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
The supreme court also plans to do other things like decide whether public funds may be spent to educate children at church-run schools, whether mentally retarded persons may be subject to capital punishment, and like you said how far the federal government may go in controlling Internet speech to protect children from pornography. The justices will tackle the question of child pornography on the Internet in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, No. 00-795. The court will have to determine whether Congress violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech when it passed a 1996 law making it a federal offense to post on the Internet computer-generated sexual images of children.
A coalition of photographers, moviemakers and producers of "adult" materials challenged the law, arguing that it was vague and that only pictures of actual children can be banned because only they do harm to children.
While a lower federal court sided with the Free Speech Coalition, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that even fictitious images of children having sex help to feed the overall market for child pornography, and that prosecutors would find it difficult to prove that any image was of an actual child, as opposed to a computer-generated one.
A separate case, Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 00-1293, involves a different statute designed to protect children from seeing sexually explicit material on the World Wide Web. Passed in 1998 after the court struck down a more broadly worded version in 1997, the statute says "commercial" Web sites may not post material that is "harmful to minors" as defined by "contemporary community standards."
Diplomacy is the art of letting people have your way
As far as the online age-verification is concerned, the government should only be allowed to require that if they could also require real-world stores to do the same. As far as I know, they can't. Anyway, credit cards won't work very well on the Internet, especially with the advent of Visa Buxx and similar cards that are designed for 13-17 year olds. I don't think the federal government should have any say in who stores do business with as long as they're not harming anyone or denying them their rights, and the Supreme Court has tended to rule against the federal government in the past (Boy Scouts, for example). There's a growing number of people who believe that porn does not ruin the lives of older children (myself included), and it should be the parents', not the government's, decision on whether or not your child can look at porn.
As for the virtual child-porn, I think the main issue at stake is whether or not the virtual porn leads to real children being harmed. To the best of my knowledge there's no evidence showing that virtual porn does lead to the real thing, so the only way the government can win is at least 5 of the justices ignore the evidence and vote based on "Child porn is bad." It's the harming of innocent kids that's bad, not the porn itself. Can the Supreme Court see past that? We'll have to wait and see.
my own personal views on pornography aside...
.if kids wanna watch porn, let them.
I think online providers of pornography should check the age of their users, or risk being charged.
I mean.. why should they be any different than meatspace providers of porn? They shouldn't.
My own view is that such controls are rediculous..
Kurzweil talks about how nano is going to revolutionize how our brains think. The new reality of human existance will be that our fantasies will be stdin, and stdout will be redirected into our nervous systems... the end result being that we fully experience whatever fantasy we engage in, not just in Dolby, but in all five senses.
In such a scenario, can we possibly tolerate the state inserting itself into the circuit between our imagination and our sense of touch?
At what point between now and then do we boot the state out?
It seems obvious that the line to be drawn here is between those activities that harm others and those that harm noone. Computer-generated images of children engaged in sex while objectionable on several levels are nonetheless harmless. No children need be hurt in the production of this material.
To rule otherwise will likely condemn us to a future where the state becomes a part of our consciousness. I think this would be very bad.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
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!
I think as the Supreme Court goes forward this session it'd be worth remembering that U.S. laws do NOT have domain over the whole net, however much grandstanding our politicians may make.
--hongpong.com
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.)
In addition to the problem you mention about credit-card "borrowing", something like 30% of the U.S. adult population does not have a single credit card. Remember that slashdot readers, who are generally pretty well-educated and probably have reasonable finances (even if they're startving students, they have relatively good job prospects), are not representative of the country (or the world!) at large. Since requiring a credit-card number means requiring more than simple age verification -- it also means verifying that you have decent credit, etc. -- it will exclude people for whom access to this speech is Constitutionally protected. So that won't fly.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
We can all use our National ID that Ashcroft wants.
Political Cartoons at Political Strikes
Secondly, even if something -- porn or otherwise -- does have an adverse side effect, does that imply you can ban it simply because of that side effect? Take alcohol as an example. The legality of alcohol (assuming you are of appropriate drinking age) unambiguously increases the number of drunk-driving fatalities. However, that fact doesn't mean that you can outlaw alcohol itself. You can only reasonably outlaw the illegal behavior, not the catalyst, if you will.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
I agree, although I'm not sure that this is a new attitude at all. Various local, state, and even federal laws have sought to restrict the sale of pornography for years.
What's changed is the scale of the restrictions. Previously, if Podunkville wanted to keep porn out of town, it could pass some local restrictions (or just boycott the stores that sold the stuff.) People rarely bothered to challenge these laws up through the chain of courts toward the SC. With the Internet, it's becoming increasingy difficult for blue laws to function. So new laws are being passed and enforced that effect us all.
It does make me laugh thinking about one thing. Even if buying porn at age 17 or whatever is illegal, what's to stop you from getting the friendly girl next door (or guy, don't want to be choosy about gender or sexual orientation here ;-) to get naked, completely consensually, in your presence? I'll admit that such an event didn't occur for a geek like me until I was of legal age to purchase porn anyway, but I've heard plausible rumors that jocks and other popular-type people actually did get to see and touch real live naked people at the tender age of, say, 15.
