NATION

PASSWORD

"Child Porn"

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13809
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:34 am

L3 Communications wrote:
Araraukar wrote:As far as the law goes, it doesn't matter if the picture was generated by computer (which might be a false claim at that, an attempt to avoid jail time) or was taken from real life, if it's a picture of a child in a pornographic setting, it's forbidden.

Those artists should be taken out behind the shed and shot. :p

And of course their clients too. Anyone know a good hitman...? 8)


:facedesk:

I hope this was a joke aimed at pointing out the ridiculousness of the portrayed argument.


Only in the sense that there should be no argument on the basis that child pornography should not be allowed in any shape nor form.

Greek pederasties aside, children have not been "model of beauty" anywhere in history. Teenagers, yes, children, no.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Kokbayraq
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Apr 16, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Kokbayraq » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:24 am

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:
Kokbayraq wrote:Personally, I think it is the sexual act which makes art portraying minors porn. I also think child porn as all things can be artistic, but that does not prevent it from beign porn.


The rest of your post is rather confused, so I snip it.

How do you define an act as "sexual"?

Is Sailor Moon lifting her leg to the viewer to show a whole lot of knicker ... sexual?

Is a depiction of a young girl (or boy!) applying makeup to their lips, sexual?

How about the same child applying a dildo to their lips? Porn?

You see where I'm going with this. Where do you draw the line of what is a "sexual act," that you can deem all on one side porn, and all on the other side, um, not-porn?


Yes, thats the problem. As for so many things in life, there are, except in the extremes, no clear cut measures. Rather areas of complexity and nuance that the law in its quest for equality and fairness can never capture. For me personally, the dildo crosses the line but it would depend on the context and other nuances in the picture.

And I know that will satisfy you, but its the best reply I have.

User avatar
BunnySaurus Bugsii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1232
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby BunnySaurus Bugsii » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:13 am

Kokbayraq wrote:
BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:
Kokbayraq wrote:Personally, I think it is the sexual act which makes art portraying minors porn. I also think child porn as all things can be artistic, but that does not prevent it from beign porn.


The rest of your post is rather confused, so I snip it.

How do you define an act as "sexual"?

Is Sailor Moon lifting her leg to the viewer to show a whole lot of knicker ... sexual?

Is a depiction of a young girl (or boy!) applying makeup to their lips, sexual?

How about the same child applying a dildo to their lips? Porn?

You see where I'm going with this. Where do you draw the line of what is a "sexual act," that you can deem all on one side porn, and all on the other side, um, not-porn?


Yes, thats the problem. As for so many things in life, there are, except in the extremes, no clear cut measures. Rather areas of complexity and nuance that the law in its quest for equality and fairness can never capture. For me personally, the dildo crosses the line but it would depend on the context and other nuances in the picture.


Yet we are the makers of law. As voting citizens (I assume on your part) we take our share in the writing of laws.

If we write laws, or elect those who write laws ... and those laws cannot distinguish between a "sexual act" and say, a provocative pose ... perhaps it is best that we not write any laws at all.

The very least we can do is leave the minimum penalty to the judge and/or jury, who have heard the evidence debated in the controlled (moderated!) environment of a courtroom. Who have spent hours at least, and probably days, deliberating the evidence. That is where complexity and nuance should be judged ... not in the broad terms of law. Not in the sweeping generalizations of one-law-for-all which we poor citizens get to vote on.


And I know that will satisfy you, but its the best reply I have.


It seems a sincere answer. *nod*
Lucky Bicycle Works ⊂ BunnySaurus Bugsii ⊂ Nobel Hobos

More sig:
Saboteur: A well-meaning idiot, walking into the future barefoot.
...

The moongoose step: a combination of can-can, goose-step, and moon-step. I haven't perfected it yet.

I can however do John Cleese's Silly Walk, with elements of falling on my arse.

...
When we hear our future selves, we are humbled. We are willing servants.

