Slashdot Mirror
'Virtual' Child Porn Act Ruled Unconstitutional
wiredog writes "The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, has found the Child Pornography Prevention Act to be unconstitutionally vague and far-reaching." You might read the Act. There were a number of cases challenging the constitutionality of the Act; I believe three Appeals courts eventually upheld it, and one ruled it unconstitutional, guaranteeing that the Supreme Court would take one of the challenges for review. A summary of the decision is available, and see that pages for links to the majority opinion and dissenting opinions.
. . .but two wrongs don't make a right.
Na'am sayin?
but you probably won't...
You get to see aliens violate little girls, now.
God, I hope I don't get this shit in spam email. Its disturbing!
I hate child pornographers as much as the next man - but the language in the act was so broad as to make teen movies like American Pie possible targets for example.
I understand the difficulty of proving that an actual child was involved in making a picture / movie / whatever - but isn't it always necessary to prove that a crime has been committed before you can get a conviction ?
This should become part of our lexicon, just like RTFM... If you would take the time to read the article, along with the Court's decision, you would have noticed that the law that was struck down was done so because it was too broad, not because we are trying to protect child molesters/pornographers/pedophiles. The Court struck the law because of the law's ambiguity and too-broad definitions of what is "child pornography".... This was actually a victory for free speech and freedom of expression. Please do not misunderstand me or my posting here; child pornographers/pedophiles should all be eradicated from the face of the earth by the most horrific/painful means possible, but that is not what this is about....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
That being said, the part of this law that always terrified me was that part that stated you can't depict an adult as a minor in pornography. We shoot girls who like to wear their hair in pigtails. Could they have come after me for that?
I am very against Child Pornography, but this law really worried me that I might go to jail sometime for someones interpertation of something.
yes i run a goth/punk/emo porn site.
Off the top of my head:
-The Tin Drum - was and probably still is banned in OKC
-Kids
-American Pie I & II
-Porkys I, II, and Revenge
-In fact, pretty much all teen sex comedies
-Lolita (old and new)
Do these films appeal to purient interests? Would we be better off without them because they portray characters that are under the age of 18?
Kind of odd though... nothing illegal about people under 18 having sex in most states, but to depict such is illegal... and before this ruling it was illegal to portray persons "acting" under the age of 18.
"Defenestration" is to throw out of a window; what's a word for throwing 'Windows' out of something?
Child pornography is bad.
Child molesters are bad (and people who make child pornography are by definition child molesters)
I am thinking that creating 'imitation' child pornography is not any better. Somewhat like robbing a store with a fake gun.
I wont garner a lot of support on this as I can already here replies to the above but people who like to look at child pornography become people who want to act out on what they have been taking in.
Fortunately here in AZ there are a couple situations where it is legal to shoot someone w/out them directly putting you in harms way. One of them is to stop the rape of a child.
Out to the range this week-end to work on my marksmanship I guess.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
From the decision (emphasis added)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
So, depictions of kiddie porn are protected speech and watching them doesn't make you a paedophile, but if you tell someone where to get DeCSS, then that proves that you're both evil copyright thieves.
Nice to know we've got our priorities straight.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
when we shot the girls they were over the age of 18
;-)
What? They have to be of age to be murdered? What is this country coming to?
(tongue firmly in cheek)
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
if I took pictures of myself masturbating when I was 14, is it ok for me to sell them now I'm 30?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Just two parts. The act has a severability clause that leaves the remainder in force, even though parts of it may be ruled unconstitutional.
The two parts that don't matter anymore are (8) B and (8) D, definitions of child pornography
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct
Part (C) is interesting, and not ruled unconstitutional, photoshopping a minor's head into porn is still child pornography. Better ditch all those pre-18 fake Britney Spears and Anna K. pics you have.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
On Photoshop-faked child porn (I hope GIMP isn't used for this):
The law was an expansion of existing bans on the usual sort of child pornography. Congress justified the wider ban on grounds that while no real children were harmed in creating the material, real children could be harmed by feeding the prurient appetites of pedophiles or child molesters.
Pedophiles (sic) thus have their appetite fed by faked kiddie porn? Well all those fakes of Anna Kournikova never wet my whistle for real porn... desire for real porn is just there :)
On the act:
prohibiting the possession and viewing of child pornography will encourage the possessors of such material to rid themselves of or des troy the material, thereby helping to protect the victims of child pornography and to eliminate the market for the sexual exploitative use of children;
Sorry? Because it's against the law to abuse children, I don't believe that stops them. Even less a law against pornography. After all, banning alcohol just increased consumption, and in countries where porn is illegal (like the one I happen to inhabit) it just raises the price for crap porn which really exploits the subjects.
I do totally agree, however, that Kiddie porn should be banned, it should never exists, it is repugnant and vile. But the law is not going to help sick people who abuse children...
Incidentally, where I live (Morocco) it is socially acceptable (for the natives) in some villages to offer young girls for sex to tourists. Young boys too. The law can't do squat in remote places anyway.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
Because the picture is of a 14 year old.
Best Slashdot Co
As deplorable as child pornography is, I'm glad to see this struck down. The legislation was way to vague, and from what I understand made any simulation of underage sex illegal. That would presumably include some of the anime that's so popular around here, if it could be argued that any character portrayed might appear to be under age 18. The whole thing borders on 'thought crime'.
Go after the real child pornographers, the ones harming innocent children. String them up by their testicles and make them read Jon Katz articles, or whatever... but don't start making artificial arrangements of pixels a felony.
On the one hand, you've got to protect minors. You've also got to make sure that you have the ability to enforce laws that protect minors.
/. group will take.
On the other, you've got the natural defense of the first amendment and the argument "we're not hurting anyone." Which I feel the
There's a few issues I have with this (I only read the article and some of the Act) one of them being using pictures of real kids? That doesn't seem fair to the kid. I'd be kinda pissed if there was child porn going around of me out there, even if it was just my face pasted onto something else.
Then again, I'd be pissed if someone pasted my face on the guys at goatse, so what does that matter.
1)stocks in 3d imaging companies such as Alias|Wavefront and Bryce are expected to rise considerably in the comming weeks due to new demand for their imaging products.
2)Several colleges are drafting new marketing and graphic design majors to help the industry meet the pedophile's needs.
3)Playkid productions has incorporated and is considering an IPO.
4)Several grass-roots pedophile organizations are starting to make noise.
5)Thinkgeek says that this will have no immediate affect on their product line.
6)Next slashdot poll will be "what to do with a pedaphile if you catch one."
6)You don't want to KNOW what Michael Jackson is doing.
7) Cowboy Neal doesn't like kids.
Fast Times at Ridgemont High: Jennifer Jason Leigh's character, Stacy, is a minor (17 I believe). Takes off her shirt in the baseball dugout to finally 'do it' with "Ron Johnson". This can hardly be considered child pornography. I believe under this act, it would be. Unless it is on TNT and isn't actually watched by anyone since the censors pretty much took out everything.
Even though they disgraced themselves in the presidential election, they've restored at least a small shred of my faith in their ability to look at explosive political issues like child porn and still manage to give the constitutional issues a fair and thoughtful hearing. Let's hope they do the same when all these privacy-shredding "antiterrorist" laws make it to their chambers.
Fried ice cream is a reality. - George Clinton
People should be free to express themselves anyway they want
Virtual child porn isnt harming any chilren so it should be legal.
In fact it will protect children because children wont need to be harmed anymore due to the virtual child porn.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I think it's BS. I don't care if it's a 6yr old girl or a 30,000,000 verticies 3DS Max mesh: if it's lewdly pornographic it should be banned.
The reason, at least to me, is simple. We have enough psychos, rapists and stalkers who get worse because of pornography without adding to the problem 10x over by letting them get their hands on "virtual" children. Read this for more info.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Quite simply, there is a difference between being attracted to children and acting on it.
There is no conceivable reason people should be resticted from producing computer generated child porn that causes no harm to children directly.
By the way, when it comes to speech and art, it doesn't matter what it causes indirectly. I don't care if Grand Theft Auto increased auto theft by 10%, or Doom caused columbine, or if child porn increases sickening child rape. It simply is NOT an excuse to restrict peoples liberties.
And the supreme court, even this rather conservative supreme court, understands it. Huzzah.
Congradulations, trollercoaster! Your first post has been officialy recognized as the true First Post
Current Statistics:
Logged in FPs: 7
AC FPs: 4
First Posters:
2 - trollercoaster
1 - morhoj
1 - Spanko
1 - teambpsi
1 - Tensor
1 - xnok
Let me summarize for all the weak minds among us.
The law basically said "if it vaguely resembles child porn, or if we think you were intending to produce/traffic/consume child porn, then we throw you in jail just because we can".
Let's generalize to see how stupid this was : "If it vaguely resembles an act of crime, or if we think you were intending to commit a crime, we throw you in jail just because we can".
_NOW_ is it obvious enough ? Child porn disgusts me as much as the next guy, but this decision isn't so much about child porn as it is about basic civil rights. Innocent until proven guilty, someone should plaster that quote all over the parliament's walls.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I definitely think we'd be better off without Porky's II.
--
E_NOSIG
If people can use virtual child porn they wont need to use real children, this will protect alot of children.
The point of child pornography laws is to keep the porn industry from exploiting children.
No children are exploited in virtual porn, so it should be legal, its harmless and if anything protects children in the long run.
The arguement people who are against virtual porn will use is "Its bad to feed the perverts any form of child pornography"
problem is, these people will always exsist, and its better for them to get off to fake child porn, than REAL child porn.
Wrong = Exploiting children
However nothing is wrong with virtual child porn or
any other form of expression as long as no one is harmed
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
then you have the point of what constitues acting?
if a woman giggles "like " a school girl, then give a BJ or jumps in bed with a guy, is it illegal?
what is interesting though, is that while this law was around, there have been no tenn movies. all the movies have been about college kids.
funny.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Think of the cartoons! All those poor defenseless anime children forced into sexual slavery at the stroke of a pen!
Best Slashdot Co
If you read the article and look at who was on the 6 and who was on the 3 side of the decision, you'll notice that justices Thomas and Scalia - who I think vote with each other like > 90% of the time - are on two different sides for this one. This is somewhat encouraging to me...perhaps they'll start taking different sides more often.
The best way to protect children is to give an outlet to the perverts who want child pornography or who create it, a legal outlet which harms no one, virtual child porn may be the answer.
Theres no way you can ever rid the world of these people, they will always exsist, and taking away their virtual porn would make them create more child porn or worse, rape and abuse children.
So in the best interest of the children, Virtual Porn should be legal.
Virtual porn directly takes money away from the REAL child porn industry, and that is key to stopping child porn.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
In the Middle Ages people were considered adults at age 13 or so. It wasn't uncommon for people in their teens to be married, having sex and blessed with children. And there are many paintings from the time of nude women who were most likely under 18 when they posed for the painting. So would all this centuries old art have to be destroyed if the law would have been upheld.
There's been a few comments which ask, basically, why one can make filthy pictures but not good clean code. The difference is in the reason for the law. DeCSS and others are basically under property law. Whereas this case was about general goverment prohibitions for personal harm.
One might just as well ask why it's legal to swear, but one could conceivably get into trouble for copyright infringement if the choice of swearing duplicated a comedy routine.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Dont get me worng I Believe child Molestors are Evil... But with an issue like this it seems to get an emotional response that doesnt follow the logical thinking abotu free speech and laws that the rest of the things we discuss on slashdot.
Should 18+ Porn be illegal becuase it can fuel rapists?
Let the negative mod points begin
Agian i believe child pron and Child Molestors are EVIL I just believe we can be selective about ours and others rights and I dont think Child Pron should be Legal
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
it's called sarcasm, moderators.
Aren't there already laws that say performing the act of a pedophile (removing clothing from minors) is illegal. Are there not also laws that say that taking pictures of unclothed minors for distribution (other than medical) is illegal. Do we really need another law or do we just need to enforce the existing laws to the fullest extent on pedophiles.
I am sure this has already been posted by the time I have spell checked and posted this so please don't reundant me to death
More of my thoughts
The situation is far worse than that.
If we let the so-called conservatives have their way, the day before her 18th birthday that cute little thing shouldn't even be aware that pornography exists (much less that the pictures last forever) or aware that people will pay her money to take her clothes off. As for sex, that's something she'll learn about on her wedding night.
But at midnight she's thrown to the wolves - it's legal for some sleazy operator to sign her up to not only take off her clothes on film, but to have engage in all types of sex.
