Virtual Child Pornography

[CelestialBody]

 

[kotori]

Works for me.

 

[ginslinger]

Child exploitation is wrong...

Anyone who molested or exploited my child, would find out this is a very small planet... Sex is great, but sex with children is sick, the one thing I can think of that would promt me to buy a gun...

 

[paganangel]

pedophilia and child porn are things that drive me to illness in a way few things do. those who would take advantage of a child's naivety and mar their innocence for their own sexual gratification are among the lowest strata our society has left and indeed fall below the mark of what we define as civilization.
nevertheless, ther are no victims in the case of virtual child porn. and even the distribution of this material does not victimize a child. there are images on the internet of bart and lisa simpson having sex. while this is disgusting to me, i was not victimized by it's existence.

again we must recognize that laws must exist to protect victims from a crime which takes advantage of them or violates them, and not ourselves from offense or insult.

 

[KillerMuffin]

The unvarnished truth...

If I am to remain free to say whatever I wish without fear of government reprisal, then so must David Duke.

-- Some guy I forgot the name of in an anti-hate speech hate rally. He was booed off the stage.


I don't like what these people are doing. I would personally like to slowly torture to death anyone who enjoys sex and sexual fantasies about children. These things do not have a place in our society.

However, the fact is that in these instances no actual children are involved in the sexual events. They aren't harmed in a way they can feel outright. Their right to express those fantasies are no different than my right to express my fantasies, which can be construed as sick and harmful by the mainstream, and religiously anti-sexuality, majority.

I would like to think that this is good news because of the positive-based images are saved and that the court is disposed to vote down COPA, which I am far more concerned about. I just can't help but feel as if something bad happened, though, and vaguely sick. Perhaps because I've been recently exposed to a story where a woman changed her son's diaper and then did things that made me want to murder the author.

 

[Unclebill]

I agree with the court on this one. They make the clear distinction between thought, ideas, words and fantasies and the manifestation of these in one's actions.

If we lose this distinction, then freedom is lost. It is the same reason I decry the hate crimes legislation. The intent is the same as the CPPA establishes by its vague language. It makes thoughts, ideas, words or fantasies punishable under the law.

While I have severe disdain and disgust for the child molester and sincerely support the concept of the death penalty for such an animal, I will never support legislating authority for anyone to police ideas, thoughts and fantasies of any kind.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

PA....

"again we must recognize that laws must exist to protect victims from a crime which takes advantage of them or violates them, and not ourselves from offense or insult."


I'm not sure laws are ever written to protect anyone from anything!

Aren't they written to punish the perpetrator once the crime has been committed? How do we pass a law that stops crime?

RhumbRunner

 

[Spinaroonie]

Re: PA....

I'm not sure laws are ever written to protect anyone from anything!

Aren't they written to punish the perpetrator once the crime has been committed? How do we pass a law that stops crime?

RhumbRunner

Some do, you'll often hear people on the radio get out of their way to not say certain words. They stopped themselves from commiting a crime, the crime of self-expression.

 

[sigh]

no need to repeat what KM and Unclebill have said...i agree with them

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Re: Re: PA....

Some do, you'll often hear people on the radio get out of their way to not say certain words. They stopped themselves from commiting a crime, the crime of self-expression.

I understand the point you make, and that kind of PC can be, usually is, detrimental. I was speaking, however of the actual legal system. Am I wrong?

Rhumb

 

[Spinaroonie]

I do see your point... the legal system is there to scare people into self-stopping

 

[paganangel]

Re: PA....

"again we must recognize that laws must exist to protect victims from a crime which takes advantage of them or violates them, and not ourselves from offense or insult."


I'm not sure laws are ever written to protect anyone from anything!

Aren't they written to punish the perpetrator once the crime has been committed? How do we pass a law that stops crime?

RhumbRunner

the theory is deternece whether one believes it works or not.

 

[Ishmael]

I agree with the court on this one. They make the clear distinction between thought, ideas, words and fantasies and the manifestation of these in one's actions.

If we lose this distinction, then freedom is lost. It is the same reason I decry the hate crimes legislation. The intent is the same as the CPPA establishes by its vague language. It makes thoughts, ideas, words or fantasies punishable under the law.

While I have severe disdain and disgust for the child molester and sincerely support the concept of the death penalty for such an animal, I will never support legislating authority for anyone to police ideas, thoughts and fantasies of any kind.

I also concur with the courts findings and the above statements.

I will add to Unclebill's list of bad law the 'utterances' laws with regards to threats against various public people. A cause for concern, possibly. A felonious or illegal act? Absolutely not.

Ishmael

 

[Unclebill]

Re: PA....

Originally posted by RhumbRunner13
I'm not sure laws are ever written to protect anyone from anything!

Aren't they written to punish the perpetrator once the crime has been committed? How do we pass a law that stops crime?

RhumbRunner

Precisely. And it's absolutely amazing to me how few people actually grasp the concept.

The existence of laws defining crimes and prescribing punishment may deter some but in truth protect no one. It is the existence of good laws and conscientious enforcement of them that is the best deterrent available

Bad laws which the public at large recognize as such are the main reason for the disrespect for law that arises and do great harm because they denigrate the general respect for valid laws.