Seriously, though, isn't there something kind of ironic about the fact that you can, completely legally, see and touch (and do other fun things with ;-) real live naked people when you're under 18, but can't legally view pictures of naked people?
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
...to ``protect'' children from being ``harmed'' by the sight of naked people having sex is not by passing laws.
It's by parents putting the computer in the living room.
Children are required to show ID before they can purchase a copy of ``Playboy'' or whatever because they can enter stores where pornography is sold without being accompanied by a responsible adult.
In the home, many adults have access to pornography through cable TV, videos, or copies of ``Playboy,'' or other means. Parents who don't want their children to see pornography on TV should be monitoring and restricting their children's access to TV--but they should be doing that anyway. If they can't lock out channels, they should lock up the remote with the VHS stash.
Parents who don't want children calling 1-900-LIVE-SEX should have the phone company block 900 numbers, or pay attention to their phone bills.
Parents who are really paranoid about the matter should know what kind of pornography exists in their children's friends' homes before allowing visits.
The computer should be treated no differently. You don't want your children surfing over to www.hotsexyteenlesbians.com? Fine, do it the same way you keep your children from all the rest of the pornography in the world.
And maybe, just maybe, recognize that children are also sexual beings. Talk with them about sex (in an age-appropriate manner, of course), relationships, pregnancy and parenthood, love, STDs, marriage, committment, and what it all means to you.
Or, in other words, parents being parents and legislators making laws is good; parents making laws and legislators being parents is bad.
b&;
All but God can prove this sentence true.
You cannot be charged with statory rape of a nineteen y/o even if she told you she was 16. It is impossible since she is 19. What about porn with a 19 y/o that looks 16? What about taking a 20 y/o picture of a 30 y/o and using that in a virtual porn flick? The picture is of a 10 y/o, but she is 30 now.
Fight Spammers!
What are the current laws on paintings, drawings, or sculptures of children having sex? Are there any? I don't think there are... And I think they should be treated the same. So what if one is a little more lifelike than the other? As long as its not based on some children being filmed doing it... Then it's technicly art and subject to 1st amendment.
An image had better be worth a 1000 words-- it takes longer to download. Just kidding. That should be GPL'd.
(KERNEL PANIC)
I've read more then one x-rated comic book that involved "minors" - in compromising conditions. I don't think its illegal in Japan - and I can import them into the US without troubles.
What about similar comic books produced in the US? Is there a precedent? I'm sure it would apply to computerized pron.
I think a big problem is that lots of sites distribute material for free to encourage people to sign up and pay money - for minors this small amount of free content is enough.
Obviously if all images require age verification schemes then it will be like a ban on advertising for these sites; the sites may well ignore it.
Better is to demand proper labeling of information with meta tags and the likes that appropriate filters and checking software can use to remove/block content.
As for 'virtual' porn. It's got to be bad. Where do 'celebrity fakes' stand in the law? Surely other virtual porn has to follow in a similar way.
-- Mike
I have a fairly unpopular opinion:
Pornography, wether child, teen, obese, hetero, homo, s+m, bondage, etc. is all of the same type, and only varies by degree. To me, there is a "right" way to behave sexually: one and only one lifetime consensual sexual partner with the sexual relationship established after formal partnership (marriage), with the primary intent of procreation. !!! Any sexual activity outside of that partnership (including auto-sexuality) is inappropriate to some degree or another, but is all of the same type and ultimate consequence. I will be the first to admit that a teen masturbating in the bathroom is a lot different than an individual who gets off on a harem of children. But again, in degree. There is no hard and fast boundary between the two behaviors. Anyone who has read this far with either be thinking I'm a complete idiot or a religious fundamentalist. I hope I am neither. I just happen to have thought about this issue a lot over the last 18 years (since my early teens). So if you are still reading, here is why I think the way I do in very brief form: Essentially every major world religion and culture advocates or prescribes chastity: no sexual partners until marriage, and only one after that with the intent to produce children. Why is this such a common view? Perhaps because it "works". Next idea. What is the conceptual dividing line between the following spectrum of sexual activity: masturbation, being masturbated with your consent, giving someone a hand job with their consent, oral sex, oral sex with someone slightly younger than yourself, oral sex with someone lots younger than yourself (still consensual, still age of "majority"), and lastly oral sex with a minor who has given consent (and of course that last one is the real controversial step). What age exactly is it when someone can give consent? Is it 15? Is it 14? Is it puberty? Is it 10? There is no scientific means known at this time to decide that age, only a legalistic mechanism that says such an age is too young. Next idea. At what point is safe sex really safe? At what point is birth control really effective? Again, there is a whole spectrum of options here and they all have one thing in common: nothing is 100% certain to be safe or effective. I could go on with a number of other spectrums of options or behavior where the only real differences between the options are of degree rather than type. The only time there is a difference of type comes when you choose to be proactive about chastity, formal monogamy and procreation. I don't think that my argument is going to change anyone's opinion about the whole issue of sexuality, but perhaps it can shed some light on the issue of the article: legalistic solutions are not really solutions!!! (Which is something I think many here _will_ agree with.) I believe from the preceding points and others, that the only solution is actually a sort of moral conversion of our society, where people recognize the logical and societal consequences of their actions and change their moral standpoint on that basis. Good luck!