Fortunately some judges have (finally) started to realize that applying laws intended to protect children - real children, no more than 10 or 12 - from the harsher facts of life are morally reprehensible when they're applied to teenagers. It's better to shock a sheltered 15- or 16-year-old than to leave an 18-year-old unprepared for life. But Congress is still getting away with crappy laws - they get to pander to the idiots back home while counting on the courts to eventually save themselves from their own folly.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
...for pornographers.
It'd be great, though, if they started looking out for the little guy by, say, repealing the ridiculous 90-year copyright. It's great that they're doing a little bit to protect free speech, but there are some other free expression matters out there that are in more need of attention.
Couple of questions:
What happens when computer gernerated graphics are good enough you can't tell the difference?
Does this allow someone to take a picture of a child and manipulate it in a sexual way?
I understand the rights for freedom of speech, etc. My fear is that this will be a big stepping stone to worse things. i.e. I started out with just computer generated kiddie-porn, then i went to real ones, and then i had to see it in person, etc.
I think a perfect example would be the anime video Kite. Scenes of an the main character at an obviously younger age in sexual situations with an adult were removed for the American release, even though it was animated. There are other examples of child sexuality, and too many teen ones to count in Japanese Animation.
There are quite a few foreign films and shows on the list, too. I would still say that Lolita is the defining film/book on the list, though.
Not every country is bothered by child sexuality, and the vast majority of human cultures in history have regarded teens as adults. The hundreds of films in America where teens are sexually active makes the law way too broad in that regard alone. I'm not defending kiddy porn, I'm just trying to point out that however harshly we may oppose it, it is too poorly and subjectively defined to legislate against easily, particularly in a country as diverse as ours. The biggest problem would be defining what is permissible in the depiction of underaged sexuality and what is not.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
One of the things I have long not understood about this country's legal system is the notion that you are suddenly old enough to do things at certain ages. That is one qualm I have with child pornography laws. I am convinced there are numerous 17 year-olds capable of making such mature decisions, and there are probably scores more who are legal that are not.
Another reservation I hold with the system is the notion that it is not illegal to import images where someone filmed a child and then modified the image to make it pornographic. While that is not as detrimental to a child's well-being at the time, it is still sick, and the child could feasibly be hurt for a long time just as a result of finding such images of themselves or others their age.
Liora
Let's face it. This, like most litigious initiatives, had no desire what-so-ever to do anything about pedophiles or child porn. Grow up. Why do you think the language in it was so broad? This was ment to fail. Politics... *sigh*
Anyho', this wouldn't be a problem if people had the right to their own image... would it?
'Course, that will never happen as long as the Corporations control our lives, our government, industry, oh and our computers. Your image is not owned by you. The law says so... even if your being abused. Ask the mayor of New York! mmmm, splifffy weed. I tried it and I liked it!
This is nothing wrong with being a pedophile as long as no children are harmed. Its a slippery
slop we travel on if we think differently.
To think about people 17 and under in a sexual way, while it may indicate illness, in is self is not an illness. A mental illness either need to lead to the person harming them self's or being kept from functioning, or it must harm others. If someone can't control their impulse to became sexually active with kids it's an illness, and a crime. If someone thinks about a child sexually and doesn't act on it, then their is no illness and furthermore no crime. Allowing people freedom of thought and expression of thought isn't some privilege to be taken away because it could encourage an illness or a crime.
One last thing, this whole "If you think about someone whose under 18 your a sick bastard." If extremely narrow minded, the age of consent veies from state to state. Its never higher than 18 but sometimes it dips as low as 14.
I'm nineteen, and I hate pedophiles, I really do. I also look at the matter thoroughly and come to reasonable solutions, instead of stick to safe, popular, black and white principles
I think many people are missing an important point. WHY is child pornography wrong? Yes, its sick and disgusting (imo), but why? One answer, probably the main one, would be that it exploits a person who is not old enough to understand what is happening. This of course is reason enough.
However, if you take the exploitation out, where does that leave you? It is akin to having sex with your sister; the only real reason is due to the genetic defects that would occur from inbreeding. Yet we consider it twisted and wrong and disgusting, not even considering the real reason it is illegal.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if people want to make/use virtual child porn, since it is not exploiting anyone (ala real child pornography), then there isn't really a good reason to ban it, free speech or not.
Although I still think it is disgusting, don't get me wrong...
I value free speech over everything.
God Bless America.
You've prevented the effect of the picture taking assholes, but haven't indicated to the drool-at-the-mouth preverts that this is wrong at all. Here, have all the fake porn you want, hell must be nothing wrong here...
First Monday which is a Supreme Court Drama discussed this rule last week and they came up with the same ruling, i.e. Virtual Child Ponography law violates Free speech. And they did a damn good job at proving it too.
Thats one more show I like to watch, since it dishes it out with a prejudiced mind.
Rapid Nirvana
Think about what you are saying!
If somebody jerks off to virtual porn they are safe!?!?
I will lay hard money that these individuals will eventually seek to fulfill their fantasy with an innocent.
Look no further then the most recent abduction in San Diego. This guy had porn, but it sure didn't stop him from expanding his horizons for the real thing.
Fantasies by their very nature are an inducement to be realized!
Don't fall for your logic! It aint so.
The reason child pornography is illegal is to protect children. To protect children from being sexually abused in the act of creating child pornography.
Lawmakers tried to limit pedophile's access to images of child pornography. They did this because they felt it was morally right. There's no evidence to support the argument that pedophiles will be more likely to control their behavior if they are unable to see images depicting their desires.
I'm really disgusted with myself for taking the side of pedophiles, but it's a question in black and white. Do we control artistic expression for the sake of morality? No.
XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-U
But this is good for other "virtual crimes". If this had passed through, how long would it take the overprotective mothers of the world to rally up support for banning other virtual depictions of crimes. Will I go to jail because I virtually murdered a player in Quake 3? Or perhaps go to jail for selling drugs in Dope Wars.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Romeo and Juliet.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
There will always be the few extrordinary circumstances <snip inflammatory example> which is why the judicial system exists. Not to interpret.
What do you think "judge" means? It is to exercise judgement. Opinions like yours are why:
The courts are the last check against the enforcement of bad laws. (This should be the place of a jury, but appeals courts have taken the activity on for themselves.)
Nope, no sig
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Romeo and Juliet were only 15ish.
worth restricting people's rights.
It's like the DMCA... It ASSUMES that people are guilty because they look at non-real images. It ASSUMES that these people will later go and commit a crime.
Would SOME people commit a crime based on this virtual desire? Probably.
Should the government assume ALL people are criminals and strip our rights to expression because a few people MAY commit a crime?
BTW - Romeo and Juliet - underage sex. Titanic - underage sex. Traffic - Underage sex. Lolita - underage sex. I think you get the picture. There are a LOT of films and artwork that depict "virtual" mature scenes (not necessarily nudity, but the law outlawed any notion that kids may be having sex, even if it wasn't explicitly shown), because it is a part of the film and the characters are supposed to be under 18.
These films were technically outlawed before.
This decision is a win for people's right to expression, especially when there is no real victim. Even if the idea is putrid to most, we can't force value judgements on everyone based on concepts that do not harm others (although we do all the time: see homosexuality, etc.)
Ciao!
What's wrong is a mentality like yours, "everything is ok so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."
There are many things that are wrong that don't physically hurt other people. In fact what determines wrong and right is not always about hurt. (physically or mentally) Sometimes it's about dignity or honor or respect.
You don't hurt anyone when you make fun of the retarded kid down the block, but it doesn't change it from being wrong.
Now whether or not it should be legal, is a separate issue. There are lots of forms of expression that are wrong.
Saying you're disturbed by it isn't a valid reason for making it illegal. Lots of people are disturbed that you go shooting. Would you like it if they made it illegal for you to own guns and shoot? Restricting one person's right to read/listen/watch/do things that don't affect others ends up restricting your right to read/listen/watch/do things that don't affect others also. It's only freedom if you're willing to share.
For the record, I am a liberal in every sense of the word. Law's should punish those who harm the freedom or well being of others. Law's should not make criminals of people who have done no harm to others. Victimless crimes aren't crimes. Owning a gun, shouldn't be a crime, using it to harm others should be a crime. Owning "Lolita" shouldn't be a crime, acting it out should be a crime. Get the picture?
I object to the increasing criminalization of the simple ownership of objects and not the acts of using them in ways which infringe upon the rights of others. That goes for guns, virtual child porn and bebop jazz. I don't like some of them, but I respect your right to own them. Laws should not make criminals of people who respect other peoples' rights and freedoms.
Enkidu EOT
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
How the fuck is the parent a troll??
My personal fav: Romeo and Juliet (At least the Zefirelli version. Haven't seen the 1996 one)
In the past 6 months /. has featured 2 supreme court decisions, both of which I've written papers on. Here is my take, as a student of the 1st amendment on why you might rule this act constitutional. Now I dont agree with it, but I think this makes for an interesting and informative read.
Background
In the case of Janet Reno v. The Free Speech Coalition et al. we find a traditional confrontation between the expression of U.S. law and the constitutionally protected concept of freedom of speech. The Free Speech Coalition has challenged whether or not Congress has the constitutional authorization to regulate computer-generated images as child pornography. The case has been formed around the contention that two phrases present in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 ("CPPA" or the "Act") are so broad that they infringe on speech that the first amendment protects. Secondarily, the Free Speech Coalition argues that the law has such a chilling effect to freedom of speech that it imposes a prior restraint on the kinds of products the defendants are producing. The Act outlaws images that have been either entirely created using electronic or mechanical means, or images that have been modified by those means. These images only fall under the Act when they either appear to be child pornography, or are marketed as such.
In 1996 a congressional study expressed concern over the growing technical ability to produce adult materials that blurred the lines between protected forms of pornography and child pornography, which is an unprotected form. The study was particularly concerned with the effects that "virtual" child pornography would have on children. These "virtual" images are created by mechanical or electronic means, and may or may not involve the usage of children. In some cases children's faces are superimposed over images of pornography involving consenting adults. In other cases, the images are created without using any children, but rather are created from a computer model of an adolescent.
Congress created the CPPA in response to this concern. Their fact finding committee suggested that such a ban on "virtual" child pornography would advance legitimate government interest in several ways: by protecting children, allowing enforcement of current pornography laws, and undermining the distribution channels that the child pornography trade has been built upon. The congressional committee saw these goals as important enough to warrant the infringement upon certain types of expression.
In light of these concerns the CPPA was specifically targeted to prohibit the creation of pornographic images by electronic or mechanical means. The Free Speech Coalition has built their objection around the language used to meet this goal. The law prohibits any image that "appears to be" of a minor engaging in sexual acts, or is distributed in such a manner that it "conveys the impression" of a minor engaging in sexual acts. For these purposes sexual acts were defined as sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadism/masochism, and lascivious display of genitals. The Free Speech Coalition asserts that this language infringes on their first amendment rights to freedom of expression because of its breadth.
High Value v. Low Value Speech
The court must caution all parties involved to remember the distinction between high-value and low-value speech. Speech is considered of a high value when it is essential to the smooth functioning of our deliberative democracy. Traditionally the First Amendment affords more protection for these types of speech in order to encourage the open dialog essential for preventing a government from becoming oppressive to its people. It is important to note when the first amendment was created the speech that was considered most important to protect uncensored was speech of a political nature. Numerous times through out this Court's history examples can be found of cases where speech was allowed because of the essential political nature of that speech. In the case of The National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) speech that was objectionable was allowed because that speech was of a political nature. In this case it would be impossible to grant that the speech the Free Speech Coalition wishes to protect is political.
In recent years the court has only limited political speech when it met the test of "clear and present danger." Justice Holmes introduced this test in the case of Scheck v. The United States 1919 by saying that political speech must present an immediate danger to the government before restrictions can be placed upon it. The courts reasoning for this has been that speech of a political nature is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. If citizens are not allowed to express their ideas for fear of governmental action, then the government has become oppressive. For this reason the court has a stringent test for when it can regulate a citizens speech.
When cases have come before the court where the speech was not political the test for regulation is less stringent. If speech is not of a political nature then there is less reason for the government to permit it to harm citizens. In cases such as these the court has found that the government has a right to regulate speech in order to pursue its vital interests. The Supreme Court has ruled previously that "[a] content-neutral regulation will be sustained under the First Amendment if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests."
The court has defined low value speech as speech that has no political meaning. This should not be mistaken as grounds for wholesale censorship of speech because the government finds it objectionable. It is important to note this difference in the perceived value of speech. Low-value speech must naturally warrant greater scrutiny than speech of a political nature. Therefore, we must examine the permission of virtual child pornography very carefully. When speech harms or impedes the government's pursuit of its vital interests then more leeway is allowed in restricting that speech. One can plainly see that there are serious legal ramifications to the type of speech that the Free Speech Coalition seeks to protect.
