A whole new can of worms....

[Skibum]

I would like to hear some feedback on an event that has recently occured.

Today the Vermont Legislature passed law making Vermont the 49th state to make possesion of child pornography illegal. I have always be a reader of porn, but I have no problems with this law.

Here is the problem. I was in a grocery store today, and happened to glance at a magazine rack. The first thing that caught my eye was a copy of a magazine targeted for teenage girls (I think it was Teen Magazine, but not sure). The most prominant headline on the cover was touting this summer's new swim suits. The headline read "Bare It!"

I find this dichotomy very ironic. On the same day we make possession of erotic material depicting minors in sexual situations illegal, the media is telling underage girls to show more. Does anyone else have similar (or different) ideas on the subject?

I am of two minds myself. I abhore censurship, but at the same time I agree that we must prevent the exploitation of children.

[This message has been edited by skibum (edited 04-14-2000).]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Interesting point. Of course, women can better tell you what it's like to see images every day in mags, on TV, in films, and on billboards extolling youth and superficial beauty, and what that does to their psyche. Teen girls are all the more impressionable.

I think we've just about done away with the "teenager", and are well on the way to creating "mini-adults", just like the life size versions, except with half the maturity.
Kids have sex, run Inernet companies, and rule what goes on the air and on the screen. They have power and desired sexuality. They have their own versions of porn in teen mags, MTV Real World-type programming and Wrestling. It must be very exciting, and very dispiriting to be a teen these days.

 

[Lasher]

It's interesting that you say we've almost done away with the teenager, DCL, because the teenager is entirely a creation of the 20th Century and the extension of the leisure class to the masses. I had a professor in college who was writing her dissertation (she was working on a doctorate in History at the time) on this very subject, so I had just far more exposure to the subject than I ever deserved...

Anyways, specifically within the United States, you didn't have this third age grouping until the states started passing laws making education mandatory to the age of 17. Don't forget that for most of human history you would have children, then some form of a rite of passage, and then adulthood.

From my perspective, and from personal experience, that lack of maturity you see among teenagers comes from a combination of freedom and a lack of responsibility. You see the same types of behaviour from adults placed in the same situation, such as trust fund babies, celebrities and athletes.

It makes you wonder if perhaps the teenager was an aberration and that maybe society is correcting itself now.

Now, back to the topic. I have no problem with laws against possession of child pornography...although I'm guessing I will probably be distressed by the ways such laws are enforced. I have no problem with the production of child pornography being illegal. That is a non-consentual sexual situation and cannot be condoned.

Now, if you really want to be disturbed by something, read the following article from April's editon of "Yahoo Internet Life". This is what I was talking about when saying I was probably going to end up being distressed by the way such laws are enforced.
http://www.zdnet.com/yil/stories/features/0,9539,2470837,00.html



[This message has been edited by Lasher99 (edited 04-14-2000).]

 

[Skibum]

Lasher, I like your point about how teenagers are a product of 20th century America. High school was invented as a place to keep kids busy after child labor laws were enacted around the turn of the century.

The article about Naughton raises a lot of questions about how law enforcement can go overboard. On the other hand, there was a recent incident here in which a guy from Texas flew to either Vermont or New Hampshire (I don't remember all the details) and actually entered a school in search of a girl he had been cybering with. He was discovered and asked to leave before meeting her, and no charges were made.

 

[Lasher]

Yep, if the girl is real that's something that needs to be addressed. The problem with the Naughton case is that there is no girl. At what point did it become illegal to talk dirty with a 44 yr old FBI agent? I realize that's an oversimplification of what happened, but I still find the whole thing disturbing.

 

[Skibum]

There has definately been a trend towards the relaxing of the rules of evidence dealing with entrapment. It comes down to the intent to commit a crime vs. the actual commission of the crime.

 

[Weird Harold]

Originally posted by skibum:
Today the Vermont Legislature passed law making Vermont the 49th state to make possesion of child pornography illegal. I have always be a reader of porn, but I have no problems with this law.

I don't understand the logic of legistlators. I have no problem with the intent of the law, but I do have a problem with the idea that the solution to 'too many criminals' is to create MORE criminals.

There are ample laws already on the books to protect children. As the link Lasher posted indicates, they aren't being enforced equitably.

In the length of time they corresponded, the 44 year old officer had to have slipped up often enough to raise a doubt as to her being thirteen. It is very difficult to avoid references to things a thirteen year old wouldn't normally know. Naughton is either very gullible, or not very observant if he truly believed she was thirteen.

Yet the guy who flew from Texas and went to the girl's school is not charged?

We need to use the laws we have, as they were intended. We don't need more laws that create more criminals out of innocent people.

I used to have a video starring Tracy Lords. The dislaimer at the beginning says "All models are over 18". Tracy wasn't, and If I still had that tape, I'd be a criminal despite the fact I had no way of knowing she was under age when she made it. People have been prosecuted for having one of those tapes even though they thought, and the producers claimed she was over 18.

 

[Guest]

Ski, I agree that it's "messed up" or "wrong" that a state would tighten up "kiddie porn" regulations but then let something like Seventeen Magazine expose teen girls. It's sad, but I think society in whole has given up on teenagers. They don't seem to be considered "kids" anymore. It seems once you hit high school you don't count anymore (unless a teen girl's parents don't like her b/f and he's over 18).

At any rate, let's face it... How many of you were sexually active as a teen? How many of you lost your virginity in high school? I know both of those pertain to me.