User avatar
BunnySaurus Bugsii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1232
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby BunnySaurus Bugsii » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:18 am

Araraukar wrote:
L3 Communications wrote:
Araraukar wrote:As far as the law goes, it doesn't matter if the picture was generated by computer (which might be a false claim at that, an attempt to avoid jail time) or was taken from real life, if it's a picture of a child in a pornographic setting, it's forbidden.

Those artists should be taken out behind the shed and shot. :p

And of course their clients too. Anyone know a good hitman...? 8)


:facedesk:

I hope this was a joke aimed at pointing out the ridiculousness of the portrayed argument.


Only in the sense that there should be no argument on the basis that child pornography should not be allowed in any shape nor form.


Um. The "shape or form" of what constitutes child pornography is exactly the thread subject.

If you want no argument, you're in the wrong thread.

Greek pederasties aside, children have not been "model of beauty" anywhere in history. Teenagers, yes, children, no.


Explain "model of beauty" please. It's an euphemism with which I am unfamiliar.
Lucky Bicycle Works ⊂ BunnySaurus Bugsii ⊂ Nobel Hobos

More sig:
Saboteur: A well-meaning idiot, walking into the future barefoot.
...

The moongoose step: a combination of can-can, goose-step, and moon-step. I haven't perfected it yet.

I can however do John Cleese's Silly Walk, with elements of falling on my arse.

...
When we hear our future selves, we are humbled. We are willing servants.

User avatar
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:47 am

Araraukar wrote:Greek pederasties aside, children have not been "model of beauty" anywhere in history. Teenagers, yes, children, no.

Victorian England. Care to go again?
Last edited by The_pantless_hero on Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!

Doing what we must because we can

User avatar
Allied Nazis
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 12
Founded: Jun 29, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Allied Nazis » Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:55 am

All childporn CGI or otherwise should not be allowed, if youre being creative drawing a naked pre-teen then youre pretty messed up and need a girlfriend. Creative ideas have already been banned for artists especially in CGI, remember trying to show a picture of Mohammad? Childporn by definition from wikipedia "Child pornography refers to images or films depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child; as such, child pornography is a visual record of child sexual abuse" Well photographing a minor naked is sexual abuse because they lack the mental capacity to know what exactly is going on, therefore you taking advantage of them being naive also..
Last edited by Allied Nazis on Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Domminus
Envoy
 
Posts: 338
Founded: Jun 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Domminus » Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:56 am

Allied Nazis wrote:All childporn CGI or otherwise should not be allowed, if youre being creative drawing a naked pre-teen then youre pretty messed up and need a girlfriend. Creative ideas have already been banned for artists especially in CGI, remember trying to show a picture of Mohammad?


That's not banned. It may piss people off, but it's not banned.

User avatar
Soldier Cows
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Apr 29, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Soldier Cows » Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:03 am

Should be though.

User avatar
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:04 am

Soldier Cows wrote:Should be though.

Why thank you photo nazis, we appreciate your contributions to the thread. Though I will say the same to you as to TCT - slippery slope. And they had a better argument.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!

Doing what we must because we can

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:35 am

Again, I think the better side of the argument is that virtual pornography is not known to be harmful or harmful enough to overcome peoples right to freedom of expression and ideas.

But some of you are making arguments that seem to me both ill-conceived and confused.

Many of the arguments that have been made in this thread play fast-and-loose with important distinctions between nudity, erotica, pornography, obscenity, child pornography, and virtual child pornography.

There is nothing wrong with adult nudity and erotica -- at least not in privacy.

Adult pornography is not necessarily all good or harmless, but, I think it is a good on-balance and, regardless, must be legal. SCOTUS agrees.

Some material cross the not-easy-to-define area into obscenity. I don't necessarily agree with other people's definitions of obscenity, but I agree with SCOTUS that some material can cross the line and be banned. Filming an actual rape, for example. So this area is a bit complicated but can be distinguished from ordinary pornography.

Also distinquishable from ordinary pornography is real child pornography. It harms the children used to make it both in the making and in the capturing and repeating of the trauma. Real child pornography also, as I have documented, can cause further sexual abuse. For these reason I also agree with SCOTUS that real child pornography is not protected speech and can be criminalized.