Breadth
To declare a statute as overly broad is a judicial last resort that should only be used in an effort to fix a law that cannot be made constitutional in any other way. Even when the statute being considered does appear to be overly broad the court must consider the whole law. Laws that may seem overly broad at first glance may be found acceptable when considered as a whole. The case that The Free Speech Coalition presents raises objections to several clauses as being overly broad. However, the court holds the opinion that when the whole CPPA is considered all of these clauses are constitutional. There are specific reasons why we must consider each clause to be so.
In the instance of the phrase "appears to be" the statute cannot be seen as overly vague when taken in context of the entire law. Congress included the affirmative defense to resolve the individual conflicts between legitimate protected expression and the law. This section states that if a images "appears to be" of child pornography, but the promoters of that material can prove the participants are of legal age, then the image is exempt from the CPPA . The Act provides an affirmative defense as an escape clause for those that might be prosecuted falsely for producing protected forms of expression. If the expression requires a consensual sexual act between people of the appropriate age, then the affirmative defense provides for the protection of that expression even if it might be considered to fall under the act. In this manner it is important to understand that the affirmative defense is a full defense from the law, providing protection for worthy kinds of expression
The Free Speech Coalition has said that the CPPA violates the ruling in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). They contend that the CPPA takes away the possibility of using someone who "perhaps looks younger" by making images illegal even if they contain adults of a consenting age. This is simply not true. If an image complied with the Ferber ruling then it would be protected by the affirmative defense in the CPPA. If an image portrays a person who looks younger than the age of consent, but the producer or distributor of such an image can prove they are consenting, then there is no conflict with the law.
The phrase "conveys the impression" is indeed a broad one. However, two problems arise if this court rules it overly broad. The first is the historical reluctance of the court to rule a statute overly broad because of the difficulty this would pose to lawmakers at all levels of government. Statutes must be sufficiently focused in order to prevent abuse by governmental authorities in their prosecution. However, they must be constructed broadly enough to attain their ends. Although the court finds great difficulty in striking this balance, it must consider the interests vital to securing the most free and stable state for all of its citizens to enjoy. In this case we must consider the states vital interests in protecting children from sexual predators.
Harm to Children
In recent years it has become trite to express interest in children as America's future. However, in a very legal standpoint a self-interested society must place extra weight on protecting the young for it will be their responsibility to care for the continuation of this country. For that reason one of the states most vital interest is in protecting its children.
In this light it is important to consider the protection of children as a goal that can justify the restriction of speech. Just as a patron must not cry "fire" in a crowded theatre because of the harm it would cause to theatre goers, any speech or expression that can harm children must be restricted. Child pornography has such harm in its expression that it is in the states vital interest to make every effort to eliminate this harm. In this case we are dealing with a law designed to protect children against child pornography.
While this is not a new concept in American jurisprudence, the implementation has a major variation. Previously, laws seeking to protect children against the harms of child pornography have been focused on the "primary" harmful effects of the pornography. Primary effects are best defined as those harms that are the direct result of the child's participation in the making of pornography. These effects include the actual molestation, emotional scarring, and a visual record of the acts that the child participates in. The logic behind previous laws dealing with child pornography is that these effects are so heinous that the government's interest in protecting children far outweighs the rights of the pornographer to produce these types of images. In the CPPA however, we see a shift in the intent of the law to protect children not from these primary effects, but from other, secondary effects.
These secondary effects that the CPPA focuses on are the harms that occur when a child is exposed to child pornography, rather than injured in the production of it. These effects can include sexual predation, desensitization, and forced sexual identity at a young age. These secondary effects have never been directly recognized as justification for the restriction of expression. Since these effects are not directly the result of child pornography their usage as the sole reason for regulation is problematic. However, there is a manner in which these secondary effects are important to consider.
The governments' primary interest in regulating child pornography is the protection of those that are injured in the production of the pornography. All previous laws have focused on what occurs during the making of the pornography. In these cases there are real children that are being harmed and the law is to prevent the harm. To redefine that interest as to protect those that may be injured by exposure marks a much larger shift in ideology.
This shift in ideology is not present if restrictions on distribution are used as a method to halt production. This is an important consideration when viewing Supreme Court rulings as carrying the full force of U. S. law. The tradition of the court has been to rely on precedent and stability. When the court is judicially active it has a tendency to reach beyond normal considerations to grant a higher level or protection than normal. One of the most active stances the court has taken is in Brown v. Board of Education and it took such a stance because of the political nature of the case. In Reno v. The Free Speech Coalition the speech that is being considered is not political. Although there have been periods of judicial activism, this case is not a candidate for such consideration. Therefore, we must look at this case from a distribution standpoint.
Just as with the struggle to contain illicit drugs, the government must win the war against child pornography in the channels of distribution. When defensible images are marketed as child pornography they keep the demand for actual child pornography alive. This leads to the harms inherent in the production of actual child pornography. These harms are the emotional damage to children involved, encouragement in the belief of children as sexual objects, and much higher rates of child molestation. If the viewing of "virtual" child pornography is approved then demand for such images will surely increase. The danger in increasing demand for these kinds of images is that some pornographers will almost certainly resort to using actual children in production and then claiming that the images are protected as being "virtual." When these images are purchased as "virtual" then the laws against real child pornography have been bypassed. In this manner people who would never consider harming a child might inadvertently support those who are abusing children in the production of pornography.
Enforcement of Current Laws
This leads to yet another important idea to consider. The absence of the CPPA will hinder enforcement of the many other child pornography laws, laws whose constitutionality is not in question. In cases where the "virtual" pornography is utterly indistinguishable from that involving real children the lines between permitted and non-permitted speech would be so blurred that they would prevent prosecution of real crimes in the absence of the CPPA. It is quite obvious that the first amendment does not extend protection to those persons harming children in the production of their "expression." However, without a law such as the CPPA the government's burden of proof would become so difficult that it would prevent the enforcement of legitimate laws.
In pursuing the vital interests of protecting children the court must consider the limited infringement on certain types of low-value speech against the vital interests of continuing validity of necessary laws. In this case one can easily see that whatever position is preferred initially, the restrictions placed on expression by the CPPA are neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional. The combination of the many factors that have been, and will be discussed make the decision in the case an easy one. No matter what tradition of preference is used, the CPPA satisfies the need to balance first amendment freedoms with the protection of vital interests.
Prior Restraint
As mentioned earlier, the Free Speech Coalition contends that the CPPA presents a prior restraint on speech. They present the opinion that by regulating images that only represents children, but do not involve them, the government creates a chilling atmosphere for free expression. The idea is that the statute is so broad that since a reasonable person cannot tell if an image falls under the act, then someone who produces images involving children would not be free to express himself for fear of prosecution.
There are, however, several problems with this particular thought. The court can only consider something as prior restraint when the government actively prevents the expression of a particular idea. Self-regulation from fear of prosecution cannot be considered prior restraint. If a person fears government prosecution then they only have to examine the law and their product to determine if it is banned. In the case of the CPPA, if the image does not fall under the definition presented in section 2256 or is protected by the affirmative defense then that speech is permitted. If this is the case then there is no reason to fear governmental action.
The Free Speech Coalition asserts that there is no way for a reasonable person to know whether or not an image falls under the definition of the act. This is simply not the case. In the case of the phrase "appears to be a minor" the test is simple. A perfectly workable test was introduced by a First Circuit Court ruling. The question is "whether an unsuspecting viewer would consider the depiction to be an actual individual under the age of eighteen engaging in sexual activity." In instances such as that the question always arises "What constitutes a reasonable person?" There is no pat definition to this question. The assumption made by the United States Constitution is that the vast majority of persons are indeed reasonable. This can be seen in our system of a trial by a jury of a persons peers. If the citizens of the United States are reasonable enough to determine a persons innocence or guilt in cases of high importance, such as murder, then they are capable of determining if a person appears to be under 18 years of age.
The existence of an affirmative defense also answers the question of prior restraint. If an image can be protected under the affirmative defense then there is no reason for a person to fear prosecution for that image. When these considerations are taken into account then the threat of prior restraint seems much less dangerous. With these understandings, those who produce images that are not prohibited by the CPPA have nothing to fear.
Preferred Positions
In this discussion it is important to note the judicial tradition of preferred positions. The court at various times has preferred certain philosophies of the first amendment to others. Justice Hugo Black preferred the protection of the First Amendment to all others initially. Other justices have given more credence to protecting stability and the rule of law than they have to protecting freedom of speech in all situations. In either ideology, regardless of which is initially preferred the evidence for a compelling state interest is so strong that it overrides any preference for the permission of expression involving "virtual" child pornography. Justice Ferguson expressed this feeling when he stated "Congress' interests in destroying the child pornography market and in preventing the seduction of minors outweigh virtual child pornography's exceedingly modest social value."
This coupled with the fact that such pornography can be used in the seduction of children when marketed as minors is sufficient reason to limit one form of low value expression in the quest to protect children. One large part of the congressional study that proceeded the CPPA was dedicated to the use of pornography by pedophiles. The panel reached the conclusion that "virtual" pornography is just as effective in seducing children as actual pornography. This cuts to the very heart of the debate on secondary effects. Even though "virtual" pornography does not harm children in its production it causes other real harm to children. The Free Speech Coalition has been adamant that computer generated images are victimless, and do not harm children in their creation. They ignore the fact that they harm children in their existence. As with many constitutional issues, a balance must be struck between protection of the rights guaranteed to individuals and the protection of safety for all.
In several instances the Free Speech Coalition raises possibilities where officials who wish to prosecute protected speech might misuse the law. Unfortunately, these cases are not before us now. When these hypothetical cases of abuse by law enforcement arise, then this court will be happy to hear another challenge based on such abuse. Until that time the affirmative defense is sufficient to prevent such abuses.
Other Considerations
There is one warning that I must add to my decision against the Free Speech Coalition. No matter how repugnant it may seem, there is no legal justification for the outlawing of the thought of committing an illegal act with a minor. Such a law would require the creation of an Orwellian Thought Police that the first amendment was specifically designed to protect against. However, it must be clear that such limitation only applies in creations of the mind that commit no actual harm. This case rides the boundaries between regulating thought and ensuring safety for all.
Although the Act is quite valid, the Free Speech Coalition is correct in objecting to regulations that are against "creations of the mind." Although there is no harm to actual children in production, the dangers to children are obvious. Because this harm is so close to that of pornography that does involve children, and it does cause actual harm to actual children, the regulation of computer generated images is permissible. Had these harms not been present, then the court would have found no justification to ban the speech based on content alone.
This is not to say that we have outlawed the thought of sex with minors. If the Free Speech Coalition wanted to produce literature that wrote about sexual activity with minors, and this writing did not cause them actual harm, it would be a different ruling. Simply because a thought is repugnant does not mean that it is illegal. It must be very clear that the First Amendment is being abridged not because of content, but because of harm. The First Amendment is intended to protect speech that is disagreeable to the government, but not to protect speech that causes harm.
Conclusions
The decision to rule against the Free Speech Coalition is a difficult one. While I am concerned with any ruling that restricts freedom of speech, it is difficult to justify overturning the CPPA on the grounds that virtual child pornography should be protected. It is my opinion that the need for freedom of expression does not outweigh the harms that can be caused by the types of expression the Free Speech Coalition seeks protection for. In this case Justice Holmes test of "Clear and present danger" is much too stringent to use when considering restricting "virtual" pornography. While this type of expression does not present an immediate danger to the survival of the United States, its danger to members of our country is sufficient to justify its regulation.
For these reasons I must rule against the Free Speech Coalition.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Wonder if she is an avid reader of /. as well?
Z X. html
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.
See section II, paragraph 2.
Actually, she claims this as an example of the rapid pace of computer imagery development in creating life-like figures. I still had no problem determining this was CGI, though. But does she have a point? What if in 2, 5 or 10 years it is completely impossible to distinguish CGI from reality. Forget virtual child porn, hell it would be impossible to submit any video as evidence in a crime. The bank robbers could claim the cops 'doctored' the tape.
Unfortunately, a lot of what you are saying is a flawed argument in response to LordNimon.
Someone asked if he was a psychologist to push his expertise.
I'll up it a little. My best friend is a psychiatrist (big distinction between the two) and he would tell you that LordNimon is absolutely correct about taking obsessions to the "next level." He's spoken to me several times about these kind of behaviors. Also, you'll find extremely few dissenting opinions on his answer among the medical community.
There have been plenty of case studies to back this up. I just can't point you in that direction, and my friend is not a
The 1996 one depicted 16 year olds. The play has Juliet as a 12 year old.
Best Slashdot Co
...depicts a great deal of illegal violence, not sex-related, just one man shooting another dead. This is a portrayal of an illegal crime, and, what's more, scientific studies have linked (not merely shown correlation between) media violence and real world violence.
