Yes the king, his wife and their children all can work together to pass the laws! Freedom! Checks and balances! First of all there are only two main political parties, and they agree on 90% of the issues, and they make damn sure that no other political party has a snowballs chance in hell of gaining any significant power at all, and they also all collude with the police. You are damn naive as hell if you think that there are really checks and balances. You totally buy into the idealistic image that is presented to you rather than looking through the lies and seeing the fucking reality of the matter. First of all the various branches select who is part of the other branches to some extent, the Supreme court judges (who are insanely powerful) are nominated by the president and then confirmed by the senate. The president is whoever the electoral college selects from either the Democrat or Republican party. It is a fucking oligarchy and only a fool would think otherwise. No one entity has control over law making, but two parties have 100% complete control between them, and it is also theoretically possible for a single party to obtain complete control as well. Look, I am not going to turn this into a victims of the war on CP thread because we have already had enough of those. So I will keep my response to this concise. The constitution of the United States of America promises freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The Supreme Court said that child pornography is not protected speech, because: 1. The government has a very compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children. Viewing child pornography is not sexually exploiting children. I imagine that the government also has a very compelling interest in preventing the violent exploitation of adults, but the Supreme Court has never said that it is illegal to view videos of people being murdered. For that matter, the government has a compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of adults, but there are no specific laws against rape pornography featuring those over the age of 18, rather they must first be classified as obscenity (obscenity laws are another violation of the right to free speech). Let's see what the Webster dictionary, the authority on English words, has to say about the word exploiting: A. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. It is a bit of a stretch to say that viewing child pornography is making use of children selfishly or unethically. Making use of their images perhaps, but the people making use of the children are the pornographers themselves. The matter of ethics is entirely subjective, but the argument that every time a picture of CP is viewed it causes the depicted child to be molested all over again, is purely rubbish. There is nothing unethical about viewing an image of anything, and I would love to know why it is unethical to view a self taken picture of a 17 year old girl flashing her mirror but it is ethical to view a picture of the genocide of millions of people. Doesn't the government have a compelling interest in preventing the genocidal exploitation of the masses? B. To advertise; promote. Advertising and promoting are actually entirely different from viewing. If I view a major motion picture it does not mean that I am advertising it or promiting it. 2. Distribution of visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. The images serve as a permanent reminder of the abuse, and it is necessary for government to regulate the channels of distributing such images if it is to be able to eliminate the production of child pornography. Distribution is different from viewing, and in fact even distribution of visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity is not intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. For example, it is illegal to view a self taken image of a 17 year old flashing her camera phone. In some cases the images are not even documenting abuse by any stretch of the imagination, also images of the holocaust serve as a permanent reminder of mass genocide but any sane person would agree that it is unconstitutional for the government to ban such images. Additionally, it is very clear that it is not necessary to attack distributors or viewers of child pornography in order to prevent child sexual abuse, and various leading experts on the subject have stated quite clearly that there is no evidence for the market model of child pornography leading to abuse, the groups involved in production and possession are very distinct with little overlap, and indeed having channels through which child pornography is made available has led to LOWER levels of child molestation in EVERY STUDIED COUNTRY WHERE CP POSSESSION IS LEGAL. 3. Advertising and selling child pornography provides an economic motive for producing child pornography. Sure, and advertising and selling child pornography have absolutely nothing to do with viewing child pornography. It should be illegal to fund the molestation of children, it should be illegal to instruct others to molest children, but it is *clearly* unconstitutional to restrict a persons ability to view child pornography. Just nobody gives a fuck because they are so against it. So even when we have CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL COMMANDMENTS protecting peoples right to view child pornography, the Supreme Court can just interpret the constitution away as they see fit. It is actually a PERFECT example of the government being in total control and the people having their constitutional rights blatantly violated. 4. Visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity have negligible artistic value. This is entirely subjective and not even true. Visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity can very well have significant artistic value. In many cases it will not have artistic value IN MY OPINION, but it is entirely possible for it to. In fact, I believe there are several images of nude underage children that have been declared as legal by the courts and not child pornography due to the fact that they were recognized as having artistic value. In non CP related cases of obscenity it is up to a randomly selected Jury to determine if a given image or video is obscene (although obscenity laws are also clearly unconstitutional). 