Defending a priest

[Ishmael]

Two important points from that case:

1) The grandma got off, the law said she did nothing wrong.
2) The grandma's rights were certainly abused.

I believe this case more clearly illustrates abuse of prosecutorial power than it does the legallity of kiddie porn imagery.

I agree DCL. But the accused is requiured to go to great expense to protect themselves from these zealots. Running for re-election and being able to point to having taken a 'kiddie porn' perp. off the streets seems to be more important to some than justice. However, the falsely accused has no recourse to improper prosecution. One of the things that I fear regarding the "1984" thread. The individual has no means of retaliating against a malicious snitch.

Ishmael

 

[Guest]

Two important points from that case:

1) The grandma got off, the law said she did nothing wrong.
2) The grandma's rights were certainly abused.

I believe this case more clearly illustrates abuse of prosecutorial power than it does the legallity of kiddie porn imagery.

Agreed. You brought this up, and Redwave had never heard of such a thing. That's why I searched for it, as I recalled seeing or hearing about this case. It has nothing to do with the subject matter, was just a side issue brought up.

Moon

 

[Purple Haze]

I'm quite certain you can be physically attracted to teenagers without being a pedophile. I will not apologize for that, nor do I think what's on my hard-disk is anybody's business at all. Period.

Sending someone to jail for having the product is not productive, if anything it may only make the real sickos act on their twisted desires instead of just wanking their wee-wees and hurting no one.

Those producing the product, and violating the innocence of a child should be vigorously punished, and I'm talking death by ooga-booga. I can't think of anything more despicable than violating the trust of a child, especially those that are in established positions of authority, the very people that are supposed to protect these children.

Off with their fucking heads, and those that hide them.

 

[REDWAVE]

Moonwolf

Of course child molestation is wrong, and I'm not arguing for it here. Nor am I arguing there is a right to produce visual depictions of minors engaged in actual sexual intercourse.

However, I am saying that IMO there is a right to possess and view child pornography in the privacy of one's home. Further, there is a right to produce and distribute "softcore" child pornography (i.e., anything other than visual depictions of minors actually having sex).

 

[REDWAVE]

Thinking and doing

I think Haze went right to the heart of the matter here: there is a big difference between fantasizing about doing something, and actually doing it. And fantasizing can help keep you from actually doing it.

 

[REDWAVE]

1,000 posts

Of course, you realize my sinister ulterior motive here-- I just wanted to make it to 1,000 posts.

 

[REDWAVE]

Only one more to go . . .

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I believe there is something to the argument of supply and demand. Wishing to have kiddie porn on your computer is "demand" which creates the supply. Just having the material goes part and parcel with the commerce and creation of material that abuses children. I support the criminilization of "having" the material, and find no First Amendment conflict.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Gotta run. Redwave, I appreciate your attempt at debate and discourse without agenda.

 

[Guest]

Re: Moonwolf

However, I am saying that IMO there is a right to possess and view child pornography in the privacy of one's home. Further, there is a right to produce and distribute "softcore" child pornography (i.e., anything other than visual depictions of minors actually having sex).

I guess the point we disagree on, is I feel the consumer contributes to illegal and immoral behavior, and you don't.

Moon

 

[Guest]

Re: Thinking and doing

I think Haze went right to the heart of the matter here: there is a big difference between fantasizing about doing something, and actually doing it. And fantasizing can help keep you from actually doing it.

You have a point here, but I don't like it.

They should get therapy.

I know, FREE THERAPY FOR ALL SICKO'S!

Moon

 

[phrodeau]

Re: New York v. Ferber

For those of a legalistic turn of mind, the big Supreme Court case on child pornography is New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). That case upheld a New York law which prohibited depictions of minors engaged in simulated sexual intercourse, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or (my favorite) lewd exhibition of the genitals, as well as actual sexual intercourse.

Come on now, everybody, lewdly exhibit your genitals!

Which depictions of these activities are "softcore child pornography"? What is "softcore child pornography", besides an oxymoron?

