Rhetorical Analysis On Louis Jenkins

After reading Phillip Jenkins’ article from Nerve.com, I am appalled that there are sick people in this world who actually enjoy “kiddie porn.” I have heard some horrible stories, but nothing quite like what Jenkins has mentioned in his article. Jenkins states, “if sexual fantasies, however grotesque, however unhealthy, can be made illegal, none of us are safe.” Jenkins cites specific examples such as videos of “kindergarten girls masturbating and giving blowjobs to adult men” along with many other examples to help support his thesis.

Jenkins starts his article using an analogy to emphasize society’s strong feelings between kiddie porn, Timothy McVeigh, and snuff films to get readers on his side; everyone hates McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing and many people hate snuff films. Therefore, Jenkins figures that if he uses examples of instances where people have strong opinions of McVeigh and snuff films in the beginning of his article, then he will be able to persuade readers throughout the rest of his writing to believe his examples he gives for his thesis.
The next topic Jenkins discusses is a case about a man named Dalton who was sentenced ten years in prison for writing his personal thoughts down on paper.
Dalton kept a personal journal, which he did not share with anyone else, and one day his probation officer found it in Dalton’s house. Inside his journal, Dalton described disgusting scenarios of child pornography. For example, he talked about “molesting and torturing” little children. Dalton never performed any sexual acts with children, he never used specific children’s names, and never intended for anyone else to see his personal journal. So why should he be sentenced to ten years in prison for expressing his personal
thoughts?

Jenkins then goes on to cite that in 1984, there was a federal child protection act stating that any material, such as photos of minors, can be considered child pornography. Evidently, Jenkins says that courts have become stricter with cases dealing with minors and pornography. I am glad that they are stricter so that we can help eliminate sick, sexual acts on innocent children who cannot protect themselves.

The next area that Jenkins introduces is a discussion of Lolita, which is a book written by a Russian author dealing with drugs and child pornography. Jenkins tries to compare Lolita with Dalton, but they are two different cases. Lolita was written many years ago in a foreign country, and then was introduced into America several years later. In addition, the author was not already on probation as Dalton was for child pornography. Therefore, I do not feel that this is a valid argument for Jenkins to use in his article.

In the conclusion of the article, Jenkins’ main idea is that people should have the “right to fantasize, play with ideas, even if those ideas strike most people as revolting or dangerous.” Jenkins tries to use many analogies to strengthen his arguments in his conclusion. He compares the after-effects of Columbine to argue the quote about the right to fantasize. Jenkins says because of what happened in Columbine, the board of education of the Columbine school district announced that they now have a zero tolerance policy against violence. I feel that introducing Columbine was detrimental in his article because I feel that it weakened his argument about kiddie porn. Obviously, Columbine has nothing to do with with child pornography. So why did Jenkins include Columbine in his article?

In the last two paragraphs, Jenkins tries to make the reader think about what could happen to them if they think freely. He says if Dalton can get in trouble for expressing his thoughts, so can you. Jenkins says that people should have the right to express their thoughts freely. He cites, “cracking down on private thoughts is a dangerous mistake.” According to the first amendment, we have the freedom of speech, but before we have the freedom of speech, we have the freedom of thought. Dalton was deprived of his freedom to think by being slapped with a ten-year prison sentence. Dalton did not plan to harm anyone or to proceed to follow through with his ideas of children; he just wanted to express his thoughts in his private journal.

I am extremely upset after reading this article because these are innocent children performing sexual acts for sick individuals. As long as these perverted ideas stay in these sick individual’s heads and do not turn into anything physical, I feel that it is ok. No matter how corrupt or profane these ideas are, people should have the right to freedom of speech and thought and should not be sentenced to prison. I swear, if I ever caught anybody performing such physical acts when I have kids, I will personally cut off their genitalia. These young children do not have a clue what is going on, do not know right from wrong, and do not know how to protect themselves.

Overall, I would not rate Jenkins article very high. His article was mostly opinionated, which I agree with, but I feel that he should have included more concrete facts to back up his opinions and arguments. Furthermore, Jenkins should have taken out the part about Columbine because he is comparing apples and oranges; one has nothing to do with the other. Moreover, I feel that Jenkins should have included more factual statistics to strengthen his argument.