The Supreme Court, Pornography, and the Protection of Children
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
PowerOfOne
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Posts
- 918
It only brings more questions to my mind, such as:
Should we hang someone that has the need to create such pics?
Should we hang the ones that lust after such pics?
I have an infant daughter so you know what my thoughts are.
Should we hang someone that has the need to create such pics?
Should we hang the ones that lust after such pics?
I have an infant daughter so you know what my thoughts are.
MissTaken
Biker Chick
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2001
- Posts
- 20,570
I think it would depend on how the issues are presented in terms of any supreme court action.
I do think that there should be some moderation concerning this issue and perhaps even think it should be illegal to produce any kiddie porn. However, what I think and what the laws will permit are likely to be two very different thing.
Identifying "triggers", is an important step to treatment for sex offfenders. Triggers would be patterns of behavior that "trigger" the thought process leading to the abuse. Porn and kiddie porn are oftentimes those triggers. However, would common practice with varying results actually turn the thinking of the supreme court? I think not. Successful treatment of sex offenders is rare. The arguement can be made that as the treatment has such a low rate of success, does the "trigger" theory actually have any merit?
On the other hand,. the current state of social awareness does lend itself toward courts and politicians takeing extreme steps to protect children. "Erring on the side of the child" is a common euphomism in certain arenas. If they only think they can protect children, they may be inclined to take action.
On the fence........that is where I am! It doesn't seem that the outcome can be predicted with any degree of certainty. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
I do think that there should be some moderation concerning this issue and perhaps even think it should be illegal to produce any kiddie porn. However, what I think and what the laws will permit are likely to be two very different thing.
Identifying "triggers", is an important step to treatment for sex offfenders. Triggers would be patterns of behavior that "trigger" the thought process leading to the abuse. Porn and kiddie porn are oftentimes those triggers. However, would common practice with varying results actually turn the thinking of the supreme court? I think not. Successful treatment of sex offenders is rare. The arguement can be made that as the treatment has such a low rate of success, does the "trigger" theory actually have any merit?
On the other hand,. the current state of social awareness does lend itself toward courts and politicians takeing extreme steps to protect children. "Erring on the side of the child" is a common euphomism in certain arenas. If they only think they can protect children, they may be inclined to take action.
On the fence........that is where I am! It doesn't seem that the outcome can be predicted with any degree of certainty. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
PowerOfOne
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Posts
- 918
lavender said:
I think it has everything to do with it. I would hate to see the outcome if someone were to use the Constution in order to molest her. Even a pornographic computer generated image of a young child was created to lure those who lust for the children.
The Constitution is vague, it was meant to be that way so it would live forever. Too many people hide behind the Constitution for wrongs which is not why the document was created. This case will be decided on intent and who knows what the outcome will be. But even if it is decided it is legal it does not mean that we have to stand for it. Just a thought.
freakygirl
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2001
- Posts
- 27,432
PowerOfOne said:
I think lavender meant.. as I read it.. You don't feel that way.. only because you are a mother. You would feel the same way if you weren't a parent. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Lavender)
I wouldn't feel any differently about child porn.. with or without being a mother. I think it's sick.. this is one case.. i don't agree with "to each his own".
Manu
Just A Test Title OK
- Joined
- Aug 24, 1999
- Posts
- 1,372
First Amendment Under Attack.
This is the case called "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition" which I mentioned in the Literotica newsletter.
The law does not just cover digitally created child porn, that is just the excuse for pushing it through. It covers any visual content (movies, pictures, cartoons, artwork, etc.) where any character (not actor) may be playing someone under age. First of all, the idea behind child porn laws is to protect children, this law does not protect real children in any way shape or form.
This is the law that the Justice Department has basically admitted would make the movie Titanic illegal in its current state. It would make a 50 year old woman dressed up in a school girl skirt in a porn movie illegal. It's a bullshit law and it has huge implications. Why should any illegal act (murder, rape, speeding, etc.) be allowed in any movie or art once you are start deciding that fake acts, where no one gets hurt, are illegal. This is a law that was largely written and pushed through by some of the right wing religious groups (who like to hide behind "protecting the children" when pushing their religious agenda) several years ago.
This is censorship for censorship's sake, no matter how they try to package it. There are no children being protected by this law, none. Even the religious nuts pushing this law have shown no proof that adults acting like children lead to any harm to children.