 

[Ishmael]

I'm quite certain you can be physically attracted to teenagers without being a pedophile. I will not apologize for that, nor do I think what's on my hard-disk is anybody's business at all. Period.

Sending someone to jail for having the product is not productive, if anything it may only make the real sickos act on their twisted desires instead of just wanking their wee-wees and hurting no one.

Those producing the product, and violating the innocence of a child should be vigorously punished, and I'm talking death by ooga-booga. I can't think of anything more despicable than violating the trust of a child, especially those that are in established positions of authority, the very people that are supposed to protect these children.

Off with their fucking heads, and those that hide them.

While your argument seems logical on the face of it, the fact of the matter is that you cannot disconnect the seller from the buyer. Regardless of how you came to have these images on your hard drive ( and I don't know that you do, just following your example), someone was paid or exploited.

If you knowingly purchase a stolen vehicle, pleaing "I didn't steal it" in court is not a valid argument. Nor should it be. By buying the vehicle, you made it possible for someone to profit from an illegal activity. And receiving a stolen vehicle as a gift, if you know that it was stolen, does not immunize you either. In both cases you are complicit in the victimization of a third party.

All markets consist, of at a minimun, two entities. The producer and the consumer. Regardless of the complexity of the distribution chain, without these two, no market will exist. You cannot argue the complicity of the producer while arguing the innocence of a knowing consumer.

As to your "helps prevent" theory. It's just that. A theory. There are as many psychologists that argue the other side of the coin, namely that exposure to this material provokes the viewer to the next step, as there are those that subscribe to your point of view. I'm not going to argue either side of that. My previous facts speak for themselves.

Ishmael

 

[Purple Haze]

Child porn laws should be in place ONLY to protect children, that's why we have them. Protecting adults from themselves is a useless venture.

I don't like the idea that the government can go in and raid someone's hard drive, and put someone in jail that hasn't actually harmed anybody. It's as lame as the people that claim that I'm supporting terrorists when I smoke a joint. Pornography doesn't cause an adult to rape anyone, rape was around way before porn. It's the blame game again. The feeding frenzy has moved from tobacco users to men of the cloth. I'm expecting more people will go to jail based on what's on their computer, and not necessarily on what harm they've brought to others.

It's my theory and opinion that if any male human can't have a healthy sex life, he'll eventually seek out an unhealthy one. Not being allowed to fuck goes against nature itself, and it's never wise to fuck with Mother Nature.

 

[REDWAVE]

Ooga Booga?

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. Everyone made a serious, intelligent contribution, and there was none of the usual ranting or insults.

Obviously, this is a topic on which reasonable people reasonably can disagree. Personally, even assuming for the sake of argument that the demand for child pornogrpahy fuels the supply, I don't think that consideration is sufficient to override the constitutional rights of those who wish to view it. For me, the bottom line is they are not violating anyone else's rights by viewing child pornogrpahy. You can go after the producers of child pornography without trampling upon the rights of the consumers of it. Also, there is a whole world out there of "virtual" child pornography. Current technology allows taking innocent images of minors and altering them to make them pornogrpahic, or manufacturing kiddie porn images from scratch. That does not involve sexually exploiting any actual children.

Just one question. Haze, what is "death by ooga booga"?

 

[DannyBoyUK]

I represented a guy last year who got three months in custody for a collection of CARTOONS of kids in sexually explicit positions !

Madness or what ?

 

[Ishmael]

I represented a guy last year who got three months in custody for a collection of CARTOONS of kids in sexually explicit positions !

Madness or what ?

Makes you want to burn your copy of "Lolita" if you have one.

Ishmael

 

[Guest]

Makes you want to burn your copy of "Lolita" if you have one.

Ishmael

This is certainly a valid point.

Though I still don't agree with you Redwave, on the initial issue here, it is good that we all have had a chance to debate on this without insulting each other or anyone insulting anyone.

It's a pretty complicated issue.

BTW, congrats, REDWAVE, on the 1,000 posts.....

Moon

 

[Ishmael]

BTW DannyBoyUK. A govenment that cannot discern fact from fiction is not worthy of governing. Fortunately, ours still can.

Ishmael