The original topic of this thread is the question of virtual child pornography -- which can include a lot of different things. There is some reason to believe such pornography can be harmful, but the evidence is far from conclusive. It is neither reasonable to accept or dismiss this concern blindly. I agree with SCOTUS that we must err on the side of freedom and allow so-called virtual child pornography -- until and if we have more concrete proof it causes harm.

Saying "all child porn is bad"--virtual or not-- is a knee-jerk reaction that ignores important distinctions and liberty concerns.

Saying "no child porn is bad" is simply to deny reality and is evil.

Saying virtual child porn is different because no child is directly harmed and evidence of secondary harm is inconclusive makes sense.

Saying virtual child porn can't be banned because of the "slippery slope," however, is also a knee-jerk reaction that ignores important distinctions and possible harms.

That's my additional two cents.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
BunnySaurus Bugsii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1232
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby BunnySaurus Bugsii » Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:48 am

Allied Nazis wrote:All childporn CGI or otherwise should not be allowed, if youre being creative drawing a naked pre-teen then youre pretty messed up and need a girlfriend. Creative ideas have already been banned for artists especially in CGI, remember trying to show a picture of Mohammad?


Yeah, nice. That should be a corollary of Godwin's law.

"No internet debate can go more than 100 posts without someone mentioning Mohammed, without wishing peace apon his name."

You started so hard here. Simulations should not be allowed, because ... messed up ... girlfriend ... Mohammed (peace be upon his name) ... train-wreck.

Childporn by definition from wikipedia "Child pornography refers to images or films depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child; as such, child pornography is a visual record of child sexual abuse" Well photographing a minor naked is sexual abuse because they lack the mental capacity to know what exactly is going on, therefore you taking advantage of them being naive also..


Get with the subject. Simulated porn. Graphical representations of children who do not exist.

Few in this thread dispute that child porn involving actual children is wrong. Well, I'm a fence-sitter on that subject, but anyway. Get with the subject.

Is it "pornography" and does it do any harm, to make simulations of child porn?

EDIT: Futhermucking formatting again, for suck's fake!
Last edited by BunnySaurus Bugsii on Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lucky Bicycle Works ⊂ BunnySaurus Bugsii ⊂ Nobel Hobos

More sig:
Saboteur: A well-meaning idiot, walking into the future barefoot.
...

The moongoose step: a combination of can-can, goose-step, and moon-step. I haven't perfected it yet.

I can however do John Cleese's Silly Walk, with elements of falling on my arse.

...
When we hear our future selves, we are humbled. We are willing servants.

User avatar
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:56 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Saying virtual child porn can't be banned because of the "slippery slope," however, is also a knee-jerk reaction that ignores important distinctions and possible harms.

That is hardly a sensible claim if you consider the ramifications of making the virtual depiction of a crime a crime itself.
Given your previous posts about this, I already know your evidence and I can counter with evidence related to blaming violent video games for violent actions.
Last edited by The_pantless_hero on Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!

Doing what we must because we can

User avatar
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:59 am

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:Few in this thread dispute that child porn involving actual children is wrong. Well, I'm a fence-sitter on that subject, but anyway. Get with the subject.

I don't see how one could dispute how child porn involving actual children is wrong. Now, disputing what and how charges are levied related to real child porn images is another matter.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!

Doing what we must because we can

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:08 am

The_pantless_hero wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Saying virtual child porn can't be banned because of the "slippery slope," however, is also a knee-jerk reaction that ignores important distinctions and possible harms.

That is hardly a sensible claim if you consider the ramifications of making the virtual depiction of a crime a crime itself.
Given your previous posts about this, I already know your evidence and I can counter with evidence related to blaming violent video games for violent actions.


*sigh*

If you read my entire e-mail, I made clear that I can and do distinguish between the virtual depiction of a crime and the crime itself. Although it is possible the first can be harmful, we should err on the side of liberty. That doesn't, however, make the concern that it may be harmful absurd.