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
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...
"if kids wanna watch porn, let them."
Very true. It's not as if it harms anyone - hell, if my memory serves my right there's actually obscene amounts of cash in modeling for playboy or maxim.
I'm the stranger...posting to
The first is the typical abuse of people, men, women, children, animals, etc for profit that you see in prostitution and in many criminal activities.
The second is the sensuality and sexuality of pornograpy as see in works of various degrees of and ranges of artistic merit.
The third is the morality issues
The forth is the thought control issues.
The thought control issues are the most troubling, because who hasn't wanted to stop someone from even thinking a certain criminal or other type of somehow forbidden thought. Hate, anger, jealousy, depression all come to mind.
Laws against virtual porn seek to restrict people from thinking thoughts that others believe to be bad. The question is if this is viable and practical, and the nature of the "bad thoughts" on the first place. Let's face it, all criminals want freedom to have their way, to do their thing.
But then, so do most rational folks, except that they respect their fellows.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Does anyone remember the "age verification" routine in the old Leisure Suit Larry game? Just ask them a bunch of questions that someone under 18 isn't likely to know. :)
We might as well punish a person for thinking about sex with a child if we are to ban mere drawings or generated child porn. As rape fantasies more often than not do NOT lead to rape, neither does thoughts of having sex with a child lead to predation.
-
I disagree. The legality of this should not be related to what it inspires. The question of legality should be related only to the product itself. If studies show that the vast majority of people who read book X become significantly more susceptible to comitting crimes of heinous nature, should we ban book X? Speaking from your point of view, we should. I do not believe we should. Whether a book can do this or not is moot; I my disagreement is based on principle, not practice. The people who perpetrate such repulsive acts as seduction and abuse of minors should undoubtedly be held fully accountable for their actions, but by banning what people think "inspires" them (I put this in quotes because I feel it is our duty to control ourselves, and inspiration is no excuse for responsiblity), we will erase the line that is holding intrusive censorship at bay.
Will banning child pornography affect me at all? Not in any way I can think of. However, it opens the door for censorship that will affect everyone. Censoring things because they are "indecent" or because they "make people more likely to perpetrate particular acts" is a ridiculous idea that has frightening long-term implications.
In response to: 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.
This doesn't refute my example. My point was not based on actual results. I even included a message to clarify that in parentheses! The point is that the free speech rights of the first amendment should override any effects or inherent qualities of a form of expression, as long as nothing illegal has been done in the creation of such work.
Don't get me wrong here: I think that child pornography is a disgusting idea, and that it is the moral responsibility of those who are sexually aroused by it to refrain from indulging that facet of their personality, because it is one of the few things in this world that is intrinsically evil.
I think this will probably wind up being one of those seldom-enforced laws created for simply placating (sp?) the public. Imagine for a moment that you are an ISP and the courts of this country suddenly ruled (legislation by judicial action, but that's another story ;) ) that it's your responsibility to verify age before allowing the user to see questionable content. How would you keep up? How could you keep up? Porn sites are popping up and disappearing all the time.
I think these kinds of decisions are simply half-assed efforts at shutting up the complaining and (rightfully so) concerned parents and advocates. While I do believe that it's important that only adults have access to pornography, I firmly believe this decision would change little or nothing in terms of solving the problem of exposing underage viewers to porn on the 'net.
My sigs always suck.
*standing on my chair applauding*
Please, somebody mod this up...
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
I have a feeling that if more people were getting nekkid with their peers when under 18, the market for porn would deline in a major way.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I think you're missing some basic principles beneath the argument against such legislation.
As a secular state, and one that values privacy, traditionally we do not make laws against "evil thoughts." The underlying assumption in our child pornography laws is child porn is a record of a real crime committed against a real child, sold for the delectation of the voyeur.
Your argument that certain pictures should be banned because they will prompt "evil thoughts" (amd your ability to qualify such evil thoughts, somehow, as actions), has no precedence; we don't usually attempt to pre-empt crime by outlawing its precursors.
Your attitude has grown more popular lately, and grows more popular daily, it seems.
I suspect this has something to do with our increasing historical distance from the threat of Fascism a half-century ago; the phrase "thought police" seems not to have the impact that it used to.
That worries me. YMMV, and I'm sure it does....
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
Not so in Virginia.
18.2-344. says
The minimum marriage age in Virginia is 16.Now why these laws are not used to prosecute teen fathers is beyond me.
I think banning computer-generated images of child porn is problematic because it sets a precedent for banning other computer-generated imagery.
