US Law and Child Pornography

[lavender]

 

[Guest]

 

[lavender]

 

[Guest]

 

[Laurel]

I think it's a rather ambiguous standard for the Supreme Court to try and utilize.

I agree.

 

[Guest]

Child pornagraphy laws can go to far. People hear about a pedophile, so they get scared, so some new tough laws are passed, so more people get arrested, so more people hear about them, demand action, so new tougher laws are passed, and so on. It comes closest to thought crime in America.

 

[Guest]

 

[Starfish]

I would be really pissed off if I couldn't post my innocent pictures of myself as a kid, to show my friends here, just because someone could possibly look at them in a sexual way.


Anything can be sexualized.


I have gotten hot thinking about rubbing the bottom of my lighter on my clit. I am a bic-o-phile, but I can't seem to think that they should stop making lighters accessable, just so I don't think about one in a sexi way.


Don't worry yayati, you can trust me that I won't molest your lighter if you let me use it. I have only thought about it with my lighter. I know it is still wrong, but I am trying to resist and I will.

It is just so cute, and purple. Tempting.

 

[Guest]

It is absolutely right that people should be killed if they are caught sexually abusing children.

With the slight problems that

1) Killing them prevents you from figuring out why they are a pedophile in the first place and of figuring out a way to prevent further abuse from occuring and

2) In many cases the line of what is abuse and what isn't becomes thin.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[ChesterChicLuvr]

Hi Lavender. I agree. Child pornos are disgusting.

Do you ever Yahoo?

I like your flowers. You smell so sweet.

 

[Guest]

 

[LukkyKnight]

discuss my leaving lit. for good

 

[Lancecastor]

Isn't all the discrimination against diddlers and the aggressive double standardization of laws relating to pedos simply due to the social contract not being able to accept pedophilia as sexual orientation?

Homosexuals used to be beaten, killed and were considered disgusting sick warped criminals. Now they marry and are church ministers, politicians, lawyers...all out in the open and largely accepted.

Do you forsee a day when Pedophiles will live in common law marriage with their child partners?

Or will they likely continue to be given special treatment by society, law enforcement, justice and penal systems as revulsive slime?

If pedophilia is indeed simply sexual preference....what would you have the legal system do in response, Lav?

http://www.cpa.ca/Psynopsis/globe.html

 

[ma_guy]

Do you realize that with respect to First Amendment protected speech, that the definition of child pornography can include children in regular clothing playing on a school field?

Child pornography is the only type of speech/expression where you look to what a person viewing the material is thinking rather than looking at the material itself.

Do you think it's fair for justices on courts to attempt to get in the minds of a pedophile or the mind of someone who looks at a picture of a fully clothed child and is aroused, in order to determine if something is pornographic?

I think it's quite absurd. I think it sets a very dangerous precedent for what individuals are allowed to have in their homes.

Additionally, restricing pictures of children in such a manner only further sexualizes the child. The child becomes even more forbidden, a fruit which must be had.

I think pedophilia is disgusting and wrong. I think child pornography, when it actually exploits the child in a way that is sexual is wrong.

But what exploitation occurs of the child, when a picture is shot when he and his mother, or she and her father are simply playing at the park?

Yet, such pictures may be construed as unprotected under the First Amendment depending on who the viewer is.

I think it's a rather ambiguous standard for the Supreme Court to try and utilize.

While I agree with the jist of your post here lavender IMO, you're putting the problem in the wrong place. The courts have no choice but to look for some intended purpose of the pics. While you state that you see that as absurd what alternative do you propose the courts use as their basis in decision making? Isn't it the function of the Legislature to create that standard in the laws they create?

Put yourself in the hotseat. You're the judge. The state has passed a law that prohibits child porn. A cop arrests someone for violating that law. The accused is standing in front of you in your courtroom. How do you decide if the person is guilty or innocent?

A court can only deal with people brought before it and they don't have any choice in that. They get whomever has been arrested. The problem here is that the Legislative bodies haven't created a clear standard for the courts to rule by.

 

[kotori]

I wish I knew what brought about this thread--is this a case the Court will be looking at this session? It seems absurd to imply that any image which could be used for sexual gratification was therefore sexual. This is what I'm getting from the initial post. I had better not use any of my sheep avatars anymore--you never know how might be looking at them, and I have no idea how old the sheep in the photos are.