5. Thus, holding that child pornography is outside the protection of the First Amendment is consistent with the Court's prior decisions limiting the banning of materials deemed "obscene" as the Court had previously defined it. For this reason, child pornography need not be legally obscene before being outlawed. So because according to the Supreme Court all CP is inherently obscene, it does not need to be found as obscene by a jury, unlike all other obscenity. Something tells me you will be hard pressed to find a jury that thinks pictures of teenagers flashing their mirrors are particularly obscene, but the Supreme Court decided that in cases of CP it doesn't matter what the jury thinks because they have determined that all nude or sexualized images of anyone under the age of 18 are inherently obscene (oh but feel free to fuck the shit out of 16 and 17 year olds if you live in over half of the USA, just don't take pictures of it because that is definitely obscene and abuse and omfg). Hell maybe I should campaign to eliminate or alter the existing unconstitutional freedom restricting uneducated ill founded CP laws. the war on drugs is a tragedy but the war on people who view CP is even worse as they are given life long sentences and labels and it is just as completely fucking baseless and propagandized as the war on drugs is. Campaigning to end the war on drugs or the war on CP viewers is borderline a waste of time for all of the reasons I already stated, not to mention the largest groups of people who would support me are BANNED FROM VOTING. You are essentially saying that I should rally for changes in laws that if people break they are BANNED FROM VOTING. Do you get that? People with felony drug charges CANNOT VOTE IN THE MAJORITY OF THE USA, SOMETIMES FOR LIFE. You say that we are free to campaign and get the laws changed, sorry as soon as we are drug felons we cannot do shit to directly influence politics. I am not espousing extremism I am espousing the simple fucking facts of the matter. We are enslaved, we are oppressed, the government is totalitarian and totalitarian governments lead to situations where Nazis exterminate the fucking Jews. Fine, if not corrupt then criminal. There are still criminals in a libertarian society. The difference is that they have actually caused harm to somebody. Nice stawman, no libertarians say that anybody should have absolute freedom to do whatever it is they want to do. Libertarians only say that people should have absolute freedom to do whatever it is they want to do provided they initiate no *DIRECT* force against others in doing so. LOL in a free market libertarian society there is not likely to be something like the Dollar. The things used as currency will likely be backed by gold or mathematically ensured scarcity such as Bitcoin. These things would already be major competition to the dollar if not for the fact that the US government demands its protection money be paid to it in dollars, and makes life difficult as fuck for anybody who has any financial instrument that it cannot easily control. Really? If I am caught smoking a blunt I could very well go to jail for several months, during which time I will not be free to go about my life, which to me seems to pretty clearly indicate that I will be fucking enslaved. I will be told what to eat, when to wake up and what to do all day. Additionally, I will need to pay fines and pay to attend all kinds of classes that I don't want to go to (propaganda classes...or should I say "forced awareness and advertising classes"), which means I will be robbed and kidnapped and enslaved if I am caught smoking a blunt. This is oppressive and it is not a stretch to compare my oppressors in this scenario to Nazis, sure they are not quite on the same level of monstrosity but they are just a skip and a hop away. In the case of CP viewers the government is much closer to Nazi as CP viewers are often sentenced to prison where they are tortured, raped and sometimes killed. 1. You cannot undo the mental damage caused to somebody by locking them up in a small cell with hardened criminals for months or years, and that you think this can be undone just shows your complete fucking naivety 2. Who wants to undo the killing of the Nazi soldiers? I sure as hell don't. Good god dude you are so fucking naive that it literally hurts me. What is to stop the current police agencies from collusion? Do you think that the FBI, DEA, IRS, ICE and all of the local police forces are not already cooperating with each other and colluding? We already have to pay fucking protection money to the strongest, most armed force, it is called taxation by the United States government. But oh when THEY do it then it is not paying protection money to the strongest force, but if we live in a libertarian world then it totally is! God your inconsistency is truly pitiful and shows that you are completely unprincipled. But of course you can just make shit up to paint a picture however you like it, so that you can always be right, just like the Supreme Court did when they said viewing CP is not protected by the constitution. There is indeed systematic slaughter of drug users by the proponents of the war on drugs. Every time somebody overdoses on PMA mislabeled as MDMA it is a death attributable to the lack of regulation caused by the prohibition of drugs, and therefor it is equal to chemical warfare against drug users. Every time somebody gets infected with HIV because of outlawed needle exchanges, it is biological warfare against drug users. Not to mention the drug users and innocent bystanders who are raided by the paramilitary drug enforcement troops and shot to death with bullets. We are captured and sent to die in prisons, we are under chemical and biological attack and we are stormed by soldiers and shot at on a regular basis. They don't call it the WAR on drugs for no reason. But because we are so largely pacifists it is not a WAR on drugs rather it is a MASSACRE OF DRUG USERS AND INNOCENTS. TENS OF THOUSANDS OF US ARE BEING KILLED EVERY YEAR, IT IS FUCKING MASS EXECUTIONS, BY PROXY AND DIRECTLY. AND YOU WANT US TO WRITE LETTERS TO OUR ATTACKERS ASKING THEM TO STOP! IT IS FUCKING INSANITY! YOU are the one who doesn't seem to grasp that violence breeds violence! THEY ARE USING VIOLENCE AGAINST US AND YOU ARE SAYING WE SHOULD NOT USE VIOLENCE AGAINST THEM!