Slashdot Mirror
Free Speech, Porn And Internet Controls
dragons_flight writes: "The US Supreme Court is starting their next session, and on the docket are two cases that pit internet controls vs free speech as applied to porn. The first case will decide whether the government can force online providers to use age verification systems before allowing access to material deemed 'harmful to minors.' The second case deals with whether computer generated imitation porn can be treated with the same laws as porn involving real people (the particular case deals with child pornography). This news article discusses these and other issues before the court. Also ACLU commentary on the upcoming docket." The second of these cases was discussed before, in "Virtual Child Porn: Is It Illegal?"
Everyone else in the real world has to use real age verification systems (be is visual "hmm, he looks like a 11 year old" or "ID please") when it comes to things that can be deemed "harmful" to minors, so why shouldn't online systems? Asking for something like credit card information seems to be the easiest and most widely spread use of such a method, as I cannot think of any other methods that can be (more) successfully used? (not that credit cards are an infallible age verification system, as they're easy to "borrow" and also I had my first credit card at 16 years old)
As for the child porn, for starters I think that if you get a kick out of that then there is something seriously wrong with you, but that feeling aside I can't see why "virtual" child porn should be illegal. The arguments against real life child porn is the exploitation of children, which is perfectly understandable. However if you get a kick out of seeing some sort of 3 year old alien that's virtual, or a pair of boots, or anything else that's virtual, hey, whatever turns your crank. No minors are being harmed or exploited in such endeavours (unless of course they're being modelled or are the ones being forced to program it), but as for the act of "virtual child porn" I cannot see why it should be illegal. Morally reprehensible, perhaps, but not illegal.
Just my $0.02
If God gave us curiosity
Age verification systems won't work and here's why: 1) there are a plethora of sites posting passwords/verifications/credit card info/etc that will allow Johnny to view pornographic material on sites that are attempting to implement such a scheme, and 2) There are many sites that are outside the jurisdiction (and reach) of the US (gasps of disbelief from the "soccer moms"!). If they don't want to play along, they won't, and furthermore, those in the US who don't want to play will move elsewhere.
This is nothing more that a political "bone" being tossed at the "soccer moms". Maybe they instead need to be told to stop abdicating their parenting responsibilities to the TV or the Internet and start getting personally involved with raising their kids. You can't legislate well-raised children...it takes personal involvement and WORK!
You're using her as bait, Master!
Trying to screen minors from accessing porn on the net is like -- well, like trying to screen MP3s from the net. You can't stop it, can't even put a significant dent in it without imposing drastic controls.
What happens when kids can't get onto adult websites? Well, they'll use stolen credit card numbers, or stolen adult ID codes, or just plain lie. How can you tell if the person on the other side of the monitor is below 17? Do you plan on implanting smartcard chips below the skin of everyone once they reach their majority?
Parents whine and wail because, after they've given their kids unrestricted access to the net, the little tykes are heading straight to XXX websites. The horror! But while they'll lobby and rally for all sorts of controls on this monster we call the world wide web, they'd never consider picking up and installing some parental control software. (For the most part, I don't think a majority of parents are even competent to install any software; that may be why.)
Don't automatically mod this down because of the title, hear me out first..
There are fuzzy lines, and there are just solid lines in the law. Free speech and 1st ammendment right's go between these two all the time.
goatse.cx is just a classic example..
Is it art? Is it some really disgusting picture of a man? Is it a joke? It must be art because you cannot clearly define it as pornagraphy. It is obcene and obnoxious, but so are some rap and punk lyrics. It is clearly not causing any direct harm towards children because it is not child pornography. So then the question must be asked, what is harmful?
At one time or another, we were all kids, curious wondering what (we called it humping) was. We went into our father's top drawers and snagged that issue of playboy. We would go hide in some bushes and brag to our buddies about the pirates booty (pun) of nudies we had just gotten our hands on.
You can do your best to keep it in a top drawer, but those damn kids allways find a way in. I don't think my mom ever blamed my stepdad for keeping his porn somewhere I couldn't get it.
