BBC: File-sharing to bypass censorship

[Harmon Seaver]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 12:41:03PM -0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
> 
> As those who flog the Sex Abuse Agenda are well aware, 90% of successful
> propaganda is owning the vocabulary.  I am reminded of the changing of the
> term "statutory rape" to "child rape" a few years ago, which I am sure we
> will all agree is a less than accurate description of a 20 year old who
> has consensual sex with a streetwise 17 year old crack whore.

   Or even his 17 year old virgin girlfriend. I really have a hard time
understanding how we reached this point -- it wasn't even 100 years ago when
girls of 17 were considered in danger of becoming old maids if they weren't
married already. In fact, when I was growing up, the legal age for marriage in
Mississippi was 12 for girls and 14 for boys, with parents permission. Without,
it was 14 and 16. Many, many states had similar laws. And, in fact, back then at
least one state, Maryland IIRC, had a "statutory rape" age of 8. 
   So, while on the one hand, more young teens are having sex fairly openly, and
at younger and younger ages, even in preteen, some as young as 10 from what I
read in the press; the laws are becoming more and more repressive. And not just
the law, also the prosecutors -- in Racine, WI a month or so ago it was
announced that prosecutors had charged a girl and boy, both 15, with having sex
with a child -- each other. WTF is going on? 
    What else is this but religious oppression? Look, I can marry a girl (with
parents okay) on her 16th birthday here in WI, but if I just have her come live
with me, I could spend probably most of the rest of my life in prison. This is
insane -- on what basis, under what Constitutional authority, does the state get
to decide that the christer "marriage" vows are sacred and legal, and a pagan or
indig "taking to wife" isn't?


-- 
Harmon Seaver	
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!