The question is: should portraying illegal acts *in graphic detail* be legal?
This is not a troll. It's a serious question, and one that relates to the topic. Personally, I would love to see many R-for-violence rated films be unavailable entirely except to members of the population whose real-world behavior will not be made more violent by seeing it.
"Over 18" does not define this category.
I think we need an all-encompassing, deliberately vague anti-privacy bill that will put to end the machinations of these terrorists!
Of course, you can't permit judges or police the ability to make excessively sweeping arbitrary decisions -- but when details of the meaning of a law need to be decided upon, someone has to do it -- and that someone is the judge. A judge can't just say what they like, though -- the reasoning for their decisions will be considered carefully and appealed if unjust.
Let me give you a simple textbook example.
Abby owns a restauraunt. Beth, a customer, orders fish chowder, gets a bone stuck in her throat, and has to go to the hospital. The law states that Abby is liable if the food is "unwholesome" or not "fit to be eaten". So... does a fish bone make fish chowder unwholesome? An appeals court judge answered no. If laws had to be so "clear cut" as you'd have them be, then the law would have had to list situations that would (and wouldn't!) produce unwholesomeness in food -- and I don't think you find that any more reasonable a proposition than I do.
It really shocks me that legislation like this got so far. I find child porn disgusting. I accept however that information (and that is all an image is) cannot be "evil". The only reason why child porn should be illegal, morally is that children are harmed in its making. Hence how does making a "virtual child porn image" hurt anyone? why should it be illegal? it may be disgusting, but that is in no way a legitemate reason for outlawing something.
Looks like the official name of the case is "Ashcroft v. Free Speech, et al."
From now on I think we should allow people to talk about this issue with out having to decry the evils of child porngraphy.
Schools are not laws.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Parents are required by law to send their children to school. (Home-schooling is the exception, and the National Educators' Association is trying to get it outlawed.) School boards pass "regulations" under which teachers are required to report certain offenses to the police. The police are required by law to investigate the complaints. Seems like "law" to me.
But in any case, here's your non-school example:
Laws are supposed to be specific in order to restrict police activity, not to require it.
Nope, no sig
Guys who like girls, or women, they are horny, their option, go find a random girl and rape her, or go to a porn site.
We have these options, we are perverts too, why should WE have porn, but they shouldnt?
Porn keeps my hormones in check, I'm not a rapist and never will be because I'm not an aggressive person, however I'm sure i'd be ALOT more perverted toward women if I were horny all the damn time due to porn sites being illegal.
Think about the logic, we use porn to control us, not every male who likes women is a rapist.
Same goes for pedophiles, not every pedophile is the type who will rape children.
but by making them horny 24/7 by giving them no release, it raises the chances their hormones will be out of control and they may be drunk one day and do something stupid.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Have to defend my home state here. The Tin Drum seizure was overturned. see http://www.aclu.org/news/w122997a.html
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
I'm to lazy for doing any research on this, but does this ruling say anything about child porn created out of nothing for "personal enjoyment"? I've read something once regarding a Canadian (from British Columbia if I remember well) that was caught with drawings of nude kids. However, it was his own drawings and didn't share them with anyone... What's the status of this under the current law, in USA and in Canada? Is it kiddie porn or free speech, or what?
Yeah so the reason we have male rapists, is because all of this porn is making males more likely to rape women and making women more likely to become sluts, because it feeds them?
Bullshit, its because of the porn that people can release their sexual tension in the privacy of their home, instead of outside in public on people.
Without porn, rape would be alot more common than it is, and women would sleep around alot more often.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I don't like or advocate child pornography. I do advocate tolerance and empathy. :S
People whe enjoy child pornografy, or get turned on by looking at naked children, are not inherently evil. It is merely a matter of taste. And saying all pedophiles (the correct term) are child molester is like saying all homosexuals are boy-scout rapists.
The only real motivation to forbid child porn should be the well-being of children. I agree no child, for any reason, should be used for sexual purposes, including photos. Computer generated porn removes that problem. So, if no child is harmed, why forbid it?
The bill atempted to punish people, not for hurting others, but merely because of their tastes. And that is inconstitutional, even if you don't like what they like.
BTW, computer generated child porn is probably a good tool to prevent real children from being exploited. Because, let's face it, child porn (like piracy, any kind of porn and crappy pop music) will always exist, no matter how hard you fight them.
Well, you know what they say about karma. Easy comes, easy goes
If it applies to kiddie porn it applies to ALL porn.
Kiddie porn is just one aspect of porn, theres alot of other fetishes people have.
So you are saying, porn is why theres rapists and the solution is to remove all porn?
Hahahaha funny, you think there would be less rapes if there were less porn? I think it would be the opposite.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Somehow Willy knew...
My personal fav: Romeo and Juliet (At least the Zefirelli versionHaven't seen the 1996 one).
Ah, which of us didn't lust over Olivia Hussey. Leeeeaaaaaniinng over the balcony.
I quite enjoyed Baz Luhrman's rendition in spite of Leo. Rocked the same way Moulin Rouge did. 'Course you either like his stuff or YOU ABSOLUTELY *LOATH* IT!
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Pornography does feed SOME people's desire to seek out sexual encounters. Ted Bundy admitted that pornography led to his serial rape/murders. Pedophilia probably works both ways, those with mental instabilities and those who look at child porn and go that way. (and I'm not saying that every one who looks at it becomes a pedophile).
Saying porn makes pedophiles abuse children is like saying Porn makes males rape women, or porn makes women turn into sluts.
People dont copy what they see in porn videos, they watch the porn video to fantasize about what they could never do in the real world.
its the people who dont look at porn that you need to worry about.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
In the March 1994 issue of Wired (2.04), there's a speculative article about what the arguments among the Justices would be if such a case ever came up. Interesting to compare Samuel Gelerman's speculation to the real arguments in the decision:
Herd Not Obscene, by Samuel Gelerman, from Wired 2.04
I don't know what I would do without the ability to make up my own child porn. I was practically suffocating under the weight of oppression before the Supreme Court saved from being crushed. Lady Liberty has been saved from the dustbin once again.
It's like the dawn of a new day outside the gulag. Put my pencil in my scabbord, it's time to save America with some good old-fashioned molestation prose.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
And out of that 90 percent, alot of us have fantasies which alot of people would consider, "sick"
Child porn is an unusual fantasy. But everyone has the right to any fantasy they want no matter what it is, and everyone has the right to express it, virtual porn allows people who fantasize about something to express it.
By expressing it in the virtual world they are less likely to express it using real children.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Never thought of that before. But I suppose it would be illegal for you to sell it even when you're 14. I mean, kids can't make and sell their own porn.
Although it does sound better than a paper route.
Kind of odd though... nothing illegal about people under 18 having sex in most states
At least in the states I've lived in, there are a number of circumstances under which it's illegal. California in particular has some very strict codes [ca.gov] on underaged sexual activity that do not make allowances even if both parties involved are underaged or near in age. Check your own state's legal code.
this space intentionally left blank
Its pretty sad to see how a few of you guys here are applying a logical progression to a situation where it doesn't belong. I know a lot of you are engineers/nerds/geeks/whatever. I am too. Logic is important for some of the work we do. But its truly sad when you see someone misusing a logical progression to explain something away, to divide it into digestible steps which eventually lead to a huge perversion of the situation at hand. This is what I'm talking about (you'll notice that the root of the problem lies in the very first step): "People who want kiddie porn can't possibly ever be cured of this desire. "Therefore they must have kiddie porn. "Fake kiddie porn is not as bad as kiddie porn. because no real kids were used. "Fake kiddie porn is therefore better than the real stuff. "Fake kiddie porn, in fact, is ART, if you really think about it. "Due to its higher acceptability, giving fake kiddie porn to the addicts is thus better than giving them the real stuff. "Kiddie porn makes a bad situation better. "Therefore, fake kiddie porn is alright, and even necessary." Can't you step back and hear what you're saying? This is disgusting. Do I seriously need to explain WHY there is a problem with the idea that fake kiddie porn is alright or acceptable? You who talk like this are putting on logical blinders to the real world; politics, logic, and constitutionality roar through your mind, but you never stop for a moment to look straight at the facts and realize how truly heinous it is to defend the constitutionality of having virtual kiddie porn. Stop playing political mind games and come back to reality! There's a problem when you use step by step problem-solving algorithms to explain away the problems associated with social/emotional things like child pornography. A few of you guys need to get your heads out of your politically/logically overcharged butts and look at what you're actually saying. Before you reply to flame me, read this and see if this actually applies to you or not.
Without porn, rape would be alot more common than it is, and women would sleep around alot more often.
And you can back this up with statement with evidence, right?
Dinivin
Ted Bundy? Hes a fucking murderer, whats this have to do with porn?!
Murder has nothing to do with Sex, they arent the same, perhaps Ted Bundy was a pervert, but it was his hatred that allows him to murder.
Its rage that fuels rape, its control that fuels abuse of children.
Control Freaks, Rageful people, and just generally aggressive people are likely to commit rape and murder with or without porn, Ted Bundy needed to use the porn excuse so people wouldnt put all the blame on him.
90+ percent of the world looks at porn, are we all going out raping and murdering people?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Quoth Prince:
"Oh, if a man is considered guilty 4 what goes on in his mind
Then give me the electric chair 4 all my future crimes, oh!"
"...which is why the judicial system exists. Not to interpret" have you read about the three arms of government and what each one does and the role it plays? if it doesnt exisit to interpret, then what does it do?
Not sure what the average age of death was, but it wasn't unusual for people to live into their 60's.
Best Slashdot Co
better to "feed" their desire with made up pictures than to feed their desire with real children.
if the pedophile has a desire that wants to be fed, he's gonna try his darndest to feed it with something. seems to me that starving him of it altogether isn't going to do anything but make him more hungry.
to follow your metaphor.
cheers,
-midas (www.haduken.com)
maybe we're born with it, maybe it's haduken.
From my experience from the net, I learned alot of people have alot of strange fetishes, which i just dont understand and am not capable of understanding
Homosexuality, Beastiality, Scat, Pissing and other weird shit
Because I might consider it sick, doesnt mean i can disrespect a person who is into this stuff, when a large number of people are into this kinda thing, you may not agree with them, but as long as they arent harming anyone, leave them alone.
I dont care if gay guys want to be gay, as long as they arent trying to rape me or rape little boys.
I dont care if people are into beastiality, although i feel sorry for the animals.
I dont care what people do, or how they get off, no matter how weird because as long as they dont harm me, or anyone else, then its their private business.
The point im trying to get accross is, you cant say "this person is sick" or "this person is evil" just because they have strange fantasies,
You can only say they are a pedophile after they abuse a child, you can only call a rapist a rapist after they commit the crime of rape, you cannot call a someone a rapist just because they may get off watching pictures of virtual rape porn.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Yeah, for real! Let's get rid of all the porn then, cause all those slutty women can fulfill all of the would be rapists... Seems like things would even out with a lot more sex for everyone. I don't see how we can go wrong!!
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles' appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct, see, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (per curiam).
---
Well, there ya go, take the it or leave it.
Nowhere did I say, or even imply, that we should get rid of all porn. You should really take some reading comprehension classes...
Though I have absolutely no objection to the production or viewing of pornography, to claim that it reduces rape and femal promiscuity (without citing any evidence) is, at the best, questionable.
Dinivin
Oh My Head
CanNaCoke
I'm sure you've looked at porn, and you want to have sex with women more now and you cant control yourself anymore
So how many women have you raped? Answer my question.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
So when will the Supreme Court find Congress "unconstitutionally vague and far-reaching"?
Just check out Grand Theft Auto 3 or any of the other hundreds of other games.
I don't think any course of action that's been tried to date (castration, drugs to kill the libido, and negative re-inforcement) have had any significant effect on pedophiles.
As long as no one is hurt, live and let live.
-- Peter McWilliams, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do
I looked for the original report, but could not find it online. If I do, I'll post the link here.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
No its not, because most gay people dont harm straight people,
Sure a few of them rape straight guys and little boys
This is only a few. Not all.
People who have a facination with kiddie porn, may not be the type of person to rape a child
So we should hate them because of what they are?
No, we can only hate them for what they do.
IF they arent harming anyone with their private activities, why should we bother them?
Who gives you the right to tell them "You are wrong"
And even if you do, its not going to change them.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
And that still isn't evidence that the abolition of pornography would lead to an increase in the amount of rape or promiscuity.
Dinivin
I *absolutely* don't think The Tin Drum should be in any way illegal, but this is not a case of "virtual" child porn, it's a little more complicated.
