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
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:08 pm

The Schro wrote:Not just any shit that you take. You'd have to do a little something extra, or take it in a special way so that it can fit that definition.

I don't really understand what your point is.


It fits the definition without needing anything more than I have given it. My shit is imbued with great artistic meaning and you are wrong to be so down on it, just like I'm wrong to be so down on the great artistry of child porn.

The point here is that you people are using this extra-loose definition of art and applying it to child porn. So now if anyone argues against child porn, they are just arguing against art! How EVIL, right?

Frankly, my shit is far less offensive than child porn, and less offensive than the idea that you people are trying to pass off child porn as "art."
Last edited by Phenia on Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:10 pm

Phenia wrote:It fits the definition without needing anything more than I have given it. My shit is imbued with great artistic meaning and you are wrong to be so down on it, just like I'm wrong to be so down on the great artistry of child porn.

The point here is that you people are using this extra-loose definition of art and applying it to child porn. So now if anyone argues against child porn, they are just arguing against art! How EVIL, right?

Frankly, my shit is far less offensive than child porn, and less offensive than the idea that you people are trying to pass off child porn as "art."


Really, how many times to I have to link this at people? Read and understand

I have already provided examples of pornographic material, including depictions of underage sex, that is also art by any reasonable definition.
Fnord.

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:12 pm

UNIverseVERSE wrote:
Phenia wrote:It fits the definition without needing anything more than I have given it. My shit is imbued with great artistic meaning and you are wrong to be so down on it, just like I'm wrong to be so down on the great artistry of child porn.

The point here is that you people are using this extra-loose definition of art and applying it to child porn. So now if anyone argues against child porn, they are just arguing against art! How EVIL, right?

Frankly, my shit is far less offensive than child porn, and less offensive than the idea that you people are trying to pass off child porn as "art."


Really, how many times to I have to link this at people? Read and understand

I have already provided examples of pornographic material, including depictions of underage sex, that is also art by any reasonable definition.


Your definition is unreasonable, since you admit it includes basically anything and everything an "artist" does.

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:13 pm

Umm what's the argument here? The OP said that s/he wasn't talking about when children are forced naked and such, but art. Children have been depicted nude in art for thousands of years. Umm, unless I'm understanding this incorrectly, what's the problem?
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 185903
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:14 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:Umm what's the argument here? The OP said that s/he wasn't talking about when children are forced naked and such, but art. Children have been depicted nude in art for thousands of years. Umm, unless I'm understanding this incorrectly, what's the problem?


That was the original intent of the OP. Now, it's about what's art and what isn't.
Code name: Ratatouille Strychnine
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Heartless, ''transgendered non-binary kawaii Chan'', & a d*ck.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:16 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:Umm what's the argument here? The OP said that s/he wasn't talking about when children are forced naked and such, but art. Children have been depicted nude in art for thousands of years. Umm, unless I'm understanding this incorrectly, what's the problem?


Animated child porn isn't art. That's the point. It's porn. It's meant to appeal to people sexually, stimulate them so they can fucking masturbate and fulfill their pedophile fantasies. I know I'm being horrible in not considering that "art," how close minded of me.

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:16 pm

Phenia wrote:Your definition is unreasonable, since you admit it includes basically anything and everything an "artist" does.


Why? I defined both art and artists, and did so fairly non-circularly. I also provided a practical example of what I meant.

Despite that, it's irrelevant. By any commonly accepted definition of art, Lost Girls is art. One doesn't just need to use my personal definition, but nearly anything -- if one were to define art based on the quality of the work, or the intentions of the creator, it would fit. Show me a definition of art that, without deliberate modification to exclude it, doesn't apply to comics like Lost Girls.
Fnord.

User avatar
Uiri
Diplomat
 
Posts: 875
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Uiri » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:17 pm

yeah, after 5-6 pages the original topic has always been changed somehow.
SH*T HAPPENS
<Franberry> a WA condemnation is more useless than an irl UN sanction

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:18 pm

Phenia wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Umm what's the argument here? The OP said that s/he wasn't talking about when children are forced naked and such, but art. Children have been depicted nude in art for thousands of years. Umm, unless I'm understanding this incorrectly, what's the problem?


