How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

Well, I was thinking of the piece of the 5th amendment that says "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". I don't know what you call that clause, but there is definitely such a thing.

In my opinion, it's intended to protect against government oppression in the form of taking away things you value. But if you were to include "access to family" on that list, I'd put it about where I'd put "avoidance of bodily injury". Here: "Life, family, liberty, property".

That government institutions can so casually disrupt family bonds, either temporarily, permanently, or during a long investigation? It makes a mockery of the protection against government we are supposed to have. They can't search your car without a warrant, but keep your head down or someone might call the CPS and they might arbitrarily decide to TAKE YOU FROM YOUR PARENTS.

(And it's silly to bring up a seriously abusive case like Josef Fritzl. The right to exercise your parenting philosophy is like the right to exercise your religion. I want to defend it against busybodies. I even want to defend your ability to hurt people, up to a degree. But there's a limit; we don't tolerate sexual assault in the context of cults, and we shouldn't tolerate it in the context of parenting either.

With that said, would I want to limit the state's ability to ACT IMMEDIATELY to separate kids and parents in a seriously and clearly abusive case, in order to offer normal people the protection of due process? Yes, I think I would make that tradeoff. Abuse is rare, and the kid who's lived with the problem for years can manage another six hours while you get your expedited, emergency warrant.)

>While verses in Proverbs arguably align with the sentiment,

Your wording here suggests that the argument for the sentiment is a weak one. I don't think that is born out. All verses in Proverbs with "rod" in them in NIV.

# Proverbs 10:13 Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks judgment.

# Proverbs 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.

# Proverbs 14:3 A fool's talk brings a rod to his back, but the lips of the wise protect them.

# Proverbs 22:8 He who sows wickedness reaps trouble, and the rod of his fury will be destroyed.

# Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.

# Proverbs 23:13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.

# Proverbs 23:14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

# Proverbs 26:3 A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!

# Proverbs 29:15 The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.

>Agreed; this didn't seem to be what you were saying before. But now I see you were less suggesting they were sex offenders but that they should face the consequences too & this would limit their desire for prosecutions.

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear enough. If it came out a bit ambiguous that's because it is for me. I suspect that in most cases none of the people involved are abusers but I maintain that there is something wrong with some of them (especially the officials seeking convictions where a normal person would realize the material in question is innocent).

>But if the clerk is acting in good faith

This a case where I'm ambiguous on. On the one hand the Clerk was probably just trying to stay out of trouble so it was it was the fault of the Cop for not dropping it or other officials who continued to peruse it further.

On the other hand "just doing my job" is no excuse. Further I would punish blind "job doers" much more aggressively than anyone else. They are the enablers of atrocities. No one would have ever heard of everyone's favorite Godwin subject were it not for (literally) armies of "just doing my job"s. Imagine what would have happened in Iraq if the US enlisted soldiers had simply refused to go there. Most any (if not all) atrocity one could name were enabled by people who more often than not didn't like what they were doing but ultimately did as they were told.

>I'd pick neither. end of.

Then your statement doesn't apply to what I said. I said that if I had to (e.g. gun is pointed at me, etc.) pick one of those two I would pick the Clerk.

>because two people hugging is not associated with anything sexual or inappropriate.

Nor were the photos in question.

>I was trying to highlight the idea that you might see something that others found sexually enticing but that simply concerned you - in such a case you are not a sexually excited by the event, just concerned.

I get what you were trying to do but I still maintain that if a person sees something normal and is disturbed by it then they have a disconnect. Something has to highlight this clearly for them so they realize they have the issue and can fix it. We should not cater to such eccentricity as this causes it to get even more extreme.

>What should have happened (assuming the clerk is still concerned enough in this perfect situation to have called the police) is the police man should have called the parents, chatted informally to assure himself that it was as he suspected and then left it at that.

That would have been a better result to be sure.