People who watch tasteless photos (youth erotica, or real child porn) in the privacy of their own home, first spend years in jail, then can be held indefinitely, the US Supreme Court confirmed. People who rob, threaten, pick fights, bully, hurt children while driving drunk, these offenders are set free after their prison term is over.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.[...]

“The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37192279

So far, so good. I wonder, though, why don’t you add dangerous violent people, who habitually commit violent robberies, habitually drive drunk and get involved in accidents, gang banger bullies who will return terrorizing others on the street. The idea is good, just why exactly worried about sex offenders  only?

The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said
there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

Here is the serious problem: People who possessed computer files, a set of 0′s and 1′s that decode into the depiction of some nude teenagers, can be detained indefinitely? Even if it were the rare and unusual case that they possessed real violent rape photos of 5 year olds, what danger do these people pose to you, me, or our kids? Did they abuse? No! did they even take the photos? No! So why all the fuzz?

So the Supreme Court legalizes locking up, indefinitely, people who in the privacy of their home look at pictures? To protect whom? I worry about being run over by a habitual drunk driver, my kids being beaten up by a gang bully or robbed by a violent drug addict in urgent need to rob 5 times a day to support his drug addiction. But why should I care about a guy who stares at child porn in the privacy of his home? No matter how gross the pictures might be! And one can go to jail for nude photos of 17 year olds.

Now some guys were convicted for sexual abuse of a minor. As this blog has pointed out, 17 year olds get convicted of this crime for having oral sex with 15 year olds. Or 22 year olds for consensual sex with 17 year olds. And we don’t worry about violent people who kill, mutilate? Or habitual prison rapists?

The guys “only” got 3-8 years. You can get such a jail term for possessing a few photos of nude 15 year-olds. Because the terms are relatively low, certainly these people did not habitually snatch 5 year olds to violently penetrate them. In such a case the law would make sense. But even then, why not hold indefinitely people who habitually bully, rob, assault, beat and knife children, adolescents, or adults?

Additional Comments

Was the Supreme Court’s real issue not federal vs state power? Yes, but …

Yes, the Supreme Court should not really take full blame for this distortion. They just upheld unjust laws passed by lawmakers. But the law they upheld was about singling out non-violent “offenders” for possesion of photos.

Is this really about indefinite detention for watching photos? Yes!

I could not believe this either. The judges talk about protecting society from violent predators. But as this blog shows language distortion in the service of the Child Porn Witch Hunt and Teenage Sexuality, it is quite possible that they think watching nude adolescent photos or innocent 16 year old sex acts is violent.

The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/17/national/main6491848.shtml

See, another top news source confirms that some were there only for possession of photos and Videos.The NY Post is more specific about one case below:

At arguments in January, Solicitor General Elena Kagan–now nominated to serve on the Court–told the court that federal prison officials found about 15,000 inmates with histories of sexual violence or child molestation, but only 105 who were determined to have a mental illness making it “reasonably likely” they would commit such offenses in the future.

One of those prisoners was Graydon Comstock, who in November 2006, six days before completing a 37-month federal sentence for possession of child pornography, was certified as sexually dangerous and denied release.

This guy watched photos and videos on his computer. As shown on this blog (Child Porn Witch Hunt) people get prosecuted for just having a single photo in some browser cache, by accident, or buying an innocent bootleg DVD at a swap meet. But let us suppose he had really vicious photos. What damage does he do to you, to me, or to our kids? NONE!

But the violent street robber and mentally deranged arsonists, that get set free after their terms, they worry me. Or the gang members who went to prison school with their fellow gang bangers and come out worse then before. They worry me, and our kids.

He and several other such prisoners sued, claiming that Congress assumed powers only states can exercise.

At the arguments in January, Kagan said the power to confine such prisoners was implicit in the government’s duty “to run a responsible criminal justice system.” The law aims “to make sure that sexually dangerous, mentally ill people don’t fall through the cracks between federal custody and the re-establishment of state control,” she said.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p[...]

Aren’t there similar Human-Stupidities, unjust witch hunts? Yes!

Yes, there are other injustices, persecution of victimless crimes, stupid needless restrictions of human freedom to pursue their life and happiness. But none as vicious as the Child Porn Witch Hunt and Teenage Sexuality persecutions.

The US Supreme Court voted six-three that medical use of marijuana was illegal in a vote last week, despite laws in 11 states that permit its use. The court ruling puts the federal government at odds with many in the scientific establishment and with public opinion.

The federal US Drug Enforcement Administration raided Ms Monson’s home and confiscated marijuana plants that she had grown for her own use. Ms Raich received marijuana free from a friend. Both are reported to have followed their doctors’ advice to use marijuana and said that they would continue to use their home grown drug. Californians voted to legalise marijuana for medical use in 1996. Perhaps 100 000 of the state’s 35 million residents are thought to use the drug legally.

Here, after decades, public opinion is turning

US newspapers including the New York Times , the Washington Post , Newsday , the Chicago Tribune , the Dallas Morning News , and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer criticised the court’s decision that medical use of marijuana should be illegal. The Washington Post said, “The government’s crusade against medical marijuana is a misguided use of anti-drug resources; that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional” (7 Jun 2004, p A20).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558405/

The changes became known as the “Golden Globes Rule,” for singer Bono’s 2003 acceptance speech at the awards show on NBC, where he uttered the phrase “really, really, f—ing brilliant.”

All quotes  from http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/28/supreme.court.indecent.speech/

This not an example of profound human stupidity. It is even understandable that some want to protect their kids from foul language.

Nevertheless, the “Golden Globe Rule” seems to be going overboard.
This is just an amusing example of exaggerated dogmatic conservativism. It must be quite expensive to have all live television programs delayed a few seconds, so that professional who dedicates his live to beeper-button-pressing can bleep out any indecent word that could possibly be spoken.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said “customs of speech” and context made the Federal Communications Commission’s position unworkable.

“As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows, it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement and is therefore indecent,” he wrote. “But that is the absurdity the FCC has embraced in its new approach to indecency.”

And Stevens wondered why the agency was going after words that he said had a “tenuous relationship” to sex and bodily functions, while at the same time prime-time commercials “frequently ask viewers whether they, too, are battling erectile dysfunction or are having trouble going to the bathroom.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made clear how she viewed the broader free speech questions the high court may be forced to confront in coming years. “There is no way to hide the long shadow the First Amendment casts over what the commission has done,” she wrote.

The Supreme Court first ventured into the broadcast speech debate in 1978, when it ruled as indecent a monologue by comedian George Carlin on society’s taboo surrounding “seven dirty words.” The bit had received some radio airplay. Stevens, 89, was the author of that opinion.