This case has already been heard by the court. Here is a link to some info about the arguments:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,47987,00.html
This is a huge step toward censoring art, music, literature, and everything else, even in cases where no one has been harmed in any way.
As far as the comment about "hiding behind the constitution" - that's exactly what it was written for - for the people to hide behind. Exactly. It is there to protect the people who choose to do things which are not popular with the government or the majority. People who are inside of the mainstream, and abiding by the full hypocritical moral codes of the often corrupt politicians who make the laws, don't need the constitution. The people who the constitution protects are those that the government would throw in jail for things that must be allowed in a free society, even if they are unpopular and offensive.
What is freedom, if not the right to offend?
This is the case called "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition" which I mentioned in the Literotica newsletter.
The law does not just cover digitally created child porn, that is just the excuse for pushing it through. It covers any visual content (movies, pictures, cartoons, artwork, etc.) where any character (not actor) may be playing someone under age. First of all, the idea behind child porn laws is to protect children, this law does not protect real children in any way shape or form.
This is the law that the Justice Department has basically admitted would make the movie Titanic illegal in its current state. It would make a 50 year old woman dressed up in a school girl skirt in a porn movie illegal. It's a bullshit law and it has huge implications. Why should any illegal act (murder, rape, speeding, etc.) be allowed in any movie or art once you are start deciding that fake acts, where no one gets hurt, are illegal. This is a law that was largely written and pushed through by some of the right wing religious groups (who like to hide behind "protecting the children" when pushing their religious agenda) several years ago.
This is censorship for censorship's sake, no matter how they try to package it. There are no children being protected by this law, none. Even the religious nuts pushing this law have shown no proof that adults acting like children lead to any harm to children.
This case has already been heard by the court. Here is a link to some info about the arguments:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,47987,00.html
This is a huge step toward censoring art, music, literature, and everything else, even in cases where no one has been harmed in any way.
As far as the comment about "hiding behind the constitution" - that's exactly what it was written for - for the people to hide behind. Exactly. It is there to protect the people who choose to do things which are not popular with the government or the majority. People who are inside of the mainstream, and abiding by the full hypocritical moral codes of the often corrupt politicians who make the laws, don't need the constitution. The people who the constitution protects are those that the government would throw in jail for things that must be allowed in a free society, even if they are unpopular and offensive.
What is freedom, if not the right to offend?
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Bleccchhh.
I can see it now. Internet banners advertising some big hairy cock being shoved down the throat of a digitally produced six-year-old.
Excuse me, I think I'm going to go throw up now.
I can see it now. Internet banners advertising some big hairy cock being shoved down the throat of a digitally produced six-year-old.
Excuse me, I think I'm going to go throw up now.
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
See, this is where we get into a spot of trouble.
Kiddie porn is bad because it exploits children.
No argument.
Digitally created Kiddie porn isn't bad because children are never actually harmed by it. Digitally created Kiddie porn is bad because of the perverts who use it will be drawn to molest children. This is the argument against it.
Hmm.
Well, let's break that argument down with a single question. Who is responsible when a person does a sexually motivated crime? The porn s/he uses or the person? If a person commits a sexually motivated crime against, let's say for the sake of argument, children, and was perusing digitally created Kiddie porn, then who is responsible for that crime? The porn or the deviant? Is the porn in any way culpable for that crime?
See, this is where we get into even grayer legal issues because if that is so, then we must look at other deviant pornography.
Let's discuss stories that are at Lit right now. Non-consent stories. Stories where people blackmail their family members into having sex with them. Stories where daughters say no but really mean yes and end up screaming in ecstacy when daddies do them. Bestiality stories. BDSM stories where not all the participants are kosher with what is going on. This place is chock full of deviant pornography. What about these stories? If a pervert has been boning up on mind-control stories at Lit then goes out and tries to hypnotize that bitch neighbor he hates and ends up raping her, does the porn he was reading have the same culpability as the digitally created kiddie porn the child molester is using? The same argument could be made to remove most of the database at Lit as it could be used to remove digitally created Kiddie porn.
The only difference between ficticious porn involving adults and fictitious porn involving children is the sheer distaste factor. The majority of human beings are disgusted and revolted and moved to violence when confronted with digitally created Kiddie porn. However if they were confronted with, let's say digitally created non-consentual scat porn they'd be grossed out, but they'd move on.