Laws of prohibition are one such category of laws of this nature.

 

[SINthysist]

With the advent of new computer technology comes the virtual actor, one which becomes increasingly life-like. Since life imitates art, or art imitates life, we will soon have to ask ourselves the question, "How will we deal with this genre when Hollywood decides it's time to go mainstream?"

And yes I agree to free speech. So really, I should be allowed to yell, "SMALL FIRE," in the crowded theater, assuming of course, that no reasonable person would panic over a small fire.

...

One more thought. You can keep someone below a certain age away from this type of entertainment in order to prohibit exposure to that behavior and thusly implicitly condoning it. However, it is the one above that age who is receiving the condoned by society message. I don't think making act illegal really carries the proper weight to an activity considered so egregious to modern society.

 

[MechaBlade]

With the advent of new computer technology comes the virtual actor, one which becomes increasingly life-like. Since life imitates art, or art imitates life, we will soon have to ask ourselves the question, "How will we deal with this genre when Hollywood decides it's time to go mainstream?"

And yes I agree to free speech. So really, I should be allowed to yell, "SMALL FIRE," in the crowded theater, assuming of course, that no reasonable person would panic over a small fire.

...

One more thought. You can keep someone below a certain age away from this type of entertainment in order to prohibit exposure to that behavior and thusly implicitly condoning it. However, it is the one above that age who is receiving the condoned by society message. I don't think making act illegal really carries the proper weight to an activity considered so egregious to modern society.

Hollywood make a child porn movie? What are you joking?

No doubt, as CG becomes cheaper and more common, there will be releases of CG child porn in the porn video industry (maybe what you meant instead of Hollywood). This doesn't bother me. I prefer they get their kicks from fake children rather than real children.

Sure, yell "Small Fire." See what happens. Not sure how that relates though.

What do you suggest instead of making child porn illegal?

 

[SINthysist]

Well, to say we must protect the Constitution and Free Speech sounds laudable, if not a little late. But we have a greater duty to protect society. Some things should be forbidden, this is one.

 

[MechaBlade]

Well, to say we must protect the Constitution and Free Speech sounds laudable, if not a little late. But we have a greater duty to protect society. Some things should be forbidden, this is one.

Who does it hurt?

 

[SINthysist]

That comment reminds me of the wonderful comercial they are running in the war on terror. The drug user testimonial commercial.
"I killed a Judge."
"I paid for terrorists arms..."

The Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

[Pamela]

Well, to say we must protect the Constitution and Free Speech sounds laudable, if not a little late. But we have a greater duty to protect society. Some things should be forbidden, this is one.

I couldn't agree with you more.

In Canada, our Supreme Court is considering that writings of child porn should be legal. Based on the fact that murder is illegal, but writing about it isn't. So the same should go for child porn. A guy in BC is also arguing that he should be allowed to keep his pictures because there probably isn't a parent in the world who doesn't have a naked pic of their child (in the bathtub or whatever). Its scary because he makes a valid point.

Even if we do have free speech....some things should never be spoken.

 

[paganangel]

Well, to say we must protect the Constitution and Free Speech sounds laudable, if not a little late. But we have a greater duty to protect society. Some things should be forbidden, this is one.

says you.

 

[paganangel]

are you kidding?!

That comment reminds me of the wonderful comercial they are running in the war on terror. The drug user testimonial commercial.
"I killed a Judge."
"I paid for terrorists arms..."

The Law of Unintended Consequences.

you take a bad, unrealsistic commercial which shamelessly explots the murder of over 3000 people and use it as an example of how virtual child porn will have an unitendedd effect. then you go on to say...well...nothing. you neglect to mention te unintended effect.

 

[paganangel]

I couldn't agree with you more.

In Canada, our Supreme Court is considering that writings of child porn should be legal. Based on the fact that murder is illegal, but writing about it isn't. So the same should go for child porn. A guy in BC is also arguing that he should be allowed to keep his pictures because there probably isn't a parent in the world who doesn't have a naked pic of their child (in the bathtub or whatever). Its scary because he makes a valid point.

Even if we do have free speech....some things should never be spoken.

"i may not agree with what you have to say but i will defend, to the very death, your right to say it." - patrick henry

 

[KillerMuffin]

One of us, at least, is missing a very important point.

Expressing oneself about an act is not the same as doing the act.

I threaten to kill people, animals, and various things all the time. I can't count the number of times I've bellowed, "I'm going to kill you very slowly with a dull knife, lemon juice, and some pop rocks!" to the StudMuffin.

I am not guilty of anything unless the StudMuffin decides to perceive that as a threat.

I expressed myself about an illegal act. I did not commit the act. I am constitutionally allowed to plot out how to kill the StudMuffin. I am allowed to actually do it.

Expression is not deed.

 

[SINthysist]

But dwelling on the act, viewing the act, masturbating to the act, then being left alone with a small child, and the kid just seems to be taking a liking to you...

I dunno. I see your point. I do. I do.

It's not something I want some pervert showing my child, saying, "See, other kid's do it. It's okay..."

I just think this particular point is more important than Free Speech, just has many members on this board think that limiting the capacity of the clip on my hand gun and mandatory safety locks are more important for society's well-being as verses my right to bear arms.