For example, there was discussion following the Sept 11 attacks of banning burning of the American flag. Suppose that laws were passerd banning flag burning. Would we then have to ban images and videos of computer-generated flags being burned by a computer-generated fire?
I think that anyone that would look at computer-generated child porn is sick, but it really does no harm to any child. It only sets a poor precedent, in my mind.
In some european countries, there is no formal age of consent as such, e.g. (i think) in France and the Netherlands. This doesnt mean that you can go pick up a teen however, because there are laws against assault and molestion, and abuse of power, its just that they apply to all ages equally. Therefore, if a 25 year old bloke starts shagging a 12 year old, the police will be breaking down his door soon, because it is clear that he is abusing his power and behaving inapropiately. I'm not an expert on these laws but they appear to work.
:) Parents and police tend to be watchful but turn a blind eye as long as both partners are roughly the same age.
BTW when there is a formal age of consent, it tends to be 16, as in the UK and Ireland, with some countries putting the formal age as 14 or 12.
Many of my friends in the UK, both male and female, first had sex between 12 and 14, typically with someone the same age or slightly older. (mine was 17, but then i'm a geek
France has no minimum age for alcohol, and in the UK, if a parent is present, it is about 12. I should say most european kids start off having a glass of quality wine or a sip of beer with their parents at the weekly sunday dinner, at about 12 onwards, when they start becoming curious about what their parents are drinking, and this is allowed for by law. It's independent drinking or purchase of alcohol by teens that is illegal.
Likewise, for porn, in france there is no minimum age for softcore purchase I think, and for hardcore, 18.
If a website considers itelf as suitable for kids, then it should be able to apply for a 'Teen certfied status'. Then I'd let my kids only access these teen certfied sites. Probably with different certificates for different age ranges.
:)
Different opinions on what is kid appropiate? No problem. There will be surely a group somewhere with the same views as you, and you can use their list of 'appropiate' websites. E.G if you're an X-ian, you can use the 'Catholic Church Approved list' (or something maintained by whichever sect you adhere to) and thus your kids at home can only access sites on that list. Sure if they want to access something independent, they'll have to go down the library or a friends computer, but at least it wont be in your own home
Got quirky views? Create your own approved list. My list would probably be something like encyclopaediabrittanca.com (sodding spelling), slashdot.com, indymedia, and a few others.
What do you think?
Not to exaggerate, though, I do find that *almost* everyone -- ie. a very large majority -- of people seem to have no problem with outdoor sculpture showing nekkid bodies, with nude beaches, with non-missionary sex, with nude sunbathing, with etc.
So why the heck is there this concept that we (North Americans) live in a sexually repressed society?
I think we're hoaxing ourselves. "We" keep saying it, but not because "we" are repressed: because we think "they" must be repressed.
Well, hell, surprise folks, *THEY* are just the same as us. There is *NO* moral majority that's decrying the sin and depravity of nude beaches, porn magazines, or rockin' good sex.
Let's quit trying to not offend that mythical group of sexually repressed beings. They don't exist, unless we're teenagers living at home, and in that case, they're just our parents...
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
If a man is looking at any kind of child pornography, I want him behind bars. Guys who look at young children naked or doing lewd acts should be put behind bars.
I don't care how sexually liberal anyone is. This has nothing to do with sexual liberation or freedom. I place my limit on sexual freedom (fetishes) when someone gets sexual entertainment from looking at naked kids. That's not a "fetish". That is absolute perversion.
I don't care if the images are computer generated or not.
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.
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.
Wait, what's that siren I hear... uh oh, gotta run! The Fornication Police are on their way!
(p.s. is it not odd that the statute does not specify that the two individuals have to be married to each other? For example, if I am married, and my mistress is married, and we engage in voluntary sex... as I read this, that would not constitute fornication! but perhaps there is a separate law that covers adultery... sheesh, when will the gov't get out of people's bedrooms?)
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
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?
The UK still has execution on the law books--for assassinating a monarch, or for arson in a royal dockyard. The Human Rights Act supposedly got rid of capital punishment, but that Act permits itself to be suspended when required by national security concerns--meaning it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
If the UK still has capital punishment on the books, then you can't claim all of Western Europe has abandoned capital punishment.
At the time I found the idea appealing for other reasons (free porn!), but there are other, more noble, positive aspects.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
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 said so in my posting. If you don't want to take it from me, read the text yourself. It is so vague and overbroad that it could apply to this very webpage for my liberal use of profanity:
;-)
fuck cocksucker motherfucker shitface cuntlicker motherfucker goddamn
They would not have written it so broadly if there intentions were merely to apply it to hardcore porn sites, my friend. And I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the Supreme Court will uphold the lower Court's decision based on the very argument that the legislation is vageue and overbroad.
You seem to dwell on porn too much. Is that a personal problem we should know about?
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.