The story follows a young kid who does something to himself so that he won't grow older. So for the rest of the movie he is supposed to look like a child, even though he is getting older (through adulthood).
In the movie, the character is played by a child. So there are scenes where there is implied sex, but in the movie it's between two adults, while the actual actor is actually a kid. Of course the child actor doesn't really do any sex acts, but it skirts right along the border.
Anyway, I just think this is a slightly different thing... sort of reversed.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
No no no, *I* Was advocating that we get rid of porn. Not implying that you were. I was poking fun at the person who implied that it reduces rape and female promiscuity by suggesting that we get rid of Porn so that everyone can have more sex. (The point of the joke being that I hoped to be a beneficiary of the increased sexual level of everyone involved)
The post was meant to be funny. Don't get your panties in a twist.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Sorry, you responded to my post, so I took your humor as a sarcastic mocking of me.
God I need to get some sleep.
Dinivin
I'd say only 40 percent of the population are what you call normal
The rest are gay, bi, or have some strange fetish.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
When I was your age, I too liked girls my own age.
Of course, theres been situaitons where people as young as you were punished for looking at people the same age as them. This is why i think the laws are too extreme.
Someone your age cant buy the porn, so you arent fueling the industry, so you cant do any harm, also these are girls in your own age range.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
homosexuals were in this exact same situation at one point. Homosexuals were considered rapists, people would kill them because everyone was homophobic and thought they would rape them or their children.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Oh great, now Ill have to put up with kiddie porn spam.
Incidentally, mutilating yourself (assuming you're an adult and freely choose to do so) is not illegal. Your body is covered by the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." That is the so-called "privacy right" established by Roe versus Wade. Self-mutilation might cause the authorities to force psychiatric help on you, but their authority to do so has definite bounds.
Oops, my bad then, I must have juts looked right past your post and hit reply. Sorry for the confusion.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
As a point of interest, the centerpiece of the Danish child pornography laws is: has anybody been violated?
Virtual child pornography does not violate anybody, it "merely" offends.
Of course, there is then the whole debate over whether it is actually healthy for a person predispositioned to commit child abuses to be exposed to virtual child pornography.
This is my sig. Read it and weep.
Does this mean I have to put up with Tom Gilbert's Naked pictures....on his site http://www.linuxbrit.co.uk...Gessh and I thought Rasterman was bad.
A supreme court decision on the Sharpe case made it so that ANYTHING that is legal to DO is legal to FILM. Since the age of consent is 14, and 12 for someone 2 years older or less, CP can be made of teens. But, its illegal to pay them, and if any person is under 18, its illegal to distribute it (So only those in the film can keep it).
-American Pie I & II
Take place during senior year or highschool/ first year of college so its reasonable to assume the actors are protraying 18 year olds. Pretty much all teen sex comedies take place in college so they dont really apply either..
Its been a while since I seen Lolita, but I don't recall any actual sex being depicted. and I haven't seen the others..
However, I have a friend who is a Deputy DA in a Bay Area county who explained to me that hardly anyone is ever prosecuted under those specific parts of the law. Just isn't worth their time. They'll pursue cases of coercion, rape, etc. but consensual relations between minors, although technically illegal, is simply not regarded as a law enforcement priority of any kind.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
IT is sometimes LEGAL. A supreme court decision on the Sharpe case made it so that ANYTHING that is legal to DO is legal to FILM. Since the age of consent is 14, and 12 for someone 2 years older or less, CP can be made of teens. But, its illegal to pay them, and if any person is under 18, its illegal to distribute it (So only those in the film can keep it). Sharpe was found guilty of something, but the drawings / stories are now legal.
Trust me, there is no money it KP.
The only commercial KP sold today are government stings.
You can go on USENET and download all the KP you care to see (assuming you cared to see it). It's not terribly hard to find and its completely unregulated and free.
What else do you think USENET is used for these days except for distributing freaky porn?
AC
Am I supposed to feel happy that some form of child porn is not considered illegal? I feels trange about that.
Until the 1970s, respected medical journals published findings that showed homosexuals were "regressed" and had little capability for monogamy or 'normal' sexual satiation.
Often, these were based on cursory and informal polls of sexual abusers (the ones in jail) and had little or no representation from the general population.
Pedophiles are typically reported to have very high recidivism rates (near 90%) and this is commonly used to argue for mandatory castration of sexual abusers. Ironically, the majority of sexual abusers do not fit the category of 'pedophile' in that their primary fantasies are about adults, but they merely enjoy the power-trip of taking advantage of children.
When pedophiles (those who's primary attraction is specifically to children) are isolated and studied, they have MUCH lower recidivism rates than the average sex offender.
Statistics can be made to lie and deceive if you selectively omit certain pieces of the puzzle.
good thing your nick is "Cro Magnon"... it really fits with your ignorant point of view, and helps everyone else to filter out your blind naivety
When discussing computer generated child porn, many people ask - why _should_ there be computer generated child porn?
The main argument behind the banning of child porn is that the production of it constitutes the sexual abuse of a child. It has little to do with the effects it has on individuals viewing such material. The argument that viewing child porn would cause someone to become or indicate that they are a pedophile is as logically invalid as the claim that watching porn would indicate or induce some sort of sexual deviance.
There is even an argument for allowing computer generated child porn. (remember - no children are harmed in the digital creation process) What if these images satisfied the sexual urges of pedophiles? Suddenly we'd find that this material our society strongly condems prevents a much worse situation.
Ultimately, computer generated child porn skirts our current definition of child porn (an image in which a child is being sexually abused). When does a digital rendering become too close to that of a real child? Thats something that is VERY difficult to put into words which will be interpreted similarly by many people.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
The court carved out specific exceptions in its ruling. In short they DID NOT just deal with sharpes specific case.
Without porn ... women would sleep around alot more often.
I'm with you, buddy. Down with porn!!
End of lesson. You may press the button.
www.ageofconsent.com
These people have done a decent job of gathering up to date information on the majority of states and even other countries. I've verified with Washington state code, at least, that they have correct information.
and
IANAL, but wouldn't this logic mean the DMCA is equally un-constitutional?
3 appeals courts upheld it? That's like saying guns kill people. Its not the courts that uphold it, its the judges or juries. I think it would be important for us to know who was on the jury or who was the judge that upheld these types of laws and what their reasoning was. We need to watch out for these guys because they have an amazing amount of power attached to every decision they make.
The hypocricy is unbelievable. You are the exact same people who argue that "Video games do not cause violence, poor parenting causes that". And now many of you are arguing that fake child porn encourages pedophilia? It's the exact same thing, you can't start ruling on all digital pictures being illegal, or else you are going to shoot yourself in the foot. I could EASILY see someone lobbying for violence in video games to be outlawed on account of illegal digital child porn setting a precident for all digital "corruption" being outlawed.
-Alex
Use some common sense here instead of the scaremongering of the uber-moralists. Let me asume that you're a heterosexual male, and ask you this question: when you watch normal heterosexual porn featuring adults fucking thehell out of each other, what happens?
I can't speak for you, but generally what happens is that th viewer gets rally, really excited, pulls his dick out and jerks it off til he cums, and then suddenly his sexual desires are gone. It's just like the old joke about how while women want to cuddle all men want to do after sex is fall asleep. Our sexual desires just instantly evaporate after a good porn-aided whack-off session, and we're more unlikely than ever to go out in search of sex. Not only that, but it temporarily allays our sexual frustrations and relaxes us.
The same is true for homosexuals watching gay porn. Use porn, whack off, no more horniness. So, why would it be any different for pedophiles using child pornography? Wath kids fucking, pound the pope, no more horniness. Period.
So, logic dictates the opposite of what scaremongering moralists claim. If we really want to lower the rate of child molestation, then all the 3D graphic artists among us should start producing and distributing movies and stills starring virtual 3D models of fake young children now that we know it's legal. That way pedophiles will get stimulated, jerk off, and have their sexual appetites wane. Then the next time they get horny, they can do th same thing.
The fact is, pedophiles become child molesters (there *is* a differnce--pedophilia is a sexual orientation, while child molesting is an action) mostly out of sexual frustration from the constant build-up of desires which they can't fulfill. Virtual child porn could fulfill those desires and diffuse those overwhelming pent-up sexual urges, before pedophiles become child molesters, and without harming a single child.
Think about it.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
We've already got tons of laws on the books, at both the state and Federal levels, prohibiting child pornography. This attempt at yet another law is sad for a couple of reasons:
(1) It's representative of an ever-growing faction in our society which is both ignorant of the laws we already have, and under the delusion that passing more/similar/broader laws will somehow enhance their protection so that it surpasses the protections they already enjoy under current statutes.
(2) It's politically motivated, as we see in the fact that both the Bush and Clinton administrations favored it, even though the legal teams in both administrations could've guessed at its ultimate failure. Afraid to be portrayed as "pro-child pornography," it's the type of law any Administration would back regardless of how poor the law itself as written actually is.
What happens is that child pornography is rightfully considered a scourge which requires action by all thinking adults, and so superfluous laws like this are crafted providing a section of the populace with the feeling that "something is being done" about child pornography. Sadly, all that was "being done" about it in this case is the crafting of a bad law. A law that failed muster in the end precisely because it was a bad law, and for no other reason.
The saddest part of all are the individuals who will no doubt feel that because this law was struck down that nothing whatever is "being done" about child pornography. A review of all of the current law in effect concerning child pornography should easily disabuse even the most hardened skeptic of that notion.
The problem with this law as it seems to me is that it makes no distinction between fantasy and reality. There is a distinct difference between fictional child pornography (which does not involve actual children) and real child pornography (which does.) If we start imprisoning people because of what they think as opposed to what they do, that will be the saddest day of all.
Certainly, a rational argument can be made that no depiction of child pornography, whether fictional or real, is of any worth to society, or could not conceivably harm a predisposed individual. But that is hardly the point. We cannot imprison people merely because of their imaginations, regardless of how scandalous we may deem those imaginations, and that is precisely the point. It's only when child pornography passes the realm of imagination and blunders into acts involving real children that people should face imprisonment. And there are already plenty of laws on the books to deal with that.
Someone needs to really screw with the Supreme Court's head and make a robot child, then engage in lewd behavior toward it. Or take pictures of it naked. Or maybe a "realdoll" child (http://www.realdoll.com).
You do realize that this is *technically* alraedy happening.
Most definitions of child porn require for the 'abuser' to be significantly aroused by the image.
In the past several years, there are at least a dozen people who have had their prision stays extended by the courts ruling that an underwear catalog constitutes child pornography simply because the guy was aroused by it.
In another case, a man was jailed for PRIVATE writings of his fantasies about doing things (admittedly disgusting things) to young boys in a PRIVATE journal. The fact that irks me is that there was nothing other than this single private journal to justify putting this guy away for 10 years. Granted, he was already on probation for some prevoius KP charges, but his probation was revoked and he was locked up for quite a few years based on his 'fantasies', which he wrote in a private place and did not intent to share with anyone.
How many here have ever had illegal fantasies? If you have, don't write them down. It could get you locked up.
Me
My friend, Ted Bundy's spurious claims were discredited years ago. He made them in an attempt to receive leniency based on the fact that he claimed an addiction to porn made him do it. So, it was a statement made by a very clever serial killer to try to avoid the death penalty. He wanted to trade his "help" in studying the evils of pornography, for a commutation of the death sentence.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Disclaimer: I in no way, shape, or form condone nor judge anything having to do with child pornography AND IANAL.
OK, now that that's out of the way ... I was reading through the legalese and noticed this interesting tidbit:
To me this jumped out as very closely addressing what the RIAA likes to claim to those companies and individuals that produce software and/or advertise software with MP3 ripping / CD burning capabilities. "Rip. Mix. Burn." by Apple comes to mind.
Yes? No? As I prefaced, IANAL! Seems to me, though, from a plane english point of view, what's being said here is that just by providing the means (or idea) to conduct illegal activites (ripping an MP3 and uploading to friends or burning a CD copy and giving it to friends), that doesn't make the product or the message illegal. The link between the product and the illegal activity is not tight enough, it appears to me.
What do you folks think?
I guess I can watch Romeo & Juliet, and not worry about the legality of it anymore (they're like what, 14?).
The law was too broad, and its a great decision. Congress may not have much sense anymore, but at least the supreme court seems to.
I'm all for free speech. We've had movies and pictures that depict the worst illegal acts for decades - murder and rape. Is child porn and more heinous or "illegal" than murder and rape? Isn't there an innocent victim in every case? Yet, graphic depictions of murder and rape are common.
But positive legal status (i.e. protected free speech) for these images is going to make them more common, more public. Rather than just being hidden on the hard drive of the neighborhood pervert, these types of images will seep into the edges of the mainstream. Don't believe it won't happen, it always does. Do we want this?