Animated child porn isn't art. That's the point. It's porn. It's meant to appeal to people sexually, stimulate them so they can fucking masturbate and fulfill their pedophile fantasies. I know I'm being horrible in not considering that "art," how close minded of me.


Err. Just out of curiosity, who said video and photographic child pornography is art, and where the hell are the police?
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 185903
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:20 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Phenia wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Umm what's the argument here? The OP said that s/he wasn't talking about when children are forced naked and such, but art. Children have been depicted nude in art for thousands of years. Umm, unless I'm understanding this incorrectly, what's the problem?


Animated child porn isn't art. That's the point. It's porn. It's meant to appeal to people sexually, stimulate them so they can fucking masturbate and fulfill their pedophile fantasies. I know I'm being horrible in not considering that "art," how close minded of me.


Err. Just out of curiosity, who said video and photographic child pornography is art, and where the hell are the police?


They're talking about animation, not real life children.
Code name: Ratatouille Strychnine
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Heartless, ''transgendered non-binary kawaii Chan'', & a d*ck.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
Sdaeriji
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Sdaeriji » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:21 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Phenia wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Umm what's the argument here? The OP said that s/he wasn't talking about when children are forced naked and such, but art. Children have been depicted nude in art for thousands of years. Umm, unless I'm understanding this incorrectly, what's the problem?


Animated child porn isn't art. That's the point. It's porn. It's meant to appeal to people sexually, stimulate them so they can fucking masturbate and fulfill their pedophile fantasies. I know I'm being horrible in not considering that "art," how close minded of me.


Err. Just out of curiosity, who said video and photographic child pornography is art, and where the hell are the police?


A lot of people did, and presumably the police are out stopping crime.
Farnhamia wrote:What part of the four-letter word "Rules" are you having trouble with?
Farnhamia wrote:four-letter word "Rules"

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:21 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:Err. Just out of curiosity, who said video and photographic child pornography is art, and where the hell are the police?


He might be referring (inaccurately) to me. I said that I will defend, on the grounds of freedom of speech and artistic expression, any material which doesn't directly involve the exploitation of children. This includes written, drawn, and animated depictions of underage sex. It doesn't include photographs or video of actual children.

Edit: I misattributed the quotes. My most sincere apologies to B&C, as I implied ey said things ey didn't.
Last edited by UNIverseVERSE on Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fnord.

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:22 pm

UNIverseVERSE wrote:
Phenia wrote:Your definition is unreasonable, since you admit it includes basically anything and everything an "artist" does.


Why? I defined both art and artists, and did so fairly non-circularly. I also provided a practical example of what I meant.

Despite that, it's irrelevant. By any commonly accepted definition of art, Lost Girls is art. One doesn't just need to use my personal definition, but nearly anything -- if one were to define art based on the quality of the work, or the intentions of the creator, it would fit. Show me a definition of art that, without deliberate modification to exclude it, doesn't apply to comics like Lost Girls.


Well, I don't think its useful to come up with a definition of art in the first place.

Show me a definition of art that, without deliberately modification to exclude it, DOESNT apply to every single fucking thing anyone ever does, including my shit.

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:23 pm

Well then again. I consider photography art. So I suppose child pornography is art. Of course, we think of art as something beautiful, but I don't see why it can't be illegal and gross.

(After seeing another post before submitting)-- Oh. Well that's sicker in my opinion, but I guess it still should be considered art. Films, animated and containing child pornography or not, should I suppose be labled as art. Although I think it ruins art's name and is pretty "pedophilish."
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:24 pm

UNIverseVERSE wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Animated child porn isn't art. That's the point. It's porn. It's meant to appeal to people sexually, stimulate them so they can fucking masturbate and fulfill their pedophile fantasies. I know I'm being horrible in not considering that "art," how close minded of me.


Err. Just out of curiosity, who said video and photographic child pornography is art, and where the hell are the police?


