Even the 13th Amendment allows for the PFR.
How does the Primary Fundamental Right deal with pornography?
The Primary Fundamental Right makes no distinction about what you can put in or take out from your own body. What you do to your body is your business only. Again; only you own your body therefore only you can decide what you can see, hear, ingest, say, write or remove from that body. Under the Primary Fundamental Right all censorship is illegal including the prohibition against racial, religious, political, scientific, gender or sexual vilification. The right to vilify is a fundamental freedom and its loss a red alert indicator of approaching Totalitarianism. Defamation redress should still exist.
Does that mean its okay to watch child porn?
No it doesn't. Child porn is the exploitation of innocents. It would be hard to believe that the children involved are willing participants unless the whole thing was computer generated and no real children were involved. What it means is that it is not illegal to look at any pictures of anything. It would still be illegal to force anyone to have unwanted sex.
So anyone can download pictures of sex with children or a snuff movie to their computer and not get arrested?
Yes that's right. Just because pictures were taken of illegal acts does not mean it should be illegal to view them unless they are computer generated and copyright protected and require payment to view. At the moment only the police and the judiciary are allowed to look at child pornography without being punished which says a lot in itself. This situation allows anyone from a wife wanting sole custody to criminal police uploading child porn on someone's computer by using a Trojan virus email. Theoretically it should then be possible for the perpetrator to get the complete co-operation of that targeted individual by using threats of imprisonment and total social destruction. Nothing today is more damning for a man than being labeled a pedophile, as Julian Green in England found out after his computer was infected by such a virus.
It appears that only zero censorship laws as advocated by the Primary Fundamental Right can stop this practice from happening. As countries become more security conscious and police powers more intrusive, greater violations of basic human rights will definitely happen more often. A good computer firewall program should help prevent these activities though supposedly some reputable firewalls have already been made with back doors to enable certain police to enter at will.
It should be recognized that the police around the world probably hold more child pornography in their possession than all the other interested groups put together. As with drugs any commodity made illegal increases in value and tends to corrupt. If the objective is to stop the sexual abuse of children then by gradually releasing these huge amounts of pictures the police could keep the market in child porn flooded for years to come. No new pictures would need to be produced to keep up with demand so in theory fewer children should be abused. This action could also legally allow the computer generated child porn pictures to compete with the real ones therein hopefully reducing the long term level of such abuse. Pedophilia has always been there and it is never going to go away but the abuse of the children probably could be minimized.
It can be strongly argued that censorship laws designed to supposedly stop the sexual abuse of children actually help promote it. Once again this can be blamed on the hypermaternals and their love of censorship and their desire to punish all non-Conformists.
The sad thing is many pedophiles are children in adult bodies or normal adults who were themselves sexually exploited as children. Some time in the future pedophilia will be seen to be what it is, a probable medical problem that could possibly be helped, not a criminal one where communal revenge is really the prime objective.
Everyone seems to overlook the fact that probably over 98% of all criminal pedophiles are men. This means that it is a male related disturbance simply because it doesn't afflict women to the same degree. Therefore it could be seen as a testosterone induced condition. It's probable that 99% of all men sometimes find some children sexually attractive to some degree but 98.99% have better control over their testosterone induced inclinations. Statistically and biologically it is impossible for all men to have full control over their testosterone just as it is in having full control over anything biological.
When some men's primary sex drive is child oriented it is probably equally impossible for them not to commit an offence should the opportunity arrive. This could be similar to telling a normal heterosexual male not to try and make contact with attractive women. To punish that non aggressive male for his natural thoughts and actions is absurd. To punish the non aggressive pedophile could therefore also be inappropriate. Everything is relative when dealing with sexual pleasure.
The reality is that they are being punished for being the men on the far side of the bell curve. Statistically someone has to occupy that position. Had they been born women then they would have had a possible 98% less chance of committing the crime of pedophilia. Theirs is a biological handicap, probably no different from being born with a club foot. But to make matters worse they are constructed to enjoy their deviance. This implies that they could also serve another function within society. Possibly they are born to be the 'bogey man' predators so that parents would be fully protective towards their children and train them early to recognize possible danger.
Common sense dictates that defenseless persons should not be left alone with any male capable of spermiation unless he is their natural father.