Pink shoes, pink shirt, pink socks? Sure, no problem. Pink…pants? Uhhh, maybe not, especially not pink leather pants. Pink skirt? No.
I’m sorry, but no. And it’s not because I’m some homophobic bigot. We’re so scared these days to apply a “norm” to children that we’ve lost sight of the real issue: kids are not incredible decision-makers. Kids don’t know anything about anything. They’re idealists because they just graduated from crapping their pants, and have literally everything served to them on a silver platter (what, you don’t have a silver platter?!).
But it’s no longer just a war over letting boys wear pink. It’s over letting little preschool boys wear whatever they want. Here’s where parents of daughters sit back and laugh, since it’s socially acceptable for a girl to wear a dress or pants, and in any color. Le sigh, the tribulations of parenting a boy.
A Bay Area man previously convicted of possession of child pornography was let off the hook today by the Sixth District Court of Appeal. The conviction came after Joseph Gerber of Milpitas, CA photoshopped the face of his daughter onto pornographic images. All of this on top of giving his estranged daughter weed and cocaine. I am personally nominating Gerber for idiot-father of all time.
As bad as all of this was, the Sixth District Court was hamstrung and couldn’t uphold the kiddie-porn conviction because of two reasons. First, California law requires that in order to call an image “child pornography” a child must “have actually engaged in or simulated the sexual act depicted,” Gerber’s daughter wasn’t abused in this way. Idiot-father-of-all-time nominee Joe Gerber was just taking some ordinary “family pics” of his little girl.
The second reason the Court was forced to overturn the conviction was a 2002 Supreme Court decision involving “virtual child pornography” that wound up protecting the creation of kiddie-porn that is entirely computer-generated as free expression. That’s right, folks – Kiddie-porn bad; CGI Kiddie-porn…uhm…not bad? 8BD’s sketchiest legal researcher (me) has informed (also) me that a more recent Supreme Court decision in 2009 bans the distribution of this variety of kiddie-porn, but pardon me if I’m still not satisfied. There’s a big fat loop-hole in this whole plan.