Not only that, but legalizing these images makes law enforcement of actual kiddie porn almost impossible. Why? Because there's no way to tell a digital version of an actual picture (real child porn) from a "virtual" picture. It's all just bits in a file.
And the thought of some sick fuck getting his jollies off of virtual child porn while we as a society say "Oh, go ahead, you can do that, we don't care, there's no penalty." makes me sick.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Interestingly, Fox's Bill O'Reilly seems to have an extreme view on the films that you specified! I saw his one hour special on Porn and Violence on prime time television and movies. He painted a very bleak picture and called makers of the movie American Pie II as irresponsible morons! Also the hip hop aritists and their lyrics (If you can understand them :-))
Just two words for you my friend:
Fuck You.
Congress justified the wider ban on grounds that while no real children were harmed in creating the material, real children could be harmed by feeding the prurient appetites of pedophiles or child molesters.
This is sensationalism. The ruling alluded to this, but as I see it, the fundamental intention of the law was to allow enforcement of existing laws.
No, I'm not talking about letting police go on a rampage against anything that might possibly be mistaken for child porn. The law is obviously much, much too broad. But the intent is justifiable: to ensure that the proliferation of fake child porn does not erode our current capability to eliminate real child porn.
Typical of Slashdot, the knee-jerk mantra is "if it's virtual, it's harmless." That's a nice sentiment but it's also a naive analysis coming from a population that prides itself on lateral thinking. Consider, perhaps, that you can now take real child porn and run it through Photoshop to make it indistinguishable from a fake. This would be a powerful defense for people interested in raping children and getting away with it.
Let us inject some concreteness into the discussion. Suppose that the Wonderland Club might have gone free with nothing more than a few strokes of the smudge tool. These guys would have had a more difficult job making their torture videos look fake, but technology would've permitted it in a few years. No, I don't like the idea of restricting anything virtual, but propose a solution then, if you can think of one.
"The youngest victim was about three months and other victims aged up to about 18 years."
---
Dum de dum.
Freedom is not the license to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought.
should computer generated images of children in sexual situations be illegal? no. the child pornography laws were created in order to protect children, not to control our own morality. personally i think child pornography is disgusting, but it is an artist's right, or anyone's for that matter, to use his craft in order to produce any type of image they want, pornographic or not. as for media and "simulated" sexual acts in movies or whatnot, i think the act needs to be more explicit. what is the difference between an R rated movie and a pornography other than ratings? if i scene isnt graphic, does it make it right? movies made with scenes containing these situations employ actors/actresses who (if are underage, have a legal guardian) consent to participation. whether it is in bad taste or not isnt the issue, the issue is freedom of speech.
In the movie, the character is played by a child. So there are scenes where there is implied sex, but in the movie it's between two adults, while the actual actor is actually a kid. Of course the child actor doesn't really do any sex acts, but it skirts right along the border.
Well, yes and no to the child parts. Yes he is a child, having been born in 1966, and the film released in 1979 would have made him 12-13 during filming, but no also because he's a little person and is at or close to his full adult size when they were filming. Additionally, in the film he portrays a character that refuses to grow after his third birthday... and it obviously would have been hard to get a performance like his out of a three to seven-year-old. I think some of the furor may have arisen because he's playing a character that is very young that has sexual relations with a sixteen-year-old.... who also falls under the eighteen-year-old line. (Oh, and the sixteen-year-old girl has sex with the protagonist's dad as well.. so that probably didn't go over so well either.)
"Defenestration" is to throw out of a window; what's a word for throwing 'Windows' out of something?
A lot of this type of law is used only they can't make a statutory rape charge stick.
Think of the satirical possibilities this ruling has opened up. ...virtually concocted picture of a priest and... whooooooo... there's something to mail to the pope...
Did the babysitter touch you in a bad place?? Details please!
Unlike most people here, I actually know some pedophiles on a personal level. I met many online, while researching a pedophile character for a book I was writing.
After conversing with many of them, I had to come to the conclusion that pedophilia is no different from heterosexuality or homosexuality, except that heteros and homos can enjoy healthy sex lives and pedos can't. That's unfortunate, and sometimes, in the case of people with low self-control, leads to the horrible crime of child molestation. But we must always remember that heterosexual is to rapist as peophile is to child molester--not all pedophiles are child molesters any more than all heterosexuals are rapists.
We should attempt to help these people to control their sexual urges instead of stigmatizing them; that would *really* bring child sexual abuse statistics down. Virtual child porn is a nice start--no ral children involved, placed entirely in fantasy, to provide pedophiles with the same release valve for sexual tensions that heterosexuals and homosexuals have in regular porn. Get horny, watch virtual porn, jerk off, no more horniness. That's how it works in human males, unlike the moralizers' baseless claims that porn makes people want to act out more in real life. No, it releases sexual tensions. If every pedophile whacked off o some realistic-looking virtual childporn fuckfilms once or twice a day, they'd never have a strong urge to touch a child in real life, because the sexual urge would be sated.
I also wish pedophiles could get RealDolls which look like young girls, too. That would help to satisfy their sexual urges even further, resulting in fewer cases of really touching children. Anything which causes a real reduction of child molestation, without violating essential Constitutional rights, is a good thing in my book.
I found out in my research that pedophiles aren't automatically bad people or people who do bad things. They're just like you and I, except their sexual attractions are focused towards people whom it's unacceptable to engage sexually in this day and age. In prehistory pedophilia probably served a real purpose--finding a mate when she's young and bonding to her, so that her offspring when she becomes fertile will definitely be yours, and she'll likely be very devoted. Homosexuality is said to also serve an evolutionary purpose--homosexuals won't likely have childen of their own, and therefore will likely give some of their resources to their neices and nephews, resulting in a more rsource-rich childhood for the children of those families who have homosexual members. The difference is pedophilia is no longer viable and socially acceptable, while heterosexuality and homosexuality are.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
The original Kubrick-directed Lolita doesn't have any sex scenes -- it might not even have any kissing. All of the sex in it is implied, and quite obliquely -- this was 1962 afterall.
I haven't seen the remake but the reviews claim that there is actual sexuality depicted.
Strangely enough, the actress who played Lolita, Sue Lyon's IMDB biography claims she was 13 when cast as Lolita, which was released in '62, and that she married in '64. Even adding an additional year for casting, that gets her married at age 16, which is kind a funny irony at that.
So, since in many cases it is impossible to determine whether Bruce Willis actually shot someone dead, or whether he only pretended to, we must ban the Die Hard movies. Take away the hot-button issue of child porn -- consider this as an expansion of criminality of intent -- and the ridiculous nature of the law becomes obvious.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Some links.
NEA on home schooling You can only do it if you're licensed.
NEA on funding for home schooling Don't allow parents to use their education taxes to pay for their children's education.
NEA membership You have to be licensed by us, but you can't join us and have any say.
NEA on proposed legislation You can't take power away from the schools and give it to the government, because the government might give some of that control to parents.
From the horse's mouth.
And for an opposing view, Home School Legal Defense Association Do a search on 'NEA'
If what you said is true, then the pornography industry would have dried up years ago because we'd all be immune to their wares. We're not. Even in European countries where almost everything is permitted in pornography except children--bestiality is okay, fake rape is okay, fake torture and fake necrophilia and pissing and scat is okay--there's still a thriving pornography trade.
The "slippery slope" argument you just posited is the one invented by the anti-porn crusadetrs who wanted all pornography banned, and supported by the Meese Commission in the Reagan era. The Meese Commission report has been thoroughly debunked by real scientists and researchers, and in fact the original Meese Commission was composed of scientists and researchers who concluded that pornography had no adverse effects on the viewer and no "slippery slope" effect. It's very telling that Attorney General Ed Meese dissolved that original Commission before it made those finding official, and then replaced the members with ones hand-picked as anti-porn crusaders.
Hookers and one-night-stands have nothing to do with pornography, except maybe the lack of it. I know beause I frequently use escorts--call girls, basically; high priced hookers of a higher class. When I frequently watch pornography, I have no desire to use such services. When I'm working too hard and don't get the chance to diffuse my sexual urges for a while using porn, or when I'm travelling and don't have ready accss to the types of porn I like, that's when I call an escort to come over and fuck the hell out of me for an hour. When I have my pornographic release regularly, though, I usually don't bother to call escorts.
The slippery slope argument is hogwash. People don't need more and more intense porn until porn no longer works for them any more; what you mistake for this is the natural course of exploration one goes through when he finds porn. People start out with softcore porn when they're new at it, then explore until they find the kind of porn they prefer, and stick with the kinds of porn they have a preference for. For example, my ideal porn is the type directed by Lizzy Borden and Rob Black at Extreme Associates and the Gag Factor series by JM Productions. Yes, they're a lot more "hardcore" in many ways than other porn films I've seen before. But it's a small sector of th market and I had to watch a lot of othwer porn films before I discovered these, and I knew Rob Black's style is what I liked ever since I saw his first film about 4 years ago. So basically I've been watching the same style of porn for 4-5 years. It still works for me--when I watch it. When I don't I go out and fuck someone.
So, when it comes to pedophiles, better that they have something to watch and diffuse those sexual energies, than have nothing at all and get desires built up to the point where they want to go out and find someone to fuck. Even if your slippery slope argument were right--which it isn't--virtual child porn would still at least delay and cut down on the frequency of abuse.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
If the 90-year copyright is unconstitutional-- and sure, it probably is-- then the Supreme Court will get around to it. You may not agree with their political beliefs, but the justices are at the very least honest, and won't be bullied or bought by corporations.
But how does one have anything to do with the other? Way to score some points by pulling some hot-button Slashdot issue from out of left field and attempting to hook it onto the current topic in the flimsiest of ways.
Go away, karma whore.
I know I'm not the only one here who can say this, but I don't remember seeing pre-teen girls a few years ago dress up like they do now. I mean, damn, 12 year olds wearing ultra-tight tank tops and hot pants? I don't remember seeing girls dress like that when I was 12 years old.
IMO, this is probably one of the biggest factors contributing to the demand for child porn. Very young girls are now shown on TV wearing clothing that is INTENDED to give off sexual vibes, bringing those borderline pedophiles just another step closer to plunging in to their fantasies. Watch any of those teeny-pop-centric channels and you'll see exactly what i'm talking about.
Really, keep in mind, it's all subjective.
In nature, the retarded kid would be allowed to die; as part of natural selection. In our world, the kid isn't allowed to die, and there was a case recently where two retarded people wanted to be parents! Good God!
Point being, things should not be outlawed because someone says they're Wrong, there must actually be demonstrable harm to others. Of course, certain things are outlawed for no good reason...
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Not only could you not sell those pictures - but the simple fact that you are in posession of those pictures could get you arrested and jailed for child pornography.(And you could have been hit for the same back when you took them)
Does anyone else find it vaguely stupid that by the laws of this country you can be arrested and jailed for taking a picture of yourself doing something perfectly legal?
-Nick
My name is Obi-Wan Kenobi. You killed my master. Prepare to die.
It should be illegal for anyone to simulate murder. That would take out a lot of our film makers.
Here's an essay I wrote about child pornography--not the virtual type, the real type. I wrote this essay not because I support the production of child porn--I don't, and I neither have nor want any--but because of my philosophical principles. I believe in straightforward, absolute freedom to do anything which does
;-)
not cause direct, measurable harm to another human being. I believe that once you start making exceptions, even if you think they're for a good purpose, you've irrevocably ruined the foundations of freedom. Either somehing causes harm, or doesn't--if it's morally objectionable, but causes no harm, then it should still be permissible.
Those are my libertarian precepts and I stick to them. This essay was posted to USENET inresponse to a thumper who was droning on about how he was an evil evil person for viewing pictures of nude young girls. It's even more applicable now in the case of virtual child porn, where no children were harmed in the making.
*Why Viewing Child Pornography Isn't Inherently "Bad"*
You know, just looking at images harms no one. Images are not actions,
they are mere information, binary ones and zeros just like anything else in
cyberspace. There is a huge difference between passively looking at an
image and actively doing whatever an image may depict.
An image is not good or bad. It may depict something good or bad, but the
image is neutral. Images depicting torture and genocide have won Pulitzer
Prizes and other awards, and are not considered illegal or evil just
because what they depict may be illegal or evil. We do not feel remorse
for looking at images, even if they depict horrors such as the famous photo
of the nude Vietnamese woman running from her burning village as her flesh
is melting. This is because the image just shows a moment in time; we are
not responsible for that moment just because we have seen a representation
of it.
