- Now this is a sensitive subject; nonetheless, a very common one except for when it’s about pedophilia, which is why I feel that is necessary for me to redact this piece. I am not inciting any encouragement for the breaking of laws, rather discussing why such laws are flawed and should be broken to prove how petty they are.
Over the course of history, environments and cultures have developed themselves into what they are today, meaning that things have not always been how portrayed currently. Human interactions are known to be not always peaceful, leading to many disagreements and establish and/or change many laws sometimes incorrectly thinking that such would protect a group of people. Perhaps some laws might have been relevant over social development, but as time passes, they become but null in face of more updated circumstances. Humanity has been known for breaking the accords they themselves reached at certain periods in time, just as for human rights and in cases of war, when they are pressed to do so. This brings out the questions: Are laws really that just and constantly applicable as they were before? Were such laws even considerate of the ones who they were applied over to? What if certain laws become completely unnecessary and even unethical?
When does it becomes justified then to go against a law? Simply, I would say, when such laws restricts the liberty of one or more individuals who aren’t violating other people’s rights to live however they wish. The problem with this is the perception in which some of these situations are seen, especially in our case. Automatically, many individuals will assume that children cannot consent by default, therefore, already with a common generalized confused approach to what the occurrences actually are (not to mention completely ignoring the child’s input by deeming the “victim” as confused). Age of consent has historically varied over time (Age of Consent in The West) and up-to this date the laws have shown to be nothing but a barrier against consenting adult-child relationships by considering them “immoral and illegal”. Countless of individuals are arrested merely for possessing child pornography, which are but images and videos. What harm have they done by just downloading such?
There are many examples of people breaking laws in order for the greater good. Even if I sound far-fetched, I think this is something we need to see massively in our community in order to start moving towards real changes. Allow me to clear up that I mean consensual relationships, since I am completely against actual violation of people’s individual rights. (Examples of people who broke the law) In this link, there are examples of individuals who broke the law because of merely trying to express themselves how the world was unfair of their causes. They needed to go as far as breaking laws in order to bring attention to what they were trying to say, which led to them being relevant to public eyes and bring about persons to rationalize and have second-thoughts that maybe, just maybe they weren’t right all along. Same would go for us, though the bias encompassing pedophilia is incredible, but it’s not impossible to eventually make our voices heard from our side (at least), rather than what the media chooses to portray.
We have a lot of fake media incoherently representing and generalizing us on a daily basis, as well as active censorship when it comes to our community. Even websites that say to advocate for freedom of speech end up banning us unreasonably only because we choose to express ourselves by words. So maybe we have to show them evidence, real examples of situations (which I know there are some documented, but not that known to public exactly) and break the laws nobody dare to break because of fear propaganda and threats in order to show them that things aren’t how they are always told to be? Humanity needs to know that our claims are as valid as any other group and we should be allowed to argue in favor of what we think it’s correct. Censorship would only lead to people finding other mediums in which they would express themselves directly or indirectly, regardless. So why not open ourselves to full discussion just because of meaningless fears and stereotypes?
- Again, I must highlight that I am not encouraging blind criminal activity, only criticizing the legal relevancy of such laws and how people should rather defy them than fear them.