--toq
~~Moderators Note* Posted with my real account because I take responsibility for my opinions, even if you mod me -1, unlike those anonymous karma whore's.
No, I see nothing wrong with the list, all the countries in the list have governments who promote the idea that their country is infallable, and who have a majority of the populice that concurs, in other countries we recognise more that we are fallible human beings, and therefore when it comes to somthing as final as killing someone we are more reluctant, it costs more money to incarcerate than kill, but thats the price we pay of being less than perfect.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Not necessarily. If you look at child porn, or even adult porn, it can be seen as an action rather than an expression. Whatever lame excuse for "ideas" may be present in the presentations (vides, still pics, etc), they can have an actual _action_ embedded in them. The focus is placed upon the relationship of the presentation to the consumer (one who indulges themselves in the porn). To refute your example of the effect of violent movies on children in comparison to child porn presentations on anyone (typically adult males), the majority of children who have seen violent movies will not directly act upon their exposure to the violence. Otherwise, we would have some mass force or uprising of children trying to kill everyone around them (due to all types of violence found on TV, in movies, in cartoons, toys, etc). However, if you were to look at child porn in this fashion, you would see that a much larger majority of those who indulge themselves in child porn actually will act out the things they indulge themselves in. Therefore, you can not fully protect virtual child porn as an expression under the 1st amendment because there are inherent actions associated with it. This argument can be extended to regular porn, which can cause a person to be so overwhelmed by sex that they could turn to rape (although this doesn't really apply to the many casual porn viewers, only porn-"zealots"). And this can definetly be extended to extremely hardcore porn and things such as snuff films.
You're right about the credit card problem. Why should anyone have to give someone the ability to access his credit or bank account just to view "adult" material? And why should the government be arbiter of what's suitable only for adults? And should parents be able to overrule the government's choices for their own kids, or are we going to make it illegal for parents to let their kids access the grown-ups' Internet?
/.--the cunts here use so fucking much profanity sometimes that it's unfuckingbelievable. So should /. only be accessible by adults willing to go through an age verification system involving their credit card number?
/.'s, where people somwetimes say naughty "adult" words (despite the fact that we know all kids know those words, too, and many use them)? And if I have a kid who wants to read something "adult" like IMC, or /., or whatever pretty mild linguistically-based stuff is also covered once the COPA censors get to work, and give him my age verification password to do so, he has access to all the other stuff--the porn, the sexually based sites, etc.--anyway. And if I don't give it to him, he can't read a lot of good sites that I may want him to be reading. But if I do give my own child my access password to an age verification system, might that be a crime, like contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Even if the Federal government passes no such law, there are doubtless state governments which would. That effectively would prevent me from letting my children read anything useful on their own on the Internet. It would also limit access of the young to websites which are useful for helping them learn responsibly about sex--an example of such a site is http://www.allaboutsex.org , a web site which I would probably want a young son to read at the right time.
Many people forget that this isn't just about "pay" adult sites with porn, or even about sites with porn at all. The COPA was extraordinarily broad, and would have completely stifled free speech on the Net--it didn't apply only to porn pictures, it applied to everything deemed "adult," including words. So if I use lots of fucking profanity on my goddamned motherfucking website, should I have to go through an age verification service before people can access my pages? What about
And what of anonymity? Speech can only truly be free when accessing it can be anonymous, or else suddenly Big Brother becomes a real entity which can trace every electronic thing you've ever read or accessed. Hell, do you think most porn would exist at all, if everyone who bought something from a porn shop had to leave his identifying info behind? That's what it would be like in cyberspace if this law were upheld. But it wouldn't just be porn. It would be politically controversial websites, such as the Independent Media Center. Would people be so willing to go there if they had to provide personal info and knew that maybe next time there's a protest, the FBI might get hold of the list of visitors and start harassing people? They tried to subpoena IP addresses directly from the IMC before, but were shot down. But imagine how much easier it would be for them if third parties, like age verification services, also had access lists, complete with names and credit card or other personal info? Then maybe they could get partial lists just by asking these third parties, who have no real interest in the matter, instead of having to subpoena the IPs from the actual organization that runs the site. Very bad.