I presented ample evidence that actual child pornography is harmful beyond the harm caused to its direct victims. I also presented a small amount of evidence that raises the concern that virtual pornography causes similar harms. I'm not convinced by the second sent of evidence that we should ban virtual child pornography, but your dismissal of the evidence is too blithe. Intellectually or ideologically inconvenient evidence doesn't cease to exist just because you don't like the possible ramifications. NOTE: One can also believe that virtual child pornography causes some harm, but should still be allowed. I personally dislike hate speech and can sympathize with those nations that have made it criminal, but I am firmly against such laws because they cost too much in liberty.

Stop being childish and reactionary about the issue and recognize there is more complexity to it than you are willing to admit.

EDIT: By the way, although there are people that believe video games cause violence, and I am unconvinced by that argument, I don't believe there is scientific evidence suppporting that claim. Even if there was, that would make the issue more complicated but not justify a ban on violence in video games. I also believe the cases, although similar in some respects, are distinguishible in multiple respects.
Last edited by The Cat-Tribe on Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
JuNii
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13517
Founded: Aug 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby JuNii » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:10 am

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:
Kokbayraq wrote:Personally, I think it is the sexual act which makes art portraying minors porn. I also think child porn as all things can be artistic, but that does not prevent it from beign porn.


The rest of your post is rather confused, so I snip it.

How do you define an act as "sexual"?

Is Sailor Moon lifting her leg to the viewer to show a whole lot of knicker ... sexual?

Is a depiction of a young girl (or boy!) applying makeup to their lips, sexual?

How about the same child applying a dildo to their lips? Porn?

You see where I'm going with this. Where do you draw the line of what is a "sexual act," that you can deem all on one side porn, and all on the other side, um, not-porn?


and there's the ever popular 'Child playing with sex toy'
on the other hand... I have another set of fingers.

Unscramble these words...1) PNEIS. 2)HTIELR 3) NGGERI 4) BUTTSXE
1) SPINE. 2) LITHER 3)GINGER 4)SUBTEXT

User avatar
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:17 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:I presented ample evidence that actual child pornography is harmful beyond the harm caused to its direct victims. I also presented a small amount of evidence that raises the concern that virtual pornography causes similar harms.

Were it a scientific research topic, your evidence would be lacking. Fore example, I don't recall seeing any evidence that regular, legal porn used in a similar manner does not achieve similar results.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!

Doing what we must because we can

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:21 am

The_pantless_hero wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:I presented ample evidence that actual child pornography is harmful beyond the harm caused to its direct victims. I also presented a small amount of evidence that raises the concern that virtual pornography causes similar harms.

Were it a scientific research topic, your evidence would be lacking. Fore example, I don't recall seeing any evidence that regular, legal porn used in a similar manner does not achieve similar results.


Gee, I guess all the experts cited and the peer-reviewed studies cited just overlooked the obvious. :palm:

Again, are you denying that actual child pornography causes these secondary harms? If so, where is your evidence?

If not, then the question is whether virtual child pornography causes real harms. I'm not convinced it does or, if it does, the threat outweighs the interest of freedom.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:24 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Gee, I guess all the experts cited and the peer-reviewed studies cited just overlooked the obvious. :palm:

Again, are you denying that actual child pornography causes these secondary harms? If so, where is your evidence?

Are you ignoring my point?

To elaborate: Were the studies conducted such that regular, legal porn was factored into the equation? And did it have the same effect? If so, the evidence that pornographic images of children, real or imagined, causes direct harm falls apart and is replaced by pornographic images of people, real of imagined causes direct harm. At which point you arn't going to get anything banned.
Last edited by The_pantless_hero on Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!

Doing what we must because we can

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:26 am

The_pantless_hero wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Gee, I guess all the experts cited and the peer-reviewed studies cited just overlooked the obvious. :palm:

Again, are you denying that actual child pornography causes these secondary harms? If so, where is your evidence?

Are you ignoring my point?


Perhaps. What "point" did I not address?

I agree that the evidence that virtual child pornography causes harm is lacking.

The depiction of children having sex can and is used in harmful ways, however, that don't apply to adult pornography in a long list of ways. Are you really unable to make the distinction? Are you really going to assume the studies on child pornography didn't consider this?
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:28 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
The_pantless_hero wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Gee, I guess all the experts cited and the peer-reviewed studies cited just overlooked the obvious. :palm:

Again, are you denying that actual child pornography causes these secondary harms? If so, where is your evidence?