He might be referring (inaccurately) to me. I said that I will defend, on the grounds of freedom of speech and artistic expression, any material which doesn't directly involve the exploitation of children. This includes written, drawn, and animated depictions of underage sex. It doesn't include photographs or video of actual children.[/quote]

You switched the quotes.
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:28 pm

Phenia wrote:Well, I don't think its useful to come up with a definition of art in the first place.

Show me a definition of art that, without deliberately modification to exclude it, DOESNT apply to every single fucking thing anyone ever does, including my shit.


Your second sentence demonstrates exactly why a good definition is needed.

Regardless, here is one that happens to quite nicely include depictions of underage sex, but exclude your faeces:

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature.


(from teh Wiki

Buffett and Colbert wrote:You switched the quotes.


Yes, I just realised. I'll go fix it now.
Fnord.

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:34 pm

UNIverseVERSE wrote:Your second sentence demonstrates exactly why a good definition is needed.


Well, I disagree, because I think rules lawyers are going to use any definition to obnoxiously defend non-art under the guise of its being art, that would otherwise have no defense.

Regardless, here is one that happens to quite nicely include depictions of underage sex, but exclude your faeces:

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature.


That doesn't exclude my shit at all. I was engaged in a process of deliberately arranging elements - aforementioned chow mein, post-digestion - in a way that appeals to the sense of smell and vision and conveys the emotions of satisfaction combined with disgust and slight sadness.

I suppose you could now claim it wasn't deliberate. Well, it wasn't accidental, that I can assure you.

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:36 pm

Let be me clear, I generally agree with Neil Gaiman and SCOTUS that virtual child pornography is (and should be) protected by free speech. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

However, the cavalier attitude with which some conclude that virtual child pornography can't possibly be harmful or, even if it is, that is acceptable because it is "art" sets my teeth on edge and begs for someone to play Devil's Advocate. So, a few points.

1) I have not yet read Lost Girls because my Amazon order is backordered, so I can't comment on it particularly.

2) Those that think the harm of child pornography comes simply from the harm caused by forcing children to make it are simply wrong.

Additional harms from the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography include:

  • prohibiting the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography is critical to preventing and punishing the production of child pornography. You can't completely divorce the source from the demand. The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials.

  • child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing other children into sexual activity; a child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult, or to pose for sexually explicit photographs, can sometimes be convinced by viewing depictions of other children `having fun' participating in such activity. More specifically, child pornography is used by child molesters to:

    • Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.

    • Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.

    • Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.

    • Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.

  • child pornography is often used by pedophiles and child sexual abusers to stimulate and whet their own sexual appetites, and as a model for sexual acting out with children; such use of child pornography can desensitize the viewer to the pathology of sexual abuse or exploitation of children, so that it can become acceptable to and even preferred by the viewer


See, e.g., http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/ ... 050102.htm

Note: the last two definitely and the first to a degree apply to virtual child pornography. In fact, "cartoon" characters having sex may be even more useful for the purposes of luring and desensitizing children to sexual abuse.

On the other hand, what exactly is the value of virtual child pornography? How does it contribute to the marketplace of ideas? What redeeming social value does it have that outweighs its potential harm?
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 Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:42 pm

Again, I don't complete agree with the argument, but for your further consideration, the following is from the government's brief in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition:

A wealth of evidence supports Congress’s finding that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce children into sexual activity. Researchers and prosecutors who testified at the Senate Hearing informed Congress unequivocally that pedophiles use child pornography as a method of seduction.4