The purpose of having a mock-life in your head has clear evolutionary advantages. You don't need to walk into the lion's den to find out what would happen -- you can simply imagine the outcome and do something harmless, instead. (please don't quibble with the example -- it's contrived, but the point still stands). However, our ability to imagine things that haven't (or won't) happen has a secondary, and possibly inadvertent, purpose. It's mental masturbation. It stimulates the pleasure centers of our brains. Not just by thinking about sex, but by thinking about things that give us pleasure. Daydreaming, for example. In fact, the extreme extension of this unique condition explains our love of TV shows and movies (and books, for that matter).
But also, it provides us with pleasure not as a "how can I achieve this goal" function but as a "I'd like to _____ but the consequences would be too severe so I'll just imagine it, instead." I'm sure we've all been with our respective bosses at one point or another and imagined clubbing him/her over the head with a clipboard or stuffed barricuda, I mean, who hasn't?
Yeah, yeah, get to the point, right?
Many men fantasise about rape (I won't say 'most', because I don't have any studies with numbers at hand, but I'd be inclined to) for a number of reasons, one of the most pertinent being that rape provides zero cost access to the thing men desire extremely highly (I'll skip the Freudian bit about how everything boils down to sex and death, but it's well understood that men spend a lot of time trying to get laid, not just in bars, but trying to get prestige careers, fancy cars, etc.) Zero cost because there's no initial investment (everything from buying drinks and being interesting to demonstrating long-term fitness as a mate) and there's no follow-up investment (everything from cuddling when you want to sleep to being a long-term fit mate). It's what Erica Jong refers to as the "zipperless fuck".
Most male rape fantasies commit what is generally termed the "she really wanted it" genre. And this is because most men really don't want to hurt their sex partner -- they want to be nice guys and still get zero cost sex. Once again, I haven't read or conducted any studies on the matter, so this part is pure speculation, but I would be very surprised if the majority of men who have rape fantasies imagine the way it really is. That is, I doubt they imagine the pain and suffering they're inflicting.
To use a couple of examples from the media. I'm guessing for most guys it's closer to the rape scene from "The Hollow Man" -- sexy, a little scary, and mercifully blurred, as opposed to the rape scene in "Boys Don't Cry" one of the most visceral moments in American cinema, in my opinion.
My point is that men's sexual fantasy lives, especially as conditioned by the media, are of the 'bonk the boss on the head' sort of thing. Any rape support group will tell you that rape isn't about sex, it's about violence. My contention is that rape fantasies, generally speaking, are about sex and that most men find the idea of violence against women to be abhorrent.
These same arguments apply to kiddie porn. Imagining sexual relations with a child is a far cry from the reality. I think that, in order to be fair, the bifurcation between fantasy and reality needs to be carefully considered. Especially the idea that more often we fantasise so as not to do something than to do it.
DISCLAIMER: I do not advocate rape. I do not advocate molesting children. I do not advocate violence. In fact, I don't even advocate thinking. I think we were better off as monkeys. Most of this diatribe is pure flim-flammery and it's only purpose is to propose an idea that may incite thought, but I hope not, as I don't advocate thinking. Please don't send me e-mail telling me I'm a sick bastard (I already know that -- my degree was in philosophy and cognitive science). One final point -- I think the same arguments apply towards women, but I omitted them since I'm not "in-house".
Ceci n'est pas une
Yep, just like they've regulated and blocked recreational drug use, speeding, prostitution, underage drinking, and abuse of monololy power.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
- nude portraits of children
- fictional accounts of child/child or child/adult sexual situations (a la Lolita)
- fictional accounts of child/child or child/adult explict sexual situations (what would be considered XXX material in a standard porn movie)
- drawings/paintings/macrame of child/child or child/adult explict sexual situations
- fake images (gimp, photoshop) of child/child or child/adult soft core sexual situations
- fake images (gimp, photoshop) of child/child or child/adult hard core sexual situations
- animations (cartoon) of child/child or child/adult soft core sexual situations
- animations (cartoon) of child/child or child/adult hard core sexual situations
- fake movies (special effects like the hobbits in LotR) with child/child or child/adult soft core sexual situations
- fake movies (special effects like the hobbits in LotR) with child/child or child/adult hard core sexual situations
- inflatable child sex dolls
- interactive virtual reality sexual programs involving simulacrum of a child
- pedomorphic robotic sex dolls (like the kid in the Kubrick A.I. movie (except as a sex doll))
- organically grown child concubines (like Pris in Blade Runner, except as a kid).
I tried grouping these roughly in order of least offensive to most offensive, but it may be a reflection of my prejudice, more than anything. Also, we don't currently have the technology for some of these items, but hey, it's a thought experiment!Most Americans have creditcards. Most people in the rest of the world don't, or if they do, it's of a company that's not accepted in the US.
Me for instance, I pay with a bank card. Incidentally, anyone with a bank account (all ages afaik) can get one.
Using creditcards as an online ID amounts to using Visa and American Express as online ID's.