And what would be covered as "adult"? Would the IMC and other indie media outlets be blacklisted as "adult" because they're subversive? Or because they have open forums like
And what if I let my underage son or daughter have access to my adult verification password to access sites like that, and he or she makes the mistake of sharing it with friends at school despite my warnings? Should I then be responsible for something like contributing to the delinquency of a minor, if the parents of one of these other kids gets offended by a website accessed with my unwittingly and unwillingly leaked password?
It opens up a huge can of worms that's best left untouched. The fact is, COPA and similar legislation would do nothing but make free speech nonexistent on the Internet, make it difficult or impossible for parents to have real decision-making on the sites thweir kids visit, and muck things up real good for everyone except the ultra-right-wing Xtian moralizing Jerry Fallwells of the world who bought this unconstitutional legislation.
Your ISP based solution is unworkable because then they'd lose their common-carrier status and suddenly become legally liable for everything their users access on the Internet. What if a porn site got through to Little Johnny and Little Johnny's mommy got really upset because she ordered the "clean" internet? Lawsuit. What if Bob posts some child porn of Alice using that service? Lawsuit. ISPs cannot exist without common carrier status.
What that leaves us with is Internet filtering on the client-side, like AOL's Parental Controls, like Surfwatch and Cyberpatrol, etc.--which is what all parents are free to install right now.
That's why COPA and such are bad and not just that, but unnecessary--parents should just get filtering software if they don't want their kids alone on the big bad Net. I'd be perfectly happy with Federal legislation to buy every parent in the country a free copy of the Net filtering software of their choice--that would be the equitable solution. But of course the lawmakers who drafted COPA aren't really interested in just helping parents keep their kids away from adult content--they want to expurgate all adult content and turn the Net into a Xtian Coalition-approved "family" establishment. And that's not constitutional, it's anti-free-speech, and it's wrong. And we shoyuld all fight it and chastise every member of Congress who voted for this drivel, and who will vote for the next round of drivel when the Supremes put COPA to rest for good. If we don't actively fight for our liberties, we deserve to have them Bowdlerized.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
1.) There is no evidence that seeing the human body can harm anyone of any age.
2.) No amount of government regulation can do anything to stop kids from getting access to porn. If they want it they will get it.
3.) Everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they do not inflict tangible harm on non-consenting people. Virtual child porn doesn'y hurt anybody.
4.) Parents ought to be responsible for their own children, instead of having the government force this crap on everyone's children.
Repeal the DMCA!
It really is as natural as breathing and digestion, and many European countries have a much better attitude towards it, with fewer negative side effects than this Nation...
You're making the same illogical argument that the whole anti-child-porn industry is founded on.
Sex with a minor is rightfully illegal because under our current legal system we assign ages at which it is presumed that a majority of people of such an age can make a good decision regarding something difficult. In my state, for example, you can't drive until you're 16, since most 16 year olds can handle a car after driving school, but at younger ages they cannot. You can't smoke until you're 18, because that causes physical harm and psychological addiction which people under 18 may not be able to make good decisions about. You must also be 18 to consent to sex in my state under the theory that the decision to have sex is a very important one with physical and psychological consequences and people are probably not able to make that decision well and freely until most of them are 18. And the decision to drink isn't legally available until 21 because there are both physical and emotional consequences, there is the possibility of death or disability thanks to overdose, there are chances of addiction, the poor decision to drink and drive can lead to a violation of public safety, etc.