Are we opening all realms of fictitious pornography to this very law? Yes we are. If digitally created Kiddie porn is responsible for child molestation, then what about my story involving the rape of a daughter by her father? If a man chooses to get off on it and then follow through with the same act, am I responsible for it? Where is my culpability? Is my fictitious porn as equally dangerous as digitally created Kiddie porn?
This is not support for kiddie porn of any kind. I don't believe it has a place in the affairs of humankind. However, this is a gray area where people like John Ashcroft can use an in-road to hurt places like Literotica.
Kiddie porn is bad because it exploits children.
No argument.
Digitally created Kiddie porn isn't bad because children are never actually harmed by it. Digitally created Kiddie porn is bad because of the perverts who use it will be drawn to molest children. This is the argument against it.
Hmm.
Well, let's break that argument down with a single question. Who is responsible when a person does a sexually motivated crime? The porn s/he uses or the person? If a person commits a sexually motivated crime against, let's say for the sake of argument, children, and was perusing digitally created Kiddie porn, then who is responsible for that crime? The porn or the deviant? Is the porn in any way culpable for that crime?
See, this is where we get into even grayer legal issues because if that is so, then we must look at other deviant pornography.
Let's discuss stories that are at Lit right now. Non-consent stories. Stories where people blackmail their family members into having sex with them. Stories where daughters say no but really mean yes and end up screaming in ecstacy when daddies do them. Bestiality stories. BDSM stories where not all the participants are kosher with what is going on. This place is chock full of deviant pornography. What about these stories? If a pervert has been boning up on mind-control stories at Lit then goes out and tries to hypnotize that bitch neighbor he hates and ends up raping her, does the porn he was reading have the same culpability as the digitally created kiddie porn the child molester is using? The same argument could be made to remove most of the database at Lit as it could be used to remove digitally created Kiddie porn.
The only difference between ficticious porn involving adults and fictitious porn involving children is the sheer distaste factor. The majority of human beings are disgusted and revolted and moved to violence when confronted with digitally created Kiddie porn. However if they were confronted with, let's say digitally created non-consentual scat porn they'd be grossed out, but they'd move on.
Are we opening all realms of fictitious pornography to this very law? Yes we are. If digitally created Kiddie porn is responsible for child molestation, then what about my story involving the rape of a daughter by her father? If a man chooses to get off on it and then follow through with the same act, am I responsible for it? Where is my culpability? Is my fictitious porn as equally dangerous as digitally created Kiddie porn?
This is not support for kiddie porn of any kind. I don't believe it has a place in the affairs of humankind. However, this is a gray area where people like John Ashcroft can use an in-road to hurt places like Literotica.
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Not being a legal beagle my gut reaction is...
that any depiction of children, digitally produced or not, should be made illegal. It still takes a sick individual to view the images and to pander to their mentally disturbed minds would only give them some crazy form of status. Even if it's only in their own eyes.
Whilst we're on the subject, I personally feel uncomfortable seeing Japanese Anime which is a bit too close to paedophillia for my liking.
that any depiction of children, digitally produced or not, should be made illegal. It still takes a sick individual to view the images and to pander to their mentally disturbed minds would only give them some crazy form of status. Even if it's only in their own eyes.
Whilst we're on the subject, I personally feel uncomfortable seeing Japanese Anime which is a bit too close to paedophillia for my liking.
Thumper
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2000
- Posts
- 4,184
Chicken...or egg?
In my opinion...the lust exists before the porn does.
The porn doesn't spawn it.
If I see two guys doing the deed it won't cause me to like gay sex. I don't like kiddie sex so I won't watch it. Seeing it would make me sick. Not want sex with them. The people that dig it, dig it before they see it.
Porn involving actual children is evidence of a crime. Computer generated imagery is not a crime. It is spawned from thought, not actual action involving a child.
Try to control thoughts and we all become a little Clockwork Orange.
In my opinion...the lust exists before the porn does.
The porn doesn't spawn it.
If I see two guys doing the deed it won't cause me to like gay sex. I don't like kiddie sex so I won't watch it. Seeing it would make me sick. Not want sex with them. The people that dig it, dig it before they see it.
Porn involving actual children is evidence of a crime. Computer generated imagery is not a crime. It is spawned from thought, not actual action involving a child.