So, if you have been looking at images of children in sexual and possibly
abusive situations, then why should you feel bad for it? That
moment would have happened whether or not you looked at the image 20 years
or 20 minutes after whatever happened, happened. You are no more
responsible for that moment just because you saw an image of it, than I am
responsible for war crimes for looking at that famous image of a North
Vietnamese man with a gun to his head, crying as he was about to be
executed. And what if you enjoyed looking at an image of a girl in a
questionable situation? You have no more engaged in the situation than I
have engaged in the situation whenever I watch Annette Haven get reamed in
the classic porn film *Co-Ed Fever*--although I wish it were me reaming
Annette Haven, but I digress.
The fallacy so many people--particularly overzealous LEA--fall for is
believing that child pornography promotes child abuse. But it's untrue,
and a notion founded entirely on emotive propaganda not fact. As I said,
the things depicted in images would go on whether or not you view the
images. Do you really think a child molester would stop molesting if no
one would look at his pictures? Of course not; most child molesters do
what they do without posting images on the Net. The motivation is primal,
sexual, and the images are mostly for his own enjoyment, and sharing them
with others is entirely secondary. So where is the harm if someone sees
such an image and is excited by it? They are not vicariously contributing
to the scene depicted--that would have happened no matter what.
Another argument some make is that seeing child pornography may make people
more likely to emulate what is depicted. Well, that argument is quite
groundless. In a society which condems adult-child sex as much as ours
does, no one is going to think sex with children is OK just because they
run across, or even collect, some pictures of it. Do people who see that
picture of a Vietnamese man with a gun to his head suddenly start thinking
that it's okay to go around killing people? Heck, our films and television
shows and video games are laden with more pure violence than ever before,
and despite right-wing propaganda and rhetoric, the Justice Department's
own aggregate statistics say that violent crimes among teenagers--surely
the most impressionable demographic--have been on the decline overall for
10 years. The only thing that causes people to think there's a problem is
media exploitation--the media broadcasts disproportionately about crimes
involving youngsters because it increases their ratings. The statistics
show the truth. Likewise with child porn--people believe it's a problem
because the media tells them so. But the reality is that no one is going
to go out and have sex with a 10 year old just because they see it in a
picture or film. Would you go out and have sex with a dog if you see that
on film? Of course not, unless it were something you were going to go out
and do anyway.
That last statement is the key. There is *no* causal link between child
porn and sex with children; the only reason some people may think so is
based on the fact that the type of people who would collect child porn are
the type of people who are attracted to children sexually in the first
place. So, naturally a percentage of them are going to have sex with
children; the child porn they may happen to possess is merely an indication
of their attractions--not a cause, an effect. And it cannot be denied that
child porn is for some pedophiles the same as adult porn is for some
heterosexuals--a release valve for sexual tensions, something to masterbate
to which ultimately decreases sexual desires, not increases them. Hence,
child pornography (in a limited, semi-underground form, at least) is good
for society, not bad, since it provides people who might otherwise seek
juvenile sexual partners with a healthy, inanimate outlet for those needs.
The other argument against child pornography, and the one most often touted
by law enforcement agencies, is that child pornography can be used as a
"recruitment tool" for pedophiles and child molesters who may try
to convince children that adult-child sex is OK by showing them such
images. This last argument is perhaps the thinnest, least believable,
because anything can be used for a nefarious purpose--just because plastic
baggies can be used to hold drugs, does not mean they don't have more
positive uses, or that they need to be made illegal. I'd concede fully
that child porn can and has been used in that capacity; just the other day
I watched a news program about a guy who used it that way. But regular
adult pornography is just as effective a recruitment tool, because people
interested in seducing young girls (or boys) don't rely on being able to
convince them sex with adults is all right--they're taught at school if not
by their parents that it isn't--but rather they rely on the youngster's
natural curiosity about sex and natural desires to do things that feel
good. Adult pornography arouses curiosity and desire in the potential
subject just as much. A child rapist is just going to rape, regardless of
what the child wants, so he does not usually use any pornography in finding
a victim, and it is not at all important in enabling him to do what he
does. Pornography is only really used in this context by non-rapists who
want to seduce or otherwise broach the subject of sex with children. This
can just as easily--if not more easily--be done with adult pornography as
with child pornography. It is also safer, since the adult can leave
regular adult pornography in places the child is sure to find it and wonder
about it, and if the child reports the porn to his or her parents, the
adult can make an excuse about accidentally leaving it in an accessible
place; the same is not true of child pornography, which the parents are
going to report if their child reports seeing it. My researches into the
subject (for a book, which may or may not ever get published) indicate that
adult pornography is used for seducing children far, far more often than
child pornography is. Therefore to blame such seductions on child
pornography is ludicrous, since adult pornography, which is perfectly legal
to possess, serves exactly the same purpose. In this context, child
pornography is not at all different from or more useful than regular porn.
If there are any other arguments for why merely possessing or viewing child
pornography is somehow inherently "bad", bring them up and I'll refute
them. Face it: the only reason you feel bad about looking at what you say
you've looked at, is a pathological Puritan guilt about sex. That's why
the U.S. has such a high rate of sex crimes compared to the rest of the
world--an unhealthy Puritan outlook on sex leads to an unhealthy sex life
and a potential for sexual pathologies.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Romeo and Juliet. (I think J was barely 14)
These arbitrary decisions are amusing. In the US, you have to be 18. In the UK, it is 16. One leading tabloid here (I think it was the Sun or the Daily Sport) ran a marketing campaign, albeit a low - key one, in the run up to the page 3 girl's 16th birthday (page three is historically a topless girl - it's a working man's rag...) as this was the youngest they could possibly have a topless model. In other countries in Europe, the age of consent is lower, especially between consenting teens of a similar age.
I would be downright offended if I was married, had a child (legally), and visited another country only to find out it was illegal to sleep with my wife.
The point is that these are arbitrary decisions. True paedophiles do not care what age - just as long as they are kids. These laws are there to protect minors but the law has been taken too far. The law should be a guide but mitigating circumstances are always important.
This is completely off topic. Sorry. The original point was that the law was too vague - that is certainly true, but the people deciding the case should take that opporunity to judge each case on its merits and decide if a wrong has been committed. The grey areas have to be ironed out on each case - a blanket binary decision is impractical and will often be wrong.
On a related note, many states had split drinking ages - 18 for 3.1 beer, 21 for hard liquor. The theory was that it's hard to get really drunk on 3.1 beer and this would give young adults a chance to learn their tolerance to alcohol before they started the hard stuff.
But the national drinking age of 21 blew that away. On your 21st birthday, you're expected to go from teetotaller to someone competent to know your limit when served Long Island Iced Teas.
In practice, the zero tolerance policies have actually resulted in far worse binge drinking. When I was a teenager, the drinking age was 18 for both beer and spirits and many parents looked the other way when HS students sneaked a beer or two from a senior. But now parents don't dare turn a blind eye and the teenagers know that the system makes no distinction between nursing a can of beer for hours and getting wasted, so they drive to remote locations and drink heavily. Then the parents wonder how five could be killed at a train crossing, or how a "good student" could cross an interstate median at 80 MPH and kill a father and critically injure the rest of his father.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
If you ever read Firefly, you'd think the Xanth author was a pedophile (and thusly arrestable under the same laws) as a result... Along with anyone who's wife/girlfriend ever dressed as a cheerleader or girl scout to spice up their love life...
Oh yeah, and Britney Spears as well...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
I think you're both right and wrong here. Either a human being has an innate moral facility which prevents causing harm to another person, or he doesn't. Someone who doesn't and who's a pedophile will often become a child molester, while someone who does and who's a pedophile will almost surely not. We must remember that a pedophile can remain celibate by choice just as a heterosexual or homosexual can--despite the current scandal involving a statistically small percentage of priests, for example, remain celibate.
But we must acknowledge that it's not all black and white. People who have a conscience and feel awful in retrospect can still have self-control low enough to allow them to make a mistake, or people with a conscience can come into a very extraordinary situation and find a child he thinks is mature and willing and able.
I can't give you an example of the former because I don't know of any. An example of the latter is trivial, since I "met" a few online. One is a man who, in his 20s, began a sexual relationship with a 13 year old girl--whom he later married. He's now in his 30s, she's in her 20s, and they have a loving, normal relationship which began as a crime and which made the older male participant extremely guilty during the early years. He says he's still a pedophile and still primarily attracted to prepubescent girls, but that he loves his wife far more than he could lust after anyone else. He has not offended with anyone but the girl who grew up to be his wife.
That's a *very* unusual story. It's not the norm. It's a real-life example of the grey area we get into when we deal with these issues. Legally he molested a child despite well-developed moral faculties. The fact that they're a happily married couple today and have been for almost a decade tends to undermine the illegal and immoral aspects of how it began. There are shades of grey most lawmakers and psychologists--with no disrespect intended--fail to see.
The need for virtual child pornography and perhaps even child-like RealDolls for those who want and can afford them comes into play in those grey areas. There are people with borderline self-control issues, who can usually control their urges and know they're not acceptable, but who may be tempted to offend if an unusual opportunity presents itself. If such people have means to subdue their sexual impulses through regular masturbation and fantasy aided by appropriate virtual pornography, it is likely that their sexual urges will be kept in check to a greater degree than those of a similar borderline personality without such fantasy sexual release. This is all theoretical of course, since there's no real way to conduct trials which would be acceptable to most of the medical and political communities.
Likewise, such things as virtual porn and child-like RealDolls would not cause harm. At worst they'd do nothing, and at best they'd help borderline cases keep control of their sexual urges. The people with little or no conscience would probably offend anyway, though for a few the fantasy may be enough to keep control of impulses some of the time and make desire for offense less frequent--out of convenience, or desire to stay free, or other non-conscience-related reasons. The people with a conscience who wouldn't offend anyway would doubtless be happier and healthier since they'd be allowed a fuller fantasy life to relieve sexual tensions.
So what we have is something that would cause no harm, but which *might* lessen harm, or at least make the lives of some pedophiles less tension-filled. There's thus no reason to make it illegal, and every reason to encourage it among pedophiles, stressing its sexual tension release possibilities.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Blue Lagoon. The kids are supposed to be about 14. There was an uproar over it at the time.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Perhaps soon the Supreme Court will rule that my randy pictures of Cowboy Neal are legal too. I can dream can't I? Q: Why did the MS developer dump his OSDN girlfriend? A: She had Open Source
I think it would be instructive to consider the purpose of this law. Is it to protect children from abuse and exploitation, or is it to criminalize conduct that offends our sensibilities? The former is a right, and indeed, a responsibility of government. While the latter is incompatible with a free society because it violates an even more fundimental duty of government: to not abridge people's freedom so long as their actions do not violate the rights of others (or due gross harm to the environment, wildlife, etc).
While its defenders try to portray its purpose as the former, upon inspection, it seems clear that its effect would be the latter. That makes it a bad law, and its defeat just.
I agree that, historically, 18 (or 21) was the age when people were well-enough informed to act as adults.
But over the past decade or two we've seen a lot of laws that deliberately infantize teens. We don't just see modest sex ed ("what is puberty?") taken out of lower grades, we've seen it removed from high school as well. If you cover anything other than abstinence, the conservative right screams bloody murder.
Likewise we've seen net filter laws that apply to all grades equally. It doesn't matter if a student is 17, married and legally emancipated or 7, the net filters make no distinction in what information is available to them.
Even outside of schools we're seeing more age restrictions than before. There used to be mixed-aged clubs, but the increasingly strict liquor license requirements have largely eliminated them.
Finally they're the common target of "zero sense" laws. Class validictorians expelled because their car contained a knife in the commercially prepared first aid kit. Or even more incredibly, a student was expelled for a year because someone tossed a knife into the open bed of his pickup truck! Mandatory revocation of drivers license until age 21 if *any* alcohol is found on breath - even if it's due to OTC cold medicine or mouth wash. Mandatory loss of financial aid if *any* pot is found in their possession.
There's a reason why adults are rarely subjected to ZT laws, but they don't apply to infants.
Nobody can seriously think that teens aren't aware of the issues facing adults... but they're getting a distorted view and not able to make "small" mistakes.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
The "Unconstitutional" hammer should be applied to 95% of what comes from Congresses sphincter.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
"No interest" in restraining themselves? Bullshit! If you belonged to a group that was that stigmatized, if you knew that your neighbors would lynch you if they knew, wouldn't you be constantly filled with the self-loathing that comes from keeping such an awful secret? Look at the kinds of self-hating strangeness that closeted gays go through---that so many went through before the liberation movement that it was thought to be a part of the orientation.
