them – which usually supplies a purpose, like the need to sell and make money from what one has published.  Even in the context of the way COPA was litigated, that sounds particularly ironic.  



It seems noteworthy that Russia's "anti-gay propaganda law" is predicated on an "implicit content" idea:  that abstract or gratuitous speech will lure minors away from "normal" life activity (that is, into "nontraditional sexual relations" -- anything other than sex in marriage where procreation can occur) simply because "real lfie" is inherently more difficult or challenging for some people (men).  

No comments: