CHILDREN AND SEX, SEX AND CHILDREN


I’m not much into sensationalism, but using children as sex toys does make me want to yell very loudly and throw napalm-laced rotten tomatoes at the perpetrators (that, I hasten to add, is a metaphor, not an indication of intent to get violent).  Exploiting vulnerable people is heinous enough, but sex and children, sex and children, sex and children…it just doesn’t fit together.  Aiding and abetting is just as bad, in my view; and, as the growing firestorm over Planned Parenthood’s (PP) shenanigans shows, I am not alone in thinking that.

Well, let PP suffer from this.  It’s no one’s fault but their own.  If the organization is defunded and/or sued for aiding and abetting, I’ll not shed a tear.  All such activist organizations need to have their wings clipped periodically lest they begin to think themselves too important and above the law.  Ditto for all sex traffickers, who need to have theirs clipped permanently (uh, I do mean their wings) whenever caught.

P ursuing this worthy end may have gotten a little easier.  The Jewish World Review reports that a panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that a cel phone may be viewed as a computer for purposes of sex trafficking.  Using a computer to help transport a minor across state lines for sex can already yield the perp more prison time; and now cel phones, even the simplest of which must nowadays be viewed as pretty sophisticated computing devices, can do the same.

Writes Judge Roger L. Wollman, who takes his inspiration from no less a computer wizard than Steve jobs:

“If a device is ‘an electronic…or other high-speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic or storage functions,’ it is a computer.”

Good call (so to speak).

Which sets me to wondering what kind of telephone systems PP uses to organize confidential abortions for underage sex slaves.  Landline phones have gotten pretty sophisticated, too.  Certainly, the innocent-looking white box on my desk, with its memory, callback, messaging, call blocking and other abilities seems to fit Judge Roger L. Wolman’s definition.

I only hope that Judge Wollman’s ruling is so written that it applies to sex trafficking only, otherwise I’m sure someone will try to pervert the ruling to include other telephone transactions that are perfectly ordinary but that someone, somewhere, doesn’t approve of.

Advertisements

About Michael J. Kubat

I'm a grumpy Czech-born clinical social worker who is vitally interested in the survival in the United States as a viable democracy and a beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
This entry was posted in sex, social work and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s