Saturday, November 14, 2009

Creating criminals the righteous way

I was checking around for some good porn and as usual I started to roam my favorite sites. All of a sudden I stumbled upon a site blocked by my isp and/or the police claiming it contains kiddy porn. That site wasn’t blocked before and it didn’t take me more than seconds to encounter a couple of more sites blocked for the same reason. The censorship kind of bugs me, not because I like naked preteens but rather that someone else have decided what I can and cannot watch. Maybe those sites did contain some questionable stuff, but I doubt it.

How do they decide what is kiddy porn or not? Does it take one single picture of a girl with a shaved cunt and small breasts to render such a blockage? Someone may argue that it’s mostly self-evidentiary, and maybe it is to some degree, but to keep track of all the millions of porno sites is an impossible task so they haft to act on suspicion rather than take the time to investigate a picture or vid before issuing a filter. Consequently sites will be blocked without being guilty or getting to defend themselves.

Even I with my limited computer knowledge know how to avoid filters or look behind the curtain if needed and if one site gets blocked, two new ones pop up. So such filters or blockage are only temporally at best. In other words the whole thing is highly stupid. In a way our great leaders knows this and consequently they feel the need to be able to penetrate into everything searching for key-words, certain names and so on in feeble attempts to catch one or two casual collectors of dubious stuff.
Anyone with the slightest inkling also understands that real pedophiles avoid public domains as much as possible. They have their own little hard to get into clubs. And so the only ones getting tracked or caught are the occasional watcher or the one that happens to download something that may contain something suspect. With the emerging of the latest legislations the righteous seemingly are saying that pretty much everyone are pedophiles, and so they do have created a perfect excuse for surveillance.

In essence; the more laws, the more criminals. More laws render more people getting caught so, in the eyes of our enemies; the more a law seem to be working i.e. more getting busted - more laws automatically becomes a “good” thing. In the meanwhile the initial offenders, the rapists, can continue at the same rate as before but now actually more protected since police spend more of their time catching made-up criminals that may or may not have a couple of pictures of a naked girl that may or may not be underage. Yes, they can get hold on one or two really horrible people, but mostly the monitoring will only catch more people if they impose more laws. And since police as well as the justice system needs to show results, and since politicians need to prove how valuable their conjured up laws are it all leads to an escalating situation.

This is what most people out there don’t realize; that some child porn laws that do come with good intentions in reality leads to more resources being diverted from the real criminals to the occasional, and mostly unintentional, offender of questionable material. It also leads to even more hidden societies of shady characters that get even harder to get to. All the while new sites pop up faster than anyone can close them down so the lawmaker is always at least two steps behind.

Again, this cannot be said enough times, the monitoring will only catch more people if they impose more laws.

So the thing I want you to understand here is that a new law means we get more criminals and the government will, but only temporarily, catch more “criminals”. It takes a certain time for people to see, understand and circle around a law, but eventually it happens so the number of “criminals” getting caught goes down and that does not look good for the police. You might argue that the police would regard that as a good thing, but then you don’t understand. The number of “criminals” is still the same, but less gets caught because they have learned how to avoid the law. Consequently we need additional legislation and maybe even a new department handling certain issues. How often don’t we hear that we need more laws to protect the young, animals or whatnot?

Another example of the same phenomenon is how the police handle speeding and traffic violations. Is there anyone out there that has ever seen a regular police control in the centre of town? I haven’t, not in any country. Ever seen one by a school? A majority of all accidents happens in highly populated areas, but where do we find police control stations? Highways. If you are driving on a 3-lane highway on a beautiful summer’s day you can find a police control after a stretch of downhill.
Most people actually obey the speeding limit when driving by a school, but almost no one follow the same when going downhill on a highway on a perfect road on a summer’s day. The police know this and consequently they fill their quota fastest on a highway. Instead of going after the really insane idiots driving as crazies the police spend their time catching soccer mums going 2mph too fast.

And the number of laws in regards to traffic comes in unlimited supplies. Seatbelts while driving, you cannot talk on the phone while driving, you need lights on even during the day, you need insurance papers, driving license. Any markings need to be correct, the cargo secured in a certain way, your vehicle cannot weigh more than a certain weight, you can only have a certain amount of passengers, and God help you if the license-plate isn’t visible enough for the controllers to see. Eating liqueur-candy or having a light beer to dinner isn’t even an option because they may get you for drunk driving.

The only limit for how many and how intrusive laws can be is our own imagination or, as in the eyes of the righteous, how evil people are. And for those that rule us and for the police it is, as said, important to show result. If they imposed a law that didn’t create any criminals, it would be a useless law.

The first reason for any law is to create criminals. The second reason for any law is to show how fantastic the government and the police are. Far down the list comes protection that is the main selling-argument.

No comments:

Post a Comment