Try to control thoughts and we all become a little Clockwork Orange.
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
You all know where I stand, so I will just add this one thing.
A molester could take this "art" and use it as a carrot as in, "See it's okay, other kids do it."
I am vehemently against it.
Manu, quit worrying about the Right and censorship. People like Laurel are always the first to censor. I have seen that first hand when I have discussed child pornography and one self-proclaimed "famous" board member. Makes me wonder if "he" is really Paula Poundstone.
A molester could take this "art" and use it as a carrot as in, "See it's okay, other kids do it."
I am vehemently against it.
Manu, quit worrying about the Right and censorship. People like Laurel are always the first to censor. I have seen that first hand when I have discussed child pornography and one self-proclaimed "famous" board member. Makes me wonder if "he" is really Paula Poundstone.
This is a personal opinion and so may not seem all that cohesive.. I think there is a big leap between written words and pictures depicting a illegal act. To hear about the twin towers being destroyed and seeing it, well, which one hit you harder?
I am fanatical in my distaste for underage sex and it is well known. One of the biggest reasons is that rape and child sexual abuse has everything to do with power and hate and nothing to do with the erotic. I feel the same way about incest between a parent and child. There is a imbalence in this type of relationship and the parent presumes on the child regardless of how it is presented in the story. Pictures that support the ideas that this is consentual imprint on the brain more deeply then written words. Most people learn by demonstration cause it imprints in both audio and visual centers to creeate a more vivid recall.
With all due respect I feel the law should be very specific and send a clear message that rape, child sexual abuse and nonconsent is criminal and will not be tolerated even in the digitally engineered world. We are talking about people and not a small number who seem to have an ever increasing problem with discerning acceptable limits on behavior. If you doubt this for a minute think about the reaction you got the last time you cut someone off in traffic.
I do not want to be a hallway moniter but censorship is not all bad. I think any picture or story depicting sex with a child should be banned as criminal and therefore offensive to society.
I am fanatical in my distaste for underage sex and it is well known. One of the biggest reasons is that rape and child sexual abuse has everything to do with power and hate and nothing to do with the erotic. I feel the same way about incest between a parent and child. There is a imbalence in this type of relationship and the parent presumes on the child regardless of how it is presented in the story. Pictures that support the ideas that this is consentual imprint on the brain more deeply then written words. Most people learn by demonstration cause it imprints in both audio and visual centers to creeate a more vivid recall.
With all due respect I feel the law should be very specific and send a clear message that rape, child sexual abuse and nonconsent is criminal and will not be tolerated even in the digitally engineered world. We are talking about people and not a small number who seem to have an ever increasing problem with discerning acceptable limits on behavior. If you doubt this for a minute think about the reaction you got the last time you cut someone off in traffic.
I do not want to be a hallway moniter but censorship is not all bad. I think any picture or story depicting sex with a child should be banned as criminal and therefore offensive to society.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
*Lazer* said:
The problem with the COPA and it's bann on "virtual pornography" is that it would make it impossible to write or make documentaries about many historical women who were married off in their early teens, classics like Lolita and Romeo and Juliet could no longer be performed or filmed, and I can be locked up because I have a picture of myself, bare, on a bareskin rug and apicture of me and my four brothers all in the tub at the same time.
The whole law is nothing more than an attempt by the government to take the place of parental control over what their children see and do. The law itself has nothing to do with child pornography, only the test case which brought it to the attention of the Supremes.
1: The law is unconstitutional -- (regardless of what the court's verdict is.)
2: The law will do absolutely nothing to prevent children from finding and viewing pornography. It will howeve force YOU to put your credit card information onto the web in a place whare a simple allegation of wrongdoing will put it in the hands of the police -- not to mention the security risk of having it stored where hackers can easily get to it.
3: There are far more effective and less intrusive ways to protect children from "harmfull" images. Starting with holding their parents responsible for their welfare -- Forexample, Leaving a computer logged into the web with the parents passwords memorized by the browser should be defined as negligent parenting.
G
Guest
Guest
hey sorry to use this board for something personal but i need to speak to lav
hey this is jeremiah e.
i had to rebuild my puter so i nolonger have any other way to contact u. i'll have icq up again in a day or so but i've lost all of my contact info for u. please e me when u get this
much love.
hey this is jeremiah e.
i had to rebuild my puter so i nolonger have any other way to contact u. i'll have icq up again in a day or so but i've lost all of my contact info for u. please e me when u get this
much love.