Are you ignoring my point?


Perhaps. What "point" did I not address?

I agree that the evidence that virtual child pornography causes harm is lacking.

To elaborate: Were the studies conducted such that regular, legal porn was factored into the equation? And did it have the same effect? If so, the evidence that pornographic images of children, real or imagined, causes direct harm falls apart and is replaced by pornographic images of people, real of imagined causes direct harm. At which point you arn't going to get anything banned.

The depiction of children having sex can and is used in harmful ways, however, that don't apply to adult pornography in a long list of ways.

And this is based on what evidence related to your prior evidence that child pornography can be and is used in harmful ways?

Are you really unable to make the distinction?

Are you unable to understand a simple point?
Last edited by The_pantless_hero on Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!

Doing what we must because we can

User avatar
BunnySaurus Bugsii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1232
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby BunnySaurus Bugsii » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:28 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Again, I think the better side of the argument is that virtual pornography is not known to be harmful or harmful enough to overcome peoples right to freedom of expression and ideas.


Excellent. How "ideas" got above plain out enjoyment I don't know. But still it counts.

But some of you are making arguments that seem to me both ill-conceived and confused.

Many of the arguments that have been made in this thread play fast-and-loose with important distinctions between nudity, erotica, pornography, obscenity, child pornography, and virtual child pornography.


Yes, sure they do. But, ON BOTH SIDES of the debate.

You should quote or at least name those you accuse.

There is nothing wrong with adult nudity and erotica -- at least not in privacy.

Adult pornography is not necessarily all good or harmless, but, I think it is a good on-balance and, regardless, must be legal. SCOTUS agrees.


On balance? Where is the public good in that balance?

It is in the satisfaction, isn't it, of those individuals who plainly enjoy their porn?
Who spend money, and risk public embarassment, to get their porn?

The exact same standard should apply to paedophiles (by inclination, not by action) who would get satisfaction from viewing child porn.


Some material cross the not-easy-to-define area into obscenity. I don't necessarily agree with other people's definitions of obscenity, but I agree with SCOTUS that some material can cross the line and be banned. Filming an actual rape, for example. So this area is a bit complicated but can be distinguished from ordinary pornography.


Excellent. If a crime was committed, the documentary evidence should be withheld from the public.

Until after a trial. If after all appeals the depicted action was deemed not to be criminal ... what then?

Rodney King.

Also distinquishable from ordinary pornography is real child pornography. It harms the children used to make it both in the making and in the capturing and repeating of the trauma. Real child pornography also, as I have documented, can cause further sexual abuse. For these reason I also agree with SCOTUS that real child pornography is not protected speech and can be criminalized.


Yes, I agree that records of child molestation necessarily involve harm to a child (tho' I've seen some where they seemed to really enjoy it, I will go with the psychiatric consensus that it was harmful.)

Real child pornography, as you suppose you have "documented" does not cause further sexual abuse. You made a good case that child pornography (real or simulated) can be used in the commission of sexual abuse (by being shown to children ((in itself a crime)) to persuade them that pedophiliac sex is normal) ... but no, you did not adequately document that real pornography causes sexual abuse.

You cited a professional opinon put to a US senate committee, if I remember correctly.

The original topic of this thread is the question of virtual child pornography -- which can include a lot of different things. There is some reason to believe such pornography can be harmful, but the evidence is far from conclusive. It is neither reasonable to accept or dismiss this concern blindly. I agree with SCOTUS that we must err on the side of freedom and allow so-called virtual child pornography -- until and if we have more concrete proof it causes harm.


I utterly agree.

I suppose it would be unrealistically socialist to suggest that the SCOTUS be empowered to appoint a panel of experts to give recommendations?

Just leave it to the independent scientific sources, which are largely privately funded, to update the common knowledge on the subject. We'll get back to it when public opinion has been swayed one way or the other by ... largely private funding.

Two words: Royal Commission.