Well, child pornography falls within the same rubric. The theory behind making it illegal to make pornography involving minors is that the decision to have sex that is being recorded and documented and possibly seen by others is a serious one with life-altering consequences, and so people cannot give consent to have sex starring in moving or still images or audio until they reach the age of 18. That at least is the legal theory upon which the federal law against child pornography is founded. Taking the images is and should rightfully be illegal, since it harms the minor victim. Distributing the images is and should rightfully be illegal since that propagates the images which were illegally taken and causes further harm to the minors involved, since it exposes their exploitation to a wider audience. The legal theory underpinning this framework is that it causes harm to the minors in the child ponrography, *NOT* that it may induce other adults to go out and have sex with other minors. Indeed, that could not legally be the underpinning of the law, because it would be a restriction on the content of speech. Child porn is illegal not because it says something objectionable or incites viewers to take a harmful action, it is illegal because it harms the minor being portrayed. I can say, "Hey, go fuck a 12 year old, they're so tight and cute and they just love to suck on a grown-up's cock" all I want; it's objectionable, but not illegal. I cannot, however, send you a picture of someone fucking a 12 year old--under the legal theory that doing so harms the 12 yeatr old in the picture by exposing her abuse.
But the real trap you fall into is the notion that seeing pictures of child pornography causes people to imitate what's depicted. It doesn't. Either you think sex with young people is wrong, or you don't--an image isn't goin g to change your moral bearing. The easy explanation, and the true one, for why "a much larger majority of those who indulge themselves in child porn actually will act out the things they indulge themselves in" as you said, is that the kind of peoplw who collect child pornography are the kind of people who are attracted to children in the first place and who don't think having sex with them is wrong--or else they wouldn't be keeping pictures of it, would they?
To say that child porn causes people to molest children is like saying that gay porn causes people to be gay or straight porn causes one to be straight. It just doesn't work that way, because you're mistaking cause for effect. If you find lots of gay porn in a guy's PC, the odds are he's gay--he wasn't converted to gayness by the gay porn, either, rather he got the gay porn because he was already gay. Likewise with child ponr--if you find a bunch of child ponr on a guy's PC, he's probably a pedophile. The porn didn't make him a pedophile, rather, he collected the porn because he was already a pedophile.
"This argument can be extended to regular porn, which can cause a person to be so overwhelmed by sex that they could turn to rape (although this doesn't really apply to the many casual porn viewers, only porn-"zealots"). And this can definetly be extended to extremely hardcore porn and things such as snuff films."
Well, in that above paragraph you make it clear that you're either trolling, or an anti-porn thumper type. "Adult" porn has never made anyone rape anybody; that whole theory came about when notorious serial killer Ted Bundy claimed that "my addiction to porn made me rape and kill all those girls". He said so not because it was true, but because he thought it would get him a lighter sentence if he was a "victim" too. Not coincidentally, he made this claim at the height of the social debate that was occurring back during the years when porn was first going "mainstream" and being sold fairly openly instead of in illicit back-alley shops. The Moral Majority types of course took it as Gospel that porn causes rape--ironic that they'd believe a convicted serial killer and obvious psychopath (no we call them "sociopaths" instead) over all the repected scientists who've refuted the claim.
The fact is, porn is a release valve for our sexual frustrations. That's why porn is as old as civilization--the explicit paintings in almost every Rioman villa, the pictogram porn of the Egyptians, the explicit sculptures and paintings of ancient Greece. We see it, we get excited as if by a real partner, we jerk off, and our tensions are gone.
That's precisely why I hope "virtual" child porn becomes acceptable. Wouldn't it be great if pedophiles could freely download CGI child porn, pound their puppies, and not have to dabble in ral child porn? And have that release valve, so they don't explode their sexual frustrations and touch a real child? I think so.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
*Warning, message mostly sarcastic, but in a non-flaming way.*
"Essentially every major world religion..."
You're right, the largest religions in the world, are all just like christianity. Islam promotes monogamy, right? What? they don't? You're kidding. Well, surely Judaism tells you masturbation and polygamy is wrong. What? The only prohibition is on coveting somebody's wife, and lying with farm animals? Next thing you know, you'll tell me hinduism doesn't make that big a deal out of virginity, and hatched a big book of sex with some wacky name like Khama Sutra or something, some of the positions in which involve more than two people. At least there was a stigma on all that awful, non-puritanical sex in historic cultures, like greece, right? Harems of little boys for the emperor you say...oh my.