"Concerned parents" groups campaigning (and winnning) about the content of TV, video games, music lyrics and the bad old Internet. The reason? All these things are being used as "virtual parents". You can put the kid down in front of the TV for hours instead of bothering to do something educational and entertaining yourself. Whether it's because parents these days are too busy or too lazy, I don't know.
.ru people to comply. Parents should take responsibility.
I am a parent myself but I consider it my responsibility to look out for my child. I'd rather not have to explain why the goatse man's bottom looks like that, so unsupervised net access is a no no. (Actually, the little bastard's only 18 months and has just worked out how to turn the PC off and back on again - I'm getting him a job doing MS support.)
There's no technological solution that can completely work on web - we wont get those
PS I am not claiming to be perfect either.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
Let's pretend that the world is made up of people like you and me -- people with genuine mental phenomena -- and zombies -- people without mental phenomena. Now, we know that there are zombies out there; their existence has been demonstrated empirically, but functionally they behave identically to you and me. However, consider that zombieism is the height of bad taste and no zombie would want to admit that he/she is a zombie -- "Yeah, when I hit my thumb with a hammer, I scream, and shake my hand, but I don't experience any of this 'pain' stuff." Given these circumstances, most zombies would probably assume all their friends are like you and me and not zombies. They've probably heard about zombies on the news, but don't actually know any. Here's the question. What percentage of the population would have to be zombies before things turned over and being a zombie was socially acceptable and being a non-zombie was unacceptable?
Okay, now, think about this. What if everyone in the world is sexually aroused by children except for you and me. What if everything was exactly the way that it is -- nothing has changed externally in the world -- but everyone else finds children sexually appealing? There are just as many incidences of child abuse as there are, now, but the mental act of pedophilia is a societal norm, rather than the converse.
The parallels between zombiehood and mental pedophilia should be obvious. I'm asking you to put aside your knee-jerk "That's sick!" for a second and do some considering.
First of all, up until fairly recently, homosexuality was considered to be both sick and confined to a very small percentage of the population. It's sick just because it is (heavy sarcasm) and it was imagined to belong to a very small minority because of the stigma attached to it. However, homosexuality, now, is much more mainstream and occupies a fairly large demographic -- large enough that there's plenty of legislation to prevent discrimination against gays.
Second of all, humans participate in a wide variety of sexual situations that have very little to do with procreation. Take a walk through the alt.sex.fetish hierarchy sometime. There are people who derive sexual pleasure by sitting on food! Incidentally, their existence doesn't mean that I live in fear of having my refrigerator raped.
Thirdly, there's a huge market in eroticizing children. On everything from the clothes that are made for children, to makeup, to basic lifestyles as presented in the media. And, frankly, it's adults who design those styles and adults who encourage their children to dress and behave like sexual objects. The media is blurring the line between children as sexual objects and non-sexual objects and we, as consumers, are complicit.
Here's what I want you to consider. Finding children sexually attractive is natural and, in some circumstances, healthy. And, when I say 'natural', I mean it's an attribute shared by a large percentage of the population.
Okay, here's the disclaimer. I asked you to consider it. I didn't say it's true. I'm not trying to persuade you that it's true. The purpose of the exercise is to try and determine what parts of your feelings are visceral and what parts are based on reason. More than most issues dealing with civil liberties, this one provokes an immediate gut response. Even the posts where people advocate the legality of virtual kiddie porn are liberally peppered posts with "people who view this are sick sick sick. (But I still defend their right to view it, the sick bastards)" But there's no discussion of why it's sick. I can think of plenty of reasons why having sex with a child is sick (personally, I believe in capital punishment for someone who has intercourse with a pre-pubescent child.) I also think it's sick to use a child as an ancillary sexual device (for example, bathing a child and using that as wank material). But, the knee-jerk aside, what makes mental kiddie porn (and by extension, virtual kiddie porn) any sicker than homosexuality or cake-sitting?
P.S. One of the reasons you've got the knee-jerk "that's sick" attitude is 'cuz you're biologically selected for it via evolution. Our forebears didn't have sex with their children because 1) it leads to weak genes and 2) it physically damages the reproductive organs of children and so they're less likely to have kids themselves. Thinking is pretty new (anthropologically speaking) while the knee-jerk has been around for longer than we've had knees. So, when you immediately react strongly to something, chances are it's your biology speaking. Strive to get past that.
P.P.S. Despite the controversial nature of this post, I'm not posting it anonymously in the spirit of engaging in genuine rational discussion. I hope that I'm not subjecting myself to a deluge of "You're a sick fucker!" e-mails. In a different vein, I also don't want e-mail from pedophiles (mental or not) either welcoming me to the fold or soliciting kiddie porn. Kids aren't my kink. Informing me of illegal behaviour will result in intervention by John Law.
So how does this legal debate affect my anime collection? I have more than 3 hundred tapes, lds and dvds of japanese animation (non-H). I consider that a significant investment.
