A little bit chilling?
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
Very good: You've now acknowledged the legitimate concern regarding the distribution of child pornography, and having done so engaged the issue of whether the current actions are relevent to efforts to address that real crime ("real" crime being one with a victim). Before the court of public opinion you are now in position to be effective in your defense of liberty in general, and your oppositon the current action in particular.Colleen Thomas said:
Adrenaline
Beauty and Beauty
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Posts
- 4,956
Roxanne Appleby said:
Hahahaha. Colleen wasn't even one of the posters using the BJ-lovin' line, and instead knocked down the nonsensical argument you made to support a legitimate point. So basically your posts were as ineffectual as the others. (Was that your point?)
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
puzzled
I must say I'm puzzled by the exchange of Coleen and Roxanne, esp. knowing they are both bright and articulate.
Roxanne seems not to like C's first formulation, and finds Colly's second to be more 'effective' in reaching 'public opinion.'
C's first posting said that adequate laws are on the books, and her second said
CT//[[Government has]]more than sufficient tools at it's disposal to fight child porn within the bounds of the law //
The first posting complains of violation of rights, the second says,
CT: //f they cannot fight crime while working within the bounds of our sytem of rights, then we have a lot more to worry about than a few sickos.//
Overally Roxanne says,
RA [[Colleen proposes]] a simplistic view of the motivations behind these prosecutorial actions blind you to the genuine issue of child pornography, which is what gives power to these activities.
-----
I do see a point about addressing your audience (public opinion)and its concerns. However, this a porn writers' forum. So Colly is, in a sense preaching to the choir. HAD she been given an assigment to address a Christian, pro-decency women's group, like CWFA, perhaps she would take a different tack, even quote the Bible.
In reflecting on this matter, I can only speculate that perhaps RA is more concerned about the alleged fight against child porn than is Colly; Colly seems to thinks guys buying such porn is a less worrisome thing, than say, the thugs who've taken away our 'safe streets.'
While RA has every right to her concerns, there is one point she overlooks: That making "war on child porn", like 'war on drugs' may not be the way to go at all. Sometimes 'attacking' a problem, jailing those involved, etc., creates worse evils. IIRC almost all child porn is produced outside the states. Hence the 'war', the 'crusade' merely inflates the market price, since the demand is rather inelastic.
Roxanne ,as a fan of 'free trade,' must know the effects of briefly curtailing immediate supply, while demand remains the same: it draws sellers into the field, because of the prospect of higher profits.
But I think we all agree that important rights are being curtailed in the Patriot Act, and in internet and other 'morals' legislation. Only a few blind jingoists believe this is helping the alleged 'war on terror,' and that that is the motive.
Peace to all sides
-----
The exchange included the following:
Colly: Child porn is illegal. The laws in place making it illegal have not ever been successfully challenged. I'm not even sure they have been challenged on anything but procedural grounds for a long long while.
This law did not strengthen existing laws, nor add tools to fight them.
Blanket search warrants are outlawed by the constitution. this is an attempt to get a second review of a law that allows government to issue blanket warrants, covering the internet activities of thousands of people.
With a very few exceptions, most people agree Child porn is evil. But in this case, it's a smokescreen to make palatable a law that is designed to circumvent individual rights to privacy.
RA Yes, Colleen, but if in a political side one side says, "You're doing this because you hate yourselves for loving blowjobs," and the other side says, "The seized servers contained records of 40,000 Americans who purchased child pornography from just one company," guess who wins?
My point is about strategy and tactics and "fighting smart," not about principles. I mean, given that this discussion is taking place on a porn site we pretty much know where we all stand on those.
Colly: Your example presupposes you will catch anyone using child porn by seizing google's records. It further presupposes that violating the privacy rights of the millions who use google is a sacrifice worth making in the pursuit of your 40,000 sickos. It further, presupposes that the records of that 40,000 cannot be seized legally, via warrant issued by a judge, where the government shows probable cause. It further presupposes knowing what private citizens are googling for gives you some insight into them.
I won't give any of those presuppositions credence.
If it were allowed, the only effect I can see is inspiring fear in computer users. Fear that their privacy rights will be trampled. Fear that they could get caught by mistake. A general fear, not unlike prevalent in a police state.
