Blogs
Create New Blog Entry
I don't know what you think of what she did by exposing government material on Wikileaks, but it seems to me that she's been made a scapegoat, and treated shabbily. There is a petition at this site regarding her upcoming hearing for so-called prison violations: http://shadowproof.com/2015/08/13/petition-keep-chelsea-manning-out-of-solitary/
It may be just me, but I think she's kind of cute!
OK boys and girls and everyone in between...
Since the election I have been asked several times what it is that I am so against with the results of the election? I wasn't a true Hillary supporter, why am I so upset?
I am a member of an Unprotected Minority. I am gay. Until the SCOTUS decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, I was DENIED over 2400 Rights and Responsibilities that were granted to my heterosexual friends and collegues. I was prevented, SOCIALTALLY, from Public Displays of Affection to my boyfriend (Now Husband) for FEAR of physical and psychological retribution.
I Was (and to a certain degree) prevented from Worshiping "GOD" in a manner that suited my heart because I was not "ONE WITH GOD" unless I forswore who and what I was.
Then the SCOTUS Declared that Same Sex Marriage was Legal in all 50 states, and territories and we (the GLTB ) community achieve a level of TRUE EQUALITY with everyone else. This was a watershed day for the lives of MANY MANY people.
Fast forward to today. We have governmental officials, Mike Pence, Gov. McCrory just to name two, who believe that CHRISITIANS are deserving of MORE RIGHTS than other people. They have created laws that ALLOW the INSTITUTIONALIZATION of Discrimination against ANYONE who could be percieved as being "AGAINST MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOME" or that persons definition of Religious Freedom.
We have an INCOMING VICE PRESIDENT who believes that CONVERSION THERAPY - Physical and psychological torture - is ACCEPTABLE and APPROPRIATE to CHANGE GLTB people into
"NORMAL" people, INCLUDING CHILDREN and to that end DIVERTED Much needed funding from HIV TREATMENT and PREVENTION.
Let me make this clear right here and now. I am a Pacifist and will NOT take up arms against ANY ENEMY, but WITHIN MY MORALITY, I will do whatever it takes to make certain, alone and with my fellow GLTB brothers and sisters, that NO Governmental Action or approach can EVER diminish the Progress GLTB people have gained LEGALLY. We WILL NO LONGER be looked down upon by those who CALL THEM SELVES CHRISTIANS but who are only looking at themselves losing a prefered status, even if it is only in their own minds.
GLTB People are FULL Citizens. We WILL CONTINUE to enjoy the SAME EXACT RIGHTS and Responsibilities as EVERY OTHER CITIZEN or that Government will feel our wrath.
Just my two cents for now.
‘Lascivious Exhibition’ Standard
Under law, for an image that does not involve a child engaged in a sex act, a court must find that it entails “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” of a minor to determine that it is child pornography. As a result, courts have ruled that images of naked children were not automatically pornographic, and thus not illegal, while also holding that the mere presence of clothing on a photographed child was not, in itself, adequate to declare the image lawful.
Instead, the courts often apply a six-pronged test, developed in a 1986 case called United States v. Dost, to determine whether an image meets the “lascivious exhibition” standard. That test — which requires a court to examine the child’s pose and attire, the suggestiveness and intent of the image and other factors — includes one standard on whether the child is naked. However, no single standard under Dost is absolute, and courts must continuously examine potentially illegal images while considering each part of the test.
The leading precedent on child pornography involving clothed minors is a federal case known as United States v. Knox, which involved a pedophile who obtained erotic videos of girls. In that 1994 case, the Federal Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of the pedophile, Stephen Knox, saying explicitly that clothing alone did not automatically mean that images of children were legal.
“The harm Congress attempted to eradicate by enacting the child pornography laws is present when a photographer unnaturally focuses on a minor child’s clothed genital area with the obvious intent to produce an image sexually arousing to pedophiles,” the court’s ruling says. “The rationale underlying the statute’s proscription applies equally to any lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area whether these areas are clad or completely exposed.”
While adult pornography has some First Amendment protections, there are no such protections for child pornography. Still, some experts have expressed discomfort, in general, at criminalizing clothed pictures of minors.
“This is a difficult area,” said Michael A. Bamberger, a First Amendment specialist at Sonnenschein Nath