That pedophiles do molest is a testament either to their incredibly unbalanced mental state, or to the incredible strength of their compulsion.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
That's because (and I'll cop it for saying this here on /.) free speech is not about you getting rights to old software/music/whatever. It's about the ability to say/print things that are unpopular. Like Porn. I don't care if copyright lasts forever, if to have it shortened would mean giving up the right for pornographers to make porn, or people to say they hate me for the colour of my skin.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
My uncle is/was a pedophile. He has never acted upon his feelings, yet he is tortured by them. He goes to counciling weeky. He can not be "cured" because they can't change their feelings. They can just give him medication (decreases testosterone levels, etc), that will prevent him from acting out. Part of his therapy was to look at "non-erotic" pictures of prepubescents. (not child porn, since they can not legally suggest that). Basically soft-core. Naturist photos etc. He tells me what he's going through. He says "imagine herterosexuality was illegal. You were not allowed to act on your desires. You would have to locl yourself inside of a room. Somepeople might get arrested". You know how some people are so socially inept they couldn't get laid if they tried? Well, that's my uncle, but as a pedophile. He doesn't have the chutzpah. But man, does he wish he can.
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
Go to any state with citizen initiatives, and look at what they come up with.
You WANT laws to be written by lawyers, or at least people with a good legal sense. Laws written by non-lawyers tend to be ambiguous at best, actually contrary to what they intended at worst.
Tbe problem is when you have lawyers thinking they should act as gatekeepers to the legal system. Like some of the lawyers here. The laws should be easily understood by the average adult, with lawyers providing insight into specific case law and acting as an unbiased observer who can point out things overlooked by their client due to emotions.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
It's easy to determine if someone is impaired - the roadside sobriety tests are specific enough (and now are routinely videotaped) that they would be hard to challenge.
But the problem is justifying that test. (Same thing with the BAC tests.) Someone weaving all over the road is clearly impaired, but what about someone "driving too carefully?"
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
> There is no scientific evidence that supports this belief.
:-)
There's no definitive scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic, either. And yet, that is a valid theory that scientists are working to prove or disprove. Unfortunately there's no active research trying to prove or disprove the corralating hypothesis about pedophilia being genetic, unlike with homosexuality. Let's not forget that homosexuality was also defined by the psychological community as a mental disease just like pedophilia, until relatively recently.
> This is dangerous ground you're treading as it provides apologia to child molestors.
I'm interested in the truth, and the Truth, both scientific and philosophical. Who cares where it leads, if it's the truth? I'd rather not be an ignorant bigot, thank you.
> As for the rest of your argument concerning prehistory, there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for this either.
There's not a single shred of evidence for a lot of theories regarding prehistoric evolutionary behaviours. But ask any anthropologist, and he can give you a lot of likely theories that make sense and are generally thought likely, though there's no solid evidence for them. That's the trouble with talking prehistory--no one was writing stuff down, you know.
> It doesn't make any biological sense
I explained exactly why it makes biological sense. Men attracted to prepuscent girls in prehistory, back when evolution was still actively going largely according to natural selection, would probably take a prepubescent girl as a mate. Her first offspring, when she reaches menses and is capable, will almost surely be his, unlike if one takes an older postpubescent mate. In addition, any psychologist should be familiar with the phenomenon that a girl very often bonds closely to her first sexual partner, in ways she does not typiclly bond with other lovers aside from the first. A real devotion, consuming, often develops in these young romances. Therefore, a pedophile in prehistory who takes a young girl as mate will likely have a level of emotional attachment from her unlike what normal adult women display with their non-first-partner mates. This can be a very important bond, particularly in rough prehistoric cultures.
> it isn't mimicked by any mammal alive, including our closest relatives - primates.
Absolutely incorrect. Our closest [primate relatives are Bonobo monkeys, related to chimps--theres a bit of a debate as to whether they should be considered a subset of the chimp population, or a species in their own right; but that is unimportant. What is important is that they display the whole range of human sexual behaviors, including sex or sexual play with prepubescent partners. Some adult males show preference for sex play with very young partners. So ys, our closest primate relatives sometimes display pedophiliac behaviours.
> There is nothing good about pedophilia.
I just told you why it *may* have been useful in prehistory, just as homosexuality was and remains today. Pedophilia, however, is no longer a viable or acceptable orientation.
> This is not an 'orientation'.
It absolutly is. Just because the same mental health professionals who until relatively recently classified homosexuality as a mental disease, still classify pedophilia as one (child molesting should be the disease, for there is a difference in having desires and having too little conscience to prevent oneself from acting upon them), does not mean that it is. I'm confident that the real, "hard" sciences will eventually present a concrete genetic explanation for pedophilia and homosexuality as well.
> I'm disturbed by your willingness to provide child molestors with excuses or rationalizations.
As I said, I want the truth and Truth, both scientific and philosophical. I don't care what the results in the short term are, because in the long term the more we know about ourselves and our world, the better. You seem more concerned with whether a pedophile thinks of his affliction as an orientation rather than a disease, than with knowing the truth. For shame.
> If they touch a child they deserve - and rightly so - to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I never disagreed with that. Again, pedophile is to child molester as heterosexual is to rapist--not all pedophiles molest children, just as not all heterosexuals rape adults. There can be and are "normal" pedophiles who realize that they must remain celibate and have the slf-control to do so. Those lacking in self-control and empathy may touch children inappropriately and become child molesters, in which case they must be punished. But being attrcted to chuilden is neither a disease nor a crime, as long as one never acts upon those desires.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
What I find amazing about this is that someone was stupid enough to waste a moderation point putting it down.
On reading the above post, it occurs to me to wonder if porn (which is protected under Copyright law) could be exploited to horrify the average joe about the current 90-years-and-counting copyright extensions.
... and if we're lucky, the end result would be repeal of all the updates to the original copyright statute, even tho the motive was so pornographers can't make so much money.
"Why, willya look at all them dirty pictures? And to think they're allowed to MAKE MONEY from these horrible exploitative images, for the NEXT HUNDRED YEARS! There oughta be a law!!"
But given how Congress operates, more likely it would just result in a short copyright period that applies ONLY to porn (ie. whatever they decree is porn).
*sigh* Oh well, it was a good fantasty while it lasted...
"If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of congress??"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Because people who are angry need an outlet, better to play quake and blow people away than to do it for real.
Theres been times where i'd play games and kill characters and fantasize about it being someone who pissed me off.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
thank you for providing atleast one legitimate example.. Romeo and Juliet is another..
You just pressed reply too fast. They commited suicide(?) look at his "homepage". they did make shots of people killing themself. I think it is not illegal to shoot dead people. is it?
for more dead people you can always look at rotten.com
What would be your workable alternative?
:-) ) but the easiest and most practical is to set an age threshold.
The ideal would be to have "adulthood" examinations (some people would never pass
This threshold assumes that in a given community most young people have received the adecuate education and awarness that prepares them for adult life.
In Holland, where for example sex education starts from a very young age, this threshold is 12.
In other countries, where sex education is shunned upon and better not discussed, well, the age one is considered a child is higher, and rightly so.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I look at underage hentai and cgi images all the time. I also like reading underage sex stories, playing with young FKISS dolls and fantasising about.. well, let's just say you wouldn't approve. I'm not going to say how I feel about this, but I will tell you that I would never try to act any of these in real life. Not because it's illegal, even if it was made legal today I still wouldn't. I wouldn't do it simple because girls of the age I'm thinking of just aren't ready for that kind of thing, physically or emotionally.
My point should be obvious. I know the difference between fantasy and reality. No matter how many animated, small, flat-chested nympho fourteen year olds I jack off to, it's all in my head, as it should be.
No, I am not stupid enough to post this under my account. I like my hard drive.
to provide pedophiles with the same release valve for sexual tensions that heterosexuals and homosexuals have in regular porn. Get horny, watch virtual porn, jerk off, no more horniness.
NOT! By using the logic above, just having virtual porn for the sick fucks would cure the urge. This would mean that having it for a normal hetero would prevent raping of women. Your logic is fucked. Having a "real doll" for kiddie uses would do nothing but encourage these people to think of children as sex objects.
Granted, the law as written was overerly broad, but, you seem to want to bring child abuse into a place where it is considered normal.
PS: Sorry everyone, usually I change fuck to fsck, and never post anon, but this asshole irritated me.
What's the law's take on something that I am (no longer) able to experiment with:
Suppose I'm 12 years old, take pictures of myself in very sexual poses, something that would indeed be considered child pornography by most. Then I keep these pictures hidden until I turn 18 and release them all over the Internet. Now am I making a crime? Against whom?
The famous lovers, in case you don't remember, were well below 18...
What has happened in the last 300 years? Did we all get dumber?
free the mallocs!
Originally published in the March 1995 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression. Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations - and not just between males and females. Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination.
[...]
For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior. Given its peacemaking and appeasement functions, it is not surprising that sex among bonobos occurs in so many different partner combinations, including between juveniles and adults. The need for peaceful coexistence is obviously not restricted to adult heterosexual pairs.
[...]
On arrival in another community, young bonobo females at Wamba single out one or two senior resident females for special attention, using frequent genital rubbing and grooming to establish a relation. If the residents reciprocate, close associations are set up, and the younger female gradually becomes accepted into the group. In some specied of dolphins, sexual bonding is common between juvenile males and adult females, and sexual play is common between juveniles of both sexes, long before they are biologically ready to breed.
1) The article doesn't make it clear, wether "virtual" child porn is now legal or illegal.
2) Is hentai now considered illegal child porn if it depicts children?
>
Did you know that 83.4% of all quoted statistics in websites are made up at the spur of the moment?
>
Care to back up your statement with a link to the Denver Post?
No sig for the moment.
*lolita*--the newer version, starring Jeremy Irons, featured a 12-14 year old (in the book she started as 12, in the movie as 13) rubbing her ass against Humbert as she sat in his lap (when filming the scene they actually put a foam rubber pad between Irons and Swain, who was really underage at the time, so that he couldn't feel her gyrations directly). It also featured the bed sex scene where the money comes into the scene, as well as Humbert getting a handjob from Lolita in a classroom (not pictured but directly implied).
There are many other films--not just the latest "Romeo + Juliet" film of the play, but also the older Zeffirelli version where Juliet actually bares her breast. In the play *Hamlet* and at least one of the films it is implied that Ophelia is a young teenage girl, and though her age is not explicitly stated her actions "appear to be" those of a young teen.
*Fast Times at Ridgemont High* has a 15 year old having sex, among several other underage couplings.
*Animal House* has one of the characters making out with a 15 year old and debating whether to fuck her while she's unconscious or not.
Those are all I can recall offhand, but there are dozens of other famous films which would be tchnically illegal under those provisions of the Act.
It is also important to note that the film *Lolita* was actually unable to find an American distributor for over a year after the CPPA was passed, because no studios wanted to touch it in light of the law. There's actually a lot of press about that which can be dug up with a Google seach, including a heated interview of star Jeremy Irons. Finally it was released in the U.S.--on the cable channel Showtime, because no AQmerican distributor would touch it. Also, interviews with director Adrian Lyne and articles from the time the movie was released in parts of Europe mention that after the CPPA was passed, *Lolita* was reshot and re-edited in places to better comply with the law. So in effect the CPPA did affect a major motion picture, coercing it into changing its content.
That is perhaps why the film *Lolita* sucks so heartily compared to the book, since it departs from and omits many very important elements.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
"Find me one car that is 100% reliable at not getting you killed on the highway. There isn't one. Thus, eventually driving == horrible flaming death. If you don't realize that, you don't know what you're getting yourself into."
Very, very few things are a hundred percent reliable. It's called "acceptable risk". We mitigate these risks---in the example above, by wearing seat belts and not drinking.
Your argument is completely fallacious and utterly worthless. If you weren't talking about such a loaded issue, you'd see that in a second.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You implied that "factoring the risk correctly" had to entail abstinence. You say that "if you don't want to get pregnant, you must not fuck". This is technically true in the same was that "if you don't want to die a horrible flaming car-wreck death, you must not get in a car".
The point is that we do get in cars. We drive around, cognizant of the risk, but unwilling to live in fear of it.
This isn't a boolean statement. I didn't say "if you have sex, you will not get pregnant". There's a risk, same with driving.
My counter-example clearly shows that your point is invalid. We don't counsel teenagers not to drive (when they're legally allowed to), and we shouldn't counsel teenagers not to fuck (considering age of consent yadda yadda). In both cases, we (ideally) make them aware of the risks involved.
Counseling teenagers to be abstinent is foolhardy and puritan.
The fact that this is a loaded issue is very relevant. I notice you're not saying that teenagers should be forever banned from driving, because they might die.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I just did a search on Kazaa for R. Kelly Sex, and found at LEAST 20 people sharing this Child Porn.
Perhaps we should arrest them before worrying about "virtual" porn.