Why go to the riduculous with this topic. Why can we not have a rational discussion without automatically assuming the government is going to go gonzo on us. I was not supporting this particular law I was very clear about that fact. I fail to see the leap of logic that took you from a cute snap shot of your butt at age six months to a rape of a twelve year old in Russia plastered on the net. I fail to see how prohibiting this would stop production on films about the classics. Regardlss if your particular film includes graphic sexual violence towards children why make it. I am puzzled as to why people want to see this type of film. Perhaps someone could explain the value of these web sites to me.
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
Perhaps Weird Harold is arguing that it is perfectly legal to yell SMOKE in a crowded theater. After all, it is only an implication that there may be fire...
Calamity Jane
Reverend Blue Jeans
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Posts
- 18,421
Re: Not being a legal beagle my gut reaction is...
But being a sick individual is not against the law.
I have two amazing daughters, and i have reason to despise kiddie porn and child molestation, but when the government starts poking their fingers in, i get itchy.
Besides, this would obviously only cover websites based in the US. It's not like the shit isn't avaiable worldwide.
Bottom line, I tend toward protect the children. The REAL children, not the images of children, or people pretending to be children. You cannot convince me that someone with no tendency toward molestation could watch a kid porn, or read a story about molestation and suddenly think "HEY... GREAT IDEA!"
p_p_man said:that any depiction of children, digitally produced or not, should be made illegal. It still takes a sick individual to view the images and to pander to their mentally disturbed minds would only give them some crazy form of status. Even if it's only in their own eyes.
But being a sick individual is not against the law.
I have two amazing daughters, and i have reason to despise kiddie porn and child molestation, but when the government starts poking their fingers in, i get itchy.
Besides, this would obviously only cover websites based in the US. It's not like the shit isn't avaiable worldwide.
Bottom line, I tend toward protect the children. The REAL children, not the images of children, or people pretending to be children. You cannot convince me that someone with no tendency toward molestation could watch a kid porn, or read a story about molestation and suddenly think "HEY... GREAT IDEA!"
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
The government already has it's itchy fingers in the porn business
Like the LA county case it is hearing now on the ordnances prohibiting smut shops to be located near each other.
Again I must point out, another Liberal stronghold censoring free speech.
Of course if a porn shop opened here, the tune Burnin' Down da House comes to mind...
You have to draw lines on free speech, we do it all the time. I can't yell fire in a theater (even backdraft), I can't yell "n*****," and I can't cal DCL a P********. I can't get on a plane and mention the B-word, so I think it's okay to draw the line at the exploitation of children, either real or imaginary for the protection of our societie's greatest assets.
Call me old-fashioned, call me a nut, you've called me worse, but this [newest version of child porn] is wrong on so many levels.
Like the LA county case it is hearing now on the ordnances prohibiting smut shops to be located near each other.
Again I must point out, another Liberal stronghold censoring free speech.
Of course if a porn shop opened here, the tune Burnin' Down da House comes to mind...
You have to draw lines on free speech, we do it all the time. I can't yell fire in a theater (even backdraft), I can't yell "n*****," and I can't cal DCL a P********. I can't get on a plane and mention the B-word, so I think it's okay to draw the line at the exploitation of children, either real or imaginary for the protection of our societie's greatest assets.
Call me old-fashioned, call me a nut, you've called me worse, but this [newest version of child porn] is wrong on so many levels.
asphaltangel
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2000
- Posts
- 113
I can only say that I do not agree with any harming of children in any way shape or form. But as the law states at present 12/06/2001
My parents could be arested and spend the rest of their natural lives in prison for opening a photo albumn and showing anyone even myself pictures of me naked as a child. I think when we as a country give in to the Gov. and give them the freedom to decide what is or isn't child porn will be the day we are all stripped of our freedom as parents to capture those sweet moments of our children at play.
Just my opinion I may be wrong.
AA
My parents could be arested and spend the rest of their natural lives in prison for opening a photo albumn and showing anyone even myself pictures of me naked as a child. I think when we as a country give in to the Gov. and give them the freedom to decide what is or isn't child porn will be the day we are all stripped of our freedom as parents to capture those sweet moments of our children at play.
Just my opinion I may be wrong.
AA