I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, people liking to do things that feel nice are usually encouraged, except in christianity of the last couple thousand years. Don't just take that statement in reference to sexuality. (Warning, short libertarian rant coming) Why shouldn't people do whatever they want? The government's role is to keep people from hurting each other in that process. As long as nobody but my poor old right hand suffers, and people are willingly being naked/drunk/angry in online forums without gaining deep psychological scars, then so be it. Let the teens have their thrills, as long as nobody else suffers. Let the suck fucks look at bondage, as long as the lady in the nipple clamps isn't unhappy, why should you be? Let lady liberty wave her torch high, as long as she doesn't light the sky on fire.
My Karma is so good, I'm the Dalai Lama...or something.
See something wrong with that list?
Yes, it has the word "among" above it and an ellipsis at the bottom. That makes it look like you picked out countries that Americans don't particularly like to list, rather than listing all of the countries that still use capital punishment.
The shareholder is always right.
He also stated that *all* of Western Europe has banned it.
That doesn't leave much of a list of countries that the US would *like* to list. You're left with Africa, the Asian subcontinent, South America...
Name a country out of those that you'd like to be emulating.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The real problem is with vague language. What exactly is "harmful to minors." Is it a psychologists opinion? Which psychologist? Exactly how is pr0n harmful. I viewed pornography before I was of legal age to do so - and some pretty nasty shit too. I don't feel I was paticularly harmed by it.
What about educational sites? Maybe there's a site on chemistry that a kid could use to make some kind of flash powder. Better close that down, don't want the kids to maybe be possibly harmed.
Or message board at all? We all know the people on those things are weirdos :) and you never know what they are going to say. Better make them check IDs at the door too.
How about news sites? You know they could carry a story about another school shooting and give some kid an idea. Or maybe have pictures of the terrorist attacks and have to get counselling. Clearly these are all 'harmful to minors.'
I mean, they could even go to places like /. and theonion and learn to use smarmy sarcasm to make a point instead of calling each other 'boogerhead' on the playground. That sure isn't healthy.
The virtual child pr0n issue is similarly vague. I mean if its an artist vision of a petite nude female, couldn't there be some confusion over whether its supposed to be a mature 15 year old or a lithe 19 year old?
The problem is that we have no voice in Washington. Follow the link in my sig and help make a difference. We need educated people to let those in charge know that these are bad ideas, and why they are bad ideas.
I'm a father myself, and no, I'm not nuts about the idea of her talking to creeps in chatrooms or accidentally clicking onto goatse.cz or having some pervert photoshop a pic of her. But what scared me more is one day having her say "Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of speech away from the internet?"
-- When a fool hears of the Tao, he will laugh out loud.
The above paragraph was also a form of ad hominem argument on my part; it's just phrased much more eloquently; with finesse. If you must resort to "crooked reasoning", at least learn to do it well.
So: yes, I actually need an answer to that question. I don't see the harm in a man or a woman masturbating to computer generated images of children, cats, or giant saguaros. And yes, I am in need of help - how did you know? I could use some financial help; I could use good investment advice; and I certainly could use some help in taking care of household chores.
The question in the title:
Q: What's a fanatic?
A: Someone who knows what God would do if he only had all the facts.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
If the government is really all that concerned with material deemed "harmful to minors" then by association it should implement age verification measures for video game vendors and movie theatres. Is anyone really willing to crack down on all venues of sexual graphics? So a kid can't access a web-site, there are many other ways to acquire pornography after all; kill the whole nest or the death of one roach is in vain. Would an enforced age-restriction curtail porn-spam attacks containing samplers in the body, or will there be a mail-checker violating not a few privacy values in the process? Besides which, why is pornography not deemed harmful material for non-minors? At least in the case of real people being viewed, regardless of the age of the viewer, what is being witnessed is quite possibly the exploitation of those being witnessed, and in any case is bound to impact on the mind of the viewer in a degradative way. Why is the year separating minority from majority supposed to be so defining? The whole thing makes me laugh in contempt.
