Monday, February 09, 2009

New "ANTI" blog DOWN. Privacy WINS out.

Apparently, drawing attention to the questionable ANTI FLDS site http://flds.wordpress.com/ AKA "FLDS CULT" was the right thing to do. All the right people complained and it's gone.
I will not take the position that it was "Kiddie Porn" or pornographic in any way. It was, to me, a privacy issue and those behind the site apparently got told. Bravo. I do not believe some of the practices of the FLDS regarding marital ages to be IMMORAL. This is a delicate issue. For that reason I cannot regard the material as having been pornographic. It was however, RUDE. It showed no concern for the privacy of victims, for they are victims indeed. In my view though, they are victims of having their lives disrupted and what was a quite life, thrown onto the world stage.

Those that object to what the FLDS have done, and see their practice as the sexual abuse ARE guilty though, of showing Kiddie Porn. If what the FLDS did was wrong, or what they allege the FLDS did was wrong, then showing the pictures of child brides was in fact, pornography. The question now? Who was behind the site? Will there be arrests? Was what they did illegal or just against Wordpress policy?


Sphere: Related Content

23 comments:

Detective Slocks said...

I've seen the website. For those who haven't: it portrays young FLDS women, some of whom are mothers, and their children. Warren Jeffs is also in some of the pictures. Images that are already on the Smoking Gun website were also displayed.

Since these are obedient FLDS members, there's obviously no skin displayed besides the face, necks & hands. So what exactly makes it pornography?

And if it IS pornography, does that make the FLDS members child pornographers, for taking the pictures?

The Pharisee said...

Slocks,

For an opportunist, who seeks to exploit, there is no moral issue with the pictures, there is an amoral problem. They have one.

For those that believe such pictures to be pictures of a vile crime, they are pornography.

The blog authors are one of the first two groups, exploiters, or pornographers. I can say this because this deals with intent.

If I thought those pictures represented something wrong, I could never publish them without becoming part of the wrong I reviled, and thus would not do so, I would be, in my own eyes, a pornographer.

For the FLDS the pictures are exploitative and wrong for the reason that they invade the quite lives of their members. Young people who never wanted to be the subject of a "Freak Show" at a circus, are now a worldwide "Freak Show." That's damaging.

If they FLDS were to say that such pictures were pornographic from their perspective, I daresay I would advise them that such a claim might be hypocrisy. I see nothing wrong with the documented marriage practices discovered at YFZ. I do recognize that they might also though, be against the law.

No one had the right though, to do what was done, to find these things out, and publish these private family pictures.

Detective Slocks said...

Just because you want something to remain private doesn't mean it turns into pornography the moment it is released. And a picture of a crime is not automatically pornography! What a silly claim and what a strange twisting of the definition of pornography!

However 'quite' their lives are, their lives are far from private. If FLDS pictures are automatically considered pornorgaphy then there are heaps of porn here: http://www.captivefldschildren.org/

For the FLDS, the documents and pictures on the wordpress site are offensive because they disprove a carefully constructed portrayal of their society. It makes them look bad and they don't like it. Well, who would?

It may be rude but is rudeness a crime? Is free speech a crime??

If the FLDS was so concerned about the victims of these crimes, they wouldn't have allowed the crimes to exist in the first place. Conversely, if they think no crimes were committed, then there should be nothing shocking about posting the photos.

The Pharisee said...

Like I said slocks, there are two possibilities for the publishers of the site.

One, they are cynical pimps, exploiting the images.

Two, they believe they represent images of something vile and wrong. They did say it would "Shock" us.

If so, they published what they thought to be porn, so that you would know how bat it was, and porn relating to helpless children.

I think the FLDS should just resent the invasion of their lives. This is none of our business. The children are victims once the pictures are published. They question is, what kind of victim?

Detective Slocks said...

You're attributing unfounded motives to the creators of the website and all your "options" are just negative assumptions.

I believe the site creators want the truth to be made public, to counter the FLDS's propaganda machine. It certainly seems to have worked, judging from the response on all the pro-FLDS sites.

If the children in the photos are victims of anything, they were victimized long before the photos were published.

The Pharisee said...

Slocks,

For someone to put that site up, they have to be cynical exploitative pimps, or pornographers at heart.

Suggest to me a third mindset. Your claim that they wish to counter FLDS propaganda means that they think what is in the pictures, is wrong. That means they are willing to publish what amounts to pictures of rapes in progress. That makes them pornographers of the worst sort.

ztgstmv said...