No thank you. The government has more than sufficient tools at it's disposal to fight child porn within the bounds of the law. I see no need to give them sweeping, extra leagal powers to do so. Frankly,
RA Very good: You've now acknowledged the legitimate concern regarding the distribution of child pornography, and having done so engaged the issue of whether the current actions are relevent to efforts to address that real crime ("real" crime being one with a victim). Before the court of public opinion you are now in position to be effective in your defense of liberty in general, and your oppositon the current action in particular.
I must say I'm puzzled by the exchange of Coleen and Roxanne, esp. knowing they are both bright and articulate.
Roxanne seems not to like C's first formulation, and finds Colly's second to be more 'effective' in reaching 'public opinion.'
C's first posting said that adequate laws are on the books, and her second said
CT//[[Government has]]more than sufficient tools at it's disposal to fight child porn within the bounds of the law //
The first posting complains of violation of rights, the second says,
CT: //f they cannot fight crime while working within the bounds of our sytem of rights, then we have a lot more to worry about than a few sickos.//
Overally Roxanne says,
RA [[Colleen proposes]] a simplistic view of the motivations behind these prosecutorial actions blind you to the genuine issue of child pornography, which is what gives power to these activities.
-----
I do see a point about addressing your audience (public opinion)and its concerns. However, this a porn writers' forum. So Colly is, in a sense preaching to the choir. HAD she been given an assigment to address a Christian, pro-decency women's group, like CWFA, perhaps she would take a different tack, even quote the Bible.
In reflecting on this matter, I can only speculate that perhaps RA is more concerned about the alleged fight against child porn than is Colly; Colly seems to thinks guys buying such porn is a less worrisome thing, than say, the thugs who've taken away our 'safe streets.'
While RA has every right to her concerns, there is one point she overlooks: That making "war on child porn", like 'war on drugs' may not be the way to go at all. Sometimes 'attacking' a problem, jailing those involved, etc., creates worse evils. IIRC almost all child porn is produced outside the states. Hence the 'war', the 'crusade' merely inflates the market price, since the demand is rather inelastic.
Roxanne ,as a fan of 'free trade,' must know the effects of briefly curtailing immediate supply, while demand remains the same: it draws sellers into the field, because of the prospect of higher profits.
But I think we all agree that important rights are being curtailed in the Patriot Act, and in internet and other 'morals' legislation. Only a few blind jingoists believe this is helping the alleged 'war on terror,' and that that is the motive.
Peace to all sides
-----
The exchange included the following:
Colly: Child porn is illegal. The laws in place making it illegal have not ever been successfully challenged. I'm not even sure they have been challenged on anything but procedural grounds for a long long while.
This law did not strengthen existing laws, nor add tools to fight them.
Blanket search warrants are outlawed by the constitution. this is an attempt to get a second review of a law that allows government to issue blanket warrants, covering the internet activities of thousands of people.
With a very few exceptions, most people agree Child porn is evil. But in this case, it's a smokescreen to make palatable a law that is designed to circumvent individual rights to privacy.
RA Yes, Colleen, but if in a political side one side says, "You're doing this because you hate yourselves for loving blowjobs," and the other side says, "The seized servers contained records of 40,000 Americans who purchased child pornography from just one company," guess who wins?
My point is about strategy and tactics and "fighting smart," not about principles. I mean, given that this discussion is taking place on a porn site we pretty much know where we all stand on those.
Colly: Your example presupposes you will catch anyone using child porn by seizing google's records. It further presupposes that violating the privacy rights of the millions who use google is a sacrifice worth making in the pursuit of your 40,000 sickos. It further, presupposes that the records of that 40,000 cannot be seized legally, via warrant issued by a judge, where the government shows probable cause. It further presupposes knowing what private citizens are googling for gives you some insight into them.
I won't give any of those presuppositions credence.
If it were allowed, the only effect I can see is inspiring fear in computer users. Fear that their privacy rights will be trampled. Fear that they could get caught by mistake. A general fear, not unlike prevalent in a police state.
No thank you. The government has more than sufficient tools at it's disposal to fight child porn within the bounds of the law. I see no need to give them sweeping, extra leagal powers to do so. Frankly,
RA Very good: You've now acknowledged the legitimate concern regarding the distribution of child pornography, and having done so engaged the issue of whether the current actions are relevent to efforts to address that real crime ("real" crime being one with a victim). Before the court of public opinion you are now in position to be effective in your defense of liberty in general, and your oppositon the current action in particular.
Last edited:
Similar threads