I don't collect the explicitly sexual stuff, but sheesh, even Sailor Moon (the original series, not the Cartoon network crap) has semi-naked girls that no one pretends are over 18. My Escaflowne laserdisc cover features Hitomi with what is most definitely a nipple showing, and I don't think she's understood to be 18. I can list dozens of other examples from mainstream and non-H series.
My concerns: Am I a potential law breaker for buying/owning all these tapes, lds, and dvds?
What about Japanese imports I buy from US companies? (I don't know what porn laws Japan has, but I never assumed I was in any danger of being criminal)
Can stuff I've owned for years suddenly be considered "virtual kiddy porn"?
Where is this line being drawn now, and is it going to change?
Do we trust US distributors to not sell us the illegal stuff?
Hopefully everyone will just flame me for overreacting and I can quit worry about my anime collection.
While we are about codifying natural law as morality, how about a law limiting each human being to only being responsible for two new lives on the planet?
I'm sure that we can all agree that the destruction of our environment, the depletion of our resources world-wide, starvation, and a general degradation of the quality of life are amoral. These problems all relate to the number of persons requiring food, water, housing, transportation, a new DVD player, a second car, a vacation home in the Poconos, etc. Actually all these things are driven by the amorality of greed as well, but that's another thread.
As the previous poster (marxmarv) noted: "You mean like how excessive procreation, in the era of lengthened lifespans, minuscule incidence of infant mortality, and the overvaluing of human life, might be harmful to society and the planet?"
The action of continuing to contribute to this damage is amoral. (I've done my part as I had a Vasectomy 20+ years ago and have never contributed my genetic material to the pool.) How about some law to prevent this act? Are you opposed to this? It certainly has personal and societal consequences. Your own children will have a lower standard of living - to say nothing of the tens of thousands of children who starve to death in third world countries every day. Applying the logic of your "natural law" argument, we are all responsible for those deaths.
In villages in India (Hindus primarily) one of the first questions asked about any decision regarding the whole is: "How will this affect our great-grandchildren?" Is this position more, or less moral than our short-sighted, next-quarter stock price position?
I know that nothing is going to change until the circumstances become grave - for the ones with the money - but I just thought I'd throw the concepts out.
All of the above aside, far more harm has been done to individuals and societies by religious and ideological conflicts and their attendant violence than any sexual interaction between consenting people.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
Marvelous concept, but define porn... and then step back from the blast of litigation for having removed the constitutionally protected (well, until recently - see DMCA) copyright.
And who says porn will disappear just because there is not a profit motive. There are plenty of newsgroups with individuals posting for their own non-profit motives - exhibitionism, revenge, pride, shock-effect, whatever.
Also, how many copyright lawsuits have you seen brought by 'porn' producers? They have a tendency to lay a little bit low.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
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.
Im going to comment on the second part of the Item, basically because 1: Very few people have and 2: I have a very personal slant on it. I was abused as a child, and used as a "model" in pictures, and this has really destroyed me and my life since. Basically any "porn" that depicts helpless children in any sort of disgusting pose should be outlawed and the creators AND the viewers should be shot. Yes i know that some people will just stumble across the site, and yes there may be ways to discrimate against those, but if there is no child porn available then there is going to be non of those instances. Sorry for my rambling, but i needed to get it off my chest.
What is a 'virtual child'?
Take manga, for example, or hentai. Most of the characters in most Japanese animation have characteristics that look to westerners child-like. Does that make all sexually explicit manga child pornography? Is this child pornography [warning: explicit]? Should it be banned?
Then, how do you tell by looking at a picture how old the subject is? Sure, yes, you can (almost always) tell the difference between a five year old and a fifty year old, but can you always tell the difference between a fifteen year old and a twenty-five year old, even in real life? If you can't in real life, how can you in drawings?
What about fantasy worlds in which people change ages? Take, for example, Freaky Friday, in which a mother and child exchange bodies for a day. If the 'mother' character (supposedly actually an adult but in a child's body) had had sex, would that be child porn? If the 'daughter' character (supposedly actually a child but in an adult body) had had sex, wouold that be child sex?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
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.
The word I believe you wanted was immoral, which means contrary to morals, or wrong.
Amoral means 'without morals' or 'untouched by morals'. An amoral act is one which cannot be judged in a moral sense. An amoral person refuses to belive in the existence of right and wrong. That does not mean they spend there time doing immoral acts. One can exemplify virtue (in the eyes of others) whilst remaining steadfastly amoral.
To correct your language here is a moral act. Please forgive me if any offence is taken, as only the best of wishes are intended.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
cat /dev/random | brain
Whoa! Look at the flying pink elephants!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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?
This means that the "unalienable rights" mentioned in the DoI are protected by the Bill of Rights.
Metalhead, and many other people, miss the basic point of the Bill of Rights: it's not a list of what the People are allowed to do, it's a list of things the Government is prohibited from doing. The Constitution does not give us any rights, because we already have them. What it does do is explicitly limit the Government's power to infringe several of those those rights. This is why the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
> While they may have dismissed making Virtual child porn illegal in the past, I shudder to think what could happen if they dismiss it again.