The only problem I have with the photos is the kissing. I think that's the one that any family would want to remain private, for obvious reasons. It's an intimate photo, not be passed around to neighbors much less the world.

photos of kids playing in the park -- nothing wrong with that.

Photos of a man kissing his wife on a couch, that's meant to be private. I find it disingenuous that Mr. Slocks can't tell the difference.

The Pharisee said...

I agree Z....

Detective Slocks said...

Photos of Warren Jeffs kissing young girls are already widely available online. Please explain how more photos of Jeffs kissing the same girls is somehow pornography, or even private.

I've already explained the third mindset: the website creators put out the evidence because they want the truth to be readily available.

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

The Pharisee said...

Slocks,

It's either a sex crime, or it's not. If it's not, then I rest my case and the photos are merely an invasion of privacy.

If it is a sex crime, this is pornography of the most violent, sick and disgusting nature.

There is simply no middle ground. Publishing the first category is rude, publishing the second, sick, twisted and criminal

ztgstmv said...

Oh they are, are they, Slocks? There were two photos in a strained wedding pose so far that the world has seen through newspapers that blocked the faces.

This latest photo is a Jeffs and a woman or girl (can't tell how old she is) reclined basically making out on a couch.

Big Difference!

If it was you and your wife, I think you'd react a little differently. Sometimes the truth is better kept private.

mhojho said...

I find it extremely disturbing that the some people just can't stand it unless they are able to see into any and everyones private lives

Silver Rose said...

I haven't seen the photos so I can't comment on them.

My question is how did this 'evidence of a crime' come to be published on the net?

If documents are being sealed and witnesses/lawyers 'gagged' to preserve the integrity of the case and protect the victims, who is vain enough, without integrity enough, to 'leak' these photographs to the 'press.'

I have more concerns about the integrity of the person leaking the information than I do about the photographs themselves. I have no desire to be a voyeur in the intimate moments of a couple's life.

It certainly sounds like the 'leaking' of these unredacted photos was an intent to poison the minds of any juries yet to be formed.

The Pharisee said...

Good question Silver.

TxBluesMan said...

First, the pictures posted were not pornographic, which is typically defined (Webster's) as 'the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement.'

Neither are they private, since they were apparently entered into the court record, along with the depositions and documents. If you recall, the depositions were not sealed due to the non-suit of TJ prior to the motions being heard.

They are of course, evidence of the alleged misconduct and crimes by the FLDS, and as such, they (the FLDS and their supporters) wanted them removed, since it contradicts the picture that they have been painting.

There is a middle ground between the two extremes Hugh, although it does not surprise me that you do not choose to see it.

The Pharisee said...

Blues,

If there is indeed middle ground, then we've all been hyperventilating about the FLDS from the get go.

For this to have been worth the concern of Texas, it has to be the virtual equivalent of pornography. Any who support the actions of Texas would have to regard it the same way.

Public record yes, but the thing is, I don't care about such depictions, I just think it's none of our business. Supposedly YOU do, that's what all of this is about. If they're no big deal, and publishing them part of keeping the record straight, then it's misdemeanor stuff. Incidentals.

The "middle ground" means there never would have been a YFZ raid in the first place. You don't go in with sniper and APC's and create a historic child custody issue over indiscretions. You do it for real crimes.

What's being done here, is the publication of what amounts to a naked rape victim, as found by the police, because it's part of the "public record." That's hypocrisy.

You cannot have it both ways blues. Either it's heinous, and should be private as a result, or it's not heinous in which case what are we all doing here?

ztgstmv said...

As Blues said and has been saying, what's been done is legal!@#

Isn't that what Blues said after Walther ordered 466 children and adults into state custody? It was legal! It was above board, done in accordance with Texas law.

Well that really says a lot, doesn't it.

In regards to this latest violation of the privacy of and willful destruction of reputations of dozens of adults and children from the ranch, both guilty and innocent, in releasing all those personal artifacts for public consumption, Walther and Malonis have a lot to answer for.

TxBluesMan said...

Y'all will be glad to know that the documents are now (as we speak) being posted on Brooke's blog...

The Pharisee said...

Now bluesy, HOW would you KNOW that?

TxBluesMan said...

LOL, easy, I watched them pop up every time that Ron posted another link...

TxBluesMan said...

BTW, you might want to look at the latest post on my blog, where I discuss some of the information in Warren's 'dictations...'

The Pharisee said...

That sounds like they're on your computer somehow.....

TxBluesMan said...

They are now...

I downloaded the ones that Ron posted links to.