The point of making child pornography illegal is not to keep people from seeing it, but to protect the children who might be forced to have sex in order to make the porn in the first place. Until now child porn automatically meant that children were used in its production.
So how on earth can virtual child porn - where only the artistic tools of a computer are used to make it - be deemed harmful? No one was hurt in the production; no human being was involved in said production aside from the graphic artist(s), who undoubtedly aren't children.
Is this argument being presented by the same folks who think that playing Deus Ex will somehow magically persuade people to pick up high-caliber firearms and use them on all and sundry? Or that playing Doom leads to Satanism because of all the pseudo-satanic imagery in the game?
There's a huge gaping hole in the logic of the argument against virtual porn.
But most important in my mind: if such a law passes does that mean that my (hilarious) animations of Alice in Wonderland doing the wild thing with the White Rabbit will be just as illegal as actual child porn? Or that my animation of Dino doing Wilma "doggy style" will be just as illegal as actual bestiality? And if so, where does my animation of a smurf chowing down on a woman's nipple fit in, given that smurfs are neither children nor people nor animals?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
And why precisely would it be used to prosecute teen fathers?
Or is there a huge population of unknowing teen mothers out there that just accidentally got pregnant, through no fault of their own?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
That does bring up a good point, trolling aside. Exactly how far would we go in declaring things to be verboten "virtual child porn"? If I doodle a little stick figure sucking off a big stick figure, is that illegal under the new law, if upheld?
It may sound like a silly example, but where is the line drawn? How about if I draw a risque sketch of a partially unclad high school cheerleader type? I recall seeing a rather silly adult comic strip of a high school cheerleader like, totally getting molestered by some bizarro alien thingy. Illegal? How about those old cartoons they ran in Hustler back in the 70s and early 80s, called "Chester the Molester"? It wasn't for the purposes of porn, but rather to be funny, and in a sick schadenfreude sort of way they were often hilarious.
How about the computer game *Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation*? In it, Lara Croft was supposed to be 16 years old, and they showed the outlines of her patch through her shorts, and you were able to make her bend over in ways that would be provacative if she were real and not CG. Child porn?
How about the kicker: almost all Japanese anime. Sure the import companies go out of their way to say that all the girls are supposed to be 18 or older, but anyone who knows about anime/manga and Japanese culure knows that that's not true. Most of the time, if you know Japanese, you can tell that the characters say they're 13, 14, 15, 16, or in high school or junior high. Often they're in "adult situations" at one time or another. Child porn?
The fact is, when you outlaw anything that's "virtual" and doesn't involve real people, you're outlawing ideas and expression and art, not actions. You should outlaw actions, not ideas, in a "free" society.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
I'm one those people who doesn't have a bank account, doesn't have a credit card, etc. I like living that way. If a credit history is required to view any material that's for adults(define?) then where does that leave people like me? It really bothers how difficult it is for the average person to go thru life without ever being in debt. Forcing me to open a bank account to have access to a *public* forum should be unconstitutional.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
As usual most of the /. readers, and the US government seem to forget that the internet is not just based in the US.
It doesn't really matter what the Supreme Court decides regarding web content, simply because they do not have jurisdiction over the web.
Yes, they may force US based ISPs to adhere to this or that, but the rest of us can simply stick our fingers up at their rulings.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not and "Adult webmaster", and I'm actually in favor of some kind of censorship for kids.But I believe it's the responsibility of parents to censor the input their children recieve. I don't want anybody telling me what is good enough to show my kids, I can decide that for myself.
Porn sites will simply move to another host, which permits them to do as they wish.
A one banana problem.
I agree with the sentiment; Allow me to complete it.
The best way to keep kids from being harmed by seeing images of naked people having sex is to relax. Kids don't have any problems with sexual encounters; It's only after adults tell them that they've seen something terribly wrong that they get confused.
When children have questions about sex, answer truthfully. Buy erotic art that you like, and hang it on the wall. Go to nudist resorts, to show your children that it's okay to be naked. If a movie that you like has a sex scene in it, don't fast forward it. If you like hentai, allow your children to watch it with you.