You're probably the first person to see the problem for what it really is.
If the virtual is indistinguishable from the real, then all the lawyer for the defence needs to say "There is no way to distinguish the virtual from the real. There is therefore reasonable doubt about whether my client's .JPGs depict real or virtual events. The defence rests."
It's not about "censoring" the virtual - it's about ensuring that those charged with posession of the real thing cannot use "But I thought it was virtual" as a defence.
I imagine celebrity fakes are covered under libel/slander law. After all, distributing a (competently) doctored picture which appears to show Jennifer Aniston having sex with Ron Jeremy is the same as saying "Jennifer Aniston had sex with Ron Jeremy". That would be slander, and Ms. Aniston (or indeed, Mr. Jeremy) could sue you for it.
Does virtual porn "have to be bad"? I agree that depictions of children in sexual situations (with prurient intent - this doesn't include for instance a novel featuring a scene where children "play doctor") are in general harmful to us as a society, but that doesn't cut it! For child porn to be rightfully illegal it has to feature REAL CHILDREN. If it doesn't, then no individuals were harmed in its making - period! I may be harmed by reading/viewing it - I am rather sensitive and would probably feel bad for having seen it. But that shouldn't affect the creator's right to create such things. One of the burdens of having free speech in a free and supposedly democratic society is that we sometimes have to endure the existence of unpleasant, shocking, or poor-quality forms of expression. The creator has the freedom to create it, and we have the freedom to NOT VIEW IT if we don't like it.
Freedom: "I won't!"
In your otherwise masterful display of rhetoric, you seem to have left out the part where you actually refuted my statement. Here's another article that says the same thing.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The fact that the policymakers in the US deems nude bodies harmful to people under 18 but guns and violence acceptable to anyone does not mean that this is the case all over the world.
Part of this probably relates to the US having been founded by puritans (amongst others)
In fact most countries outside USA are more concerned about violence than nudity and in many countries there is a age limit of 15 to view violence. There are many other variations on what is deemed inappropriate in various countries.
Except that things are rarely consistant. e.g. animated films/TV or sci-fi/fantasy be considered as "children's material" regardless of actual content (or even what the writers, etc consider.)
"If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States.
Now there's a highly scientific approach. *cough* But I'll play along just for fun.
How many of those 32,000 deaths were suicides? How many suicides did your list of countries have (by any method)? How many were self-defense? How many non-homicide crimes were committed involving guns? How many crimes were prevented in the US by the victim defending him/herself with a gun?
Unless you're willing to look at ALL the information, don't bother to try to put together a nice little bullshit collection of "facts." You don't help your argument at all with that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Smurf pr0n... schwing! Post URL please :-)
Freedom: "I won't!"
Most people, including policy makers, in the US are not concerned with children seeing nude bodies. What most people in the US are concerned about is the glamorization of sex. This is evidenced by the fact that in many states it is not illegal to be nude in public, unless you are trying to arouse yourself or someone else.
Sex is a wonderful act, but has many serious side effects (pregnancy, STDs, etc). The fear is that children, irrational as they tend to be, will not protect themselves from these side effects. This fear is promoted by the spread of HIV and other STDs as well as the fact that there are roughly 1.5 million abortions every year. If people were responsible when having sex, there would be virtually no STDs and no need to have so many abortions.
Pornography is essentially the glamorization of sex. Since the consequences of sex are not glamorous, they are not addressed in porn. When was the last time you heard of a porn flick ending with everyone dying of AIDS or all the women getting pregnant. Until the porn industry decides to show the consequences of sex, it should be regulated to give parents the time to teach their children of its consequences as well as give children the chance to become more rational and less impulsive with their decisions.
The US politicians are not trying to change domestic policies in other countries. They are simply setting the ground rules for doing business with the US. Just like France did with Yahoo. There is nothing wrong with this. In an international community, you must respect the laws of the locals or do business elsewhere.
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
a real person under the age limit probably was involved in some step of the process.
Under what age limit, remember that ages of consent are rather arbitary, sometimes non existant and sometimes related to some other factor than age. In places such as the US they arn't even national...
What if the surrounding story line says they are both 8 years old. Is that a crime? Star Trek's Kes was a grandmother at the age of 8 or 9.
The way law stand at the moment if you simply wrote a novel with this happening then it might well be against the law in many places. However if you wrote a screenplay, cast adult actors (and if you are a big organisation who throws lots of money at US politicans) then its probably ok.
If a regular person did it then expect the US constitution (14th ammendment) to suddently be ignored...
The US is demanding that any page served from a US server...
Exactly. That is why they have the jurisdiction over this matter. US politicians have jurisdiction over US citizens, US corporations, US everything. The French prohibit any French server from selling Nazi stuff to anyone, not just French citizens. In essence, the French have already done what the US politicians want to do. I doubt American politicans will go as far as the French though and filter incomming foreign originating material. But that is only due to technical reasons and not political reasons.