Saying "all child porn is bad"--virtual or not-- is a knee-jerk reaction that ignores important distinctions and liberty concerns.

Saying "no child porn is bad" is simply to deny reality and is evil.


Something went wrong with your spell checker there. You meant to say "vile" ... right?

Saying virtual child porn is different because no child is directly harmed and evidence of secondary harm is inconclusive makes sense.


Lots of sense. Thankyou!

Saying virtual child porn can't be banned because of the "slippery slope," however, is also a knee-jerk reaction that ignores important distinctions and possible harms.


Yes, I should say so. I do however see bans on the free receipt of material as rather based in an outdated model of "publishing" where to receive something was to choose it, and pay for it, with money certainly returning to the producer of the content.

Since you have been so frank in your position, let me put mine: child pornography should be legal, and free of charge. Anyone paying to recieve child pornography should be considered an accomplice in the production of that pornography, ie actual abuse of children.

Earlier in the thread, you mentioned the future possibilities wherein real pornography might be indistinguishable from simulated pornography.

That deserves some further thought. For one thing, it could be considered evidence of a crime which never actually happened. For another, it could allow real child abuse to be filmed and "retouched" to make it appear simulated.

That's my additional two cents.


Two bucks more like.
Lucky Bicycle Works ⊂ BunnySaurus Bugsii ⊂ Nobel Hobos

More sig:
Saboteur: A well-meaning idiot, walking into the future barefoot.
...

The moongoose step: a combination of can-can, goose-step, and moon-step. I haven't perfected it yet.

I can however do John Cleese's Silly Walk, with elements of falling on my arse.

...
When we hear our future selves, we are humbled. We are willing servants.

User avatar
BunnySaurus Bugsii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1232
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby BunnySaurus Bugsii » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:42 am

The_pantless_hero wrote:
BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:Few in this thread dispute that child porn involving actual children is wrong. Well, I'm a fence-sitter on that subject, but anyway. Get with the subject.

I don't see how one could dispute how child porn involving actual children is wrong. Now, disputing what and how charges are levied related to real child porn images is another matter.


Um, I could dispute it.

But frankly, I would prefer that the thread stays on-topic, which is to the ethical distinction between simulated and "live" porn. Or legal distinction, if you really want to get ugly about it.
Lucky Bicycle Works ⊂ BunnySaurus Bugsii ⊂ Nobel Hobos

More sig:
Saboteur: A well-meaning idiot, walking into the future barefoot.
...

The moongoose step: a combination of can-can, goose-step, and moon-step. I haven't perfected it yet.

I can however do John Cleese's Silly Walk, with elements of falling on my arse.

...
When we hear our future selves, we are humbled. We are willing servants.

User avatar
Dalratha
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Apr 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Dalratha » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:06 am

New New Anarchy wrote:
L3 Communications wrote:
Cameroi wrote:adulthood begins at 21 or 18. childhood ends at 11.


Biologically, childhood ends at around 12-13; adulthood begins around 15-16. Depending on when puberty begins and ends, there are always outliers but that is the average-ish.

Politics is never based on science, only gut!

Childhood ends when your sexy!


When you 'feel' or when you are 'percieved as' ?

Its an important point.

As for the determination of age - its an artificial construct of society to apply an arbitrary limit on the issue. A 13-year-old may be more emotionally and mentally mature than a 16, 17, or even 18-year-old, dependent on their upbringings.

Surely that is an important point?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

User avatar
Czardas
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6702
Founded: Feb 25, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Czardas » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:11 am

Zombie thread! *gets the shotgun*

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aclion, Alvecia, Amaseia, Andsed, Arevastan, Betelgeuse Alliance, Cannot think of a name, Das Volksreich, Dooom35796821595, Ethel mermania, Evil Dictators Happyland, Galloism, Gormwood, Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States, Grinning Dragon, Hirota, Ifreann, Kasa Tkoth Sphere, Kyracus, Lost Memories, Lower Nubia, Napkizemlja, New Genoa, Niculen Sare, Philjia, Rainbowsix, Satuga, Shrillland, Thermodolia, Vand Onlisianiny

Advertisement

Remove ads