This will protect your child from harm.
I have a 6-month old daughter, and she's being raised around pornography. Both my girlfriend and I like to watch hentai movies, and read erotic comics; I see no reason why our daughter should be excluded from the same. Amber and I talk about the line art, the characterizations, various styles; I see no reason why our daughter should be excluded as well.
The reason kids get weird about sex is because adults do. When adults are relaxed around sex, children are relaxed as well.
Sex is not a big mystery. I think for a lot of people, at least here in the US, sex is like this closet in the basement, and they fear that it is full of monsters.
First, the closet isn't in the basement, it's on the 1st floor of our psyche. Second, you can open the door. Maybe there's some garbage in there, or something, but you can clean it up, see what's in there. There are no big monsters in there. Turn on the light; Take an inventory, clean it up. Maybe take some things out, put things inside. It's just a closet in your psyche. It's totally okay. It's good square footage in our minds; It's good not to ignore it or freak out about it. It's really not all that weird a space.
Like drinking water, or going to bed at night. =^_^=
If someone have'nt noticed, theres a big difference between simulated porn and anything else simulated. Take for example an ordinary scary movie, it is intended to make the people scared, not with the intent of arousing murderous feelings in the viewer. Porn movies are made to make people excited and wanna have sex. Im sure that anybody more likely would like to have sex with a real girl instead of jerkin' off in front of the computer (or...?). Well I guess that almost all of you say yes to that, having real sex can hardly be compared to a pornmovie (simulated or not), can it?
But simulated child porn, with what intentions do you think that someone will do such a movie? Whatever the answer to that question is, theres a fact that who ever looks at it, will surely wanna do it in real instead. And theres also a fact that child pornography (simulated or not) is done with the intent of arousing pedophilic feelings in the viewer.
Theres also several reports which support the fact that the availability of child porn will increase the number of child molestations. And that also conforms to virtual stuff too (but maybe some will get a bigger "kick" out of it if they know it is real children suffering).
So one can conclude that theres several reasons why banning child porn is rigth, it is not only because of the harmful effect of creating the porn on the real children involved. It is because they who watch this, also want to to the stuff they see on the screen.
And why should the producer of such a movie want to stick with just child pornography, because it is simulated they can do anything they want. They can kill the children, cut them into pieces and do more horrible stuff. I say that somewhere we have to draw the line. And I think that the line should be drawn to protect the children in our society. Or would you like to have your kids at the kindergarten when you know that their teacher watches movies with titles as "child porn slaughter 3000" or "kindergarten rapist" at his spare time, or at work?
2 reptiles beneath your current threshold.
If you have your personal identity (ie. age) verified for a certificate and then use that certificate to sign your approval to access a site, that should be good enough.
Keep your certificate on a Smart Card, and it's portable, safe, and convenient.
I'm not talking about science fiction here. I'm talking about technology already being used all over the world for mostly security and corporate applications.
The only other thing I'd like to see is for the system to be more anonymous.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
If a man is looking at any kind of child pornography, I want him behind bars.
/.; this is a forum for the exchange of ideas, not a place to post meaningless drivel saying this is how it should be and how dare you have a different opinion than I do.
So who cares what you want? Maybe I want people who think as you do behind bars.
Guys who look at young children naked or doing lewd acts should be put behind bars.
How about providing a rationale to your beliefs instead of this "there oughta be a law" bullshit.
That is absolute perversion.
Highly subjective. One person's perversion is another's entertainment.
I don't care if the images are computer generated or not.
Why stop there? How about criminalizing anything that could remind you of something that you find offensive? Like an inkblot that looks to you personally to be a person killing someone else?
This is the question posed by some:
"What is the harm or crime in a man jacking off to computer generated photos of six year olds?"
And to that, I say this : If you actually need an answer to that question, you are yourself in dire need of help.
And to you, I say this:
If you can't even provide a meaningful answer to that question other than just dismissing it and saying "you need help", then you have no business posting to