Slashdot Mirror
The Slippery Legal Slope of Cartoon Porn
BenFenner writes "Two out of the three Virginia judges involved with Dwight Whorley's case say cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that 'it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.'"
I wasn't aware that there were arrests being made over this issue. Thank you for the link.
However, the arrests are not necessarily a BAD thing.
What we have here is another example of technology outracing the law. The Child Porn laws weren't intended to handle situations like this. However, it doesn't mean that you simply toss out all Child Porn laws. It means that you ALLOW cases like this to proceed, so that all the various issues surrounding teenagers taking nudie pics of themselves can be sussed out and the laws adjusted appropriately through adjudication and further legislation.
It's unfortunate that some (stupid) kids will have to go through this, but the law is not omniscient. It cannot possibly take into account every possible situation, particularly when technology is involved. Also, there is a specific process involved when dealing with the law, and the wheels of Justice turn slowly. This is part of the legal process, it MUST play out.
In the meantime, if you are a teenager with a camera-phone, please ensure you are CLOTHED when taking pictures of yourself.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
I knew as soon as I saw this discussion you guys from annabelleigh.net would be out in force. I asked you last time we had a discussion how you could claim that most paedophiles don't really want to have sex with children and you didn't respond.
The reality is that you're deluding yourself and the fact that you're attempting to publicly justify your delusion in this manner is more than a little sad. Straight people download porn about having sex with adults of the opposite sex then they go out and do it, or at least attempt it; the same can be said of gay people with the caveat that it's adults of the same sex.
Why would paedophiles view images (real or simulated) and then not want to have sex with children?
I saw your post above where you cherry picked some studies that failed to show a link between viewing images and desire to have sex with children but we all know that if you just limit yourself to a few studies you can prove any point. The broad experience of just about everyone on the planet is that we view pornography that shows us our fantasy, i.e. things we'd really like to do (if only we had the pulling power).
Rather than try to depict yourself as the victim of politicians playing some power game with your fantasies, isn't it really the case that sex with children (real or imagined) is all about power? How can it be about anything other than a power fantasy where you place yourself above somebody who doesn't have the physical or mental capacity to defend themselves?
Even if you limit yourself to virtual images of children I find it very weird that you'd come out in public and defend what's essentially a rape fantasy.
Nick
Every public policy has a cost side and a benefit side. The cost of ever more stringent child pornography laws, in terms of both fiscal impact and damage to our society, far outweighs the marginal increase in safety to children.
No it does not. The pedophiles right to download child porn does NOT outweigh my children's right to safety. Never, in any sane society do the rights of deviants outweigh the safety and security of the innocent, children included.
Sorry, but a child's right to NOT have their pooper poked is much more important than YOUR right to view material that the overwhelming majority of the public has deemed should illegal.
Please, go ahead and tell me how the rights of pedophiles are more important than protecting children from being molested.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
There are victims. The victims are the people who end up looking at that crap and being affected by it. Secondary victims would be people, especially children, who subsequently interact with the primary victims. The tertiary victim is the psychological, mental, and, yes, moral, state of the culture as a whole. Should we have laws that put limits on the moral content of our culture? ABSOLUTELY. When I see the human scum that are the product of lax Western culture, it's no mystery why Islamists see us as the incarnation of evil.