[Blocktext]4 Senate Hearing 35 (statement of professor of psychology Dr. Victor
Cline) (Child pornography is used “to seduce children into engaging in
sexual acts” with adults.); id. at 96-97 (testimony of Bruce A. Taylor,
President and Chief Counsel of the National Law Center for Children and
Families) (“Actual or simulated child pornography is shown to convince
the child that other children regularly participate in sexual activities with
adults or peers. * * * Continued exposure to the pornography lowers the
inhibitions of the child to a point where he allows the molester to kiss and
touch him sexually. Eventually, if successful, the seduction process
progresses to more explicit activity between the child victim and adult or
other children, using the pornography as instructional tools.”) (footnote
omitted); id. at 20 (statement of Deputy Chief Postal Inspector Jeffrey J.
Dupilka) (“Child molesters use kiddie porn to seduce children into
participating in sexual activity with them.”); id. at 18 (statement of
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kevin U. DiGregory) (“Entirely
artificial images * * * can be used by pedophiles to seduce children”); id.
at 37 (testimony of Dee Jepsen, President of Enough is Enough)
(“Therapists who treat sexually addicted persons declare, and studies
confirm, that pornography, often child pornography, does play a major role
in the molestation process with children.”).
[/Blocktext]

Earlier federal investigations arrived at the same conclusion. In 1986, the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography found “substantial evidence that photographs of children engaged in sexual activity are used as tools for further molestation of other children.” Final Report, supra, at 411.5


[blocktext]5 See Final Report, supra, at 411 (“Children are shown pictures of
other children engaged in sexual activity, with the aim of persuading
especially a quite young child that if it is in a picture, and if other children
are doing it, then it must be all right for this child to do it.”); id. at 649
(“Child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing child
victims.”); ibid. (“A child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with
an adult or to pose for sexually explicit photos can sometimes be convinced
by viewing other children having ‘fun’ participating in the activity.”); ibid.
(“From a very early age children are taught to respect and believe
material contained in books and will thus have the same beliefs about child
pornography.”); id. at 649-650 (“Child pornography is * * * used to
illustrate the activities in which the pedophile wishes a child to engage. In
such instances a pedophile offender shows the child the pornography and
asks the child to imitate the pictures.”) (footnote omitted); id. at 649 (“A
pedophile offender will use child pornography in which the children appear
to be having a good time. The offender uses this material to lower the
inhibitions of the child and entice him or her into a desired activity.
Children who view this material are also subject to a certain amount of
peer pressure as they see other children engaged in the activity.”).
[/Blocktext]

In that same year, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations also concluded that pedophiles use child pornography to “lower a child’s inhibitions,” and to “assist them in seducing their victims.” S. Rep. No. 537, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 10, 44 (1986). This Court specifically noted in Osborne that “evidence suggests that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce other children into sexual activity,” 495 U.S. at 111, and the available secondary literature confirms that conclusion.6


[
blocktext]6 Tim Tate, Child Pornography: An Investigation 118 (1990) (a
pedophile’s collection of child pornography is “a vital tool in the future
seduction of new victims”); Daniel Campagna & Donald Poffenberger, The
Sexual Trafficking in Children: An Investigation of the Child Sex Trade
118 (1988) (child pornography is used “to lower a minor’s inhibitions and
resistance to sex,” and “as an instructional aid to indoctrinate victims into
various sexual practices”); Shirley O’Brien, Child Pornography 89 (1983)
(child pornography is “used to convince [the] child that other children are
sexually active,” and as a tool to “lower[] [the] child’s inhibitions” against
sexual activity with adults); Seth Goldstein, The Sexual Exploitation of
Children: A Practical Guide To Assessment, Investigation, and Intervention
149 (2d ed. 1999) (child pornography “is often used by the child molester
to seduce the child”).
[/Blocktext]

The reported cases also provide vivid examples of pedophiles using images of child pornography in the course of exploiting children sexually.7


[blocktext]7 See, e.g.., United States v. Snyder, 189 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1097 (2000); Burke v. State, 27 S.W.3d 651, 655 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000), petition for discretionary review refused, Nos. 00-1869 & 00-1870 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 6, 2000).
[/Blocktext]

Child pornography is not the only means by which pedophiles seduce children into sexual activity. The evidence before Congress, however, shows that it plays a significant role. One witness informed Congress that approximately one-third of the molesters in his practice had used child pornography as a seduction tool. Senate Hearing 116 (testimony of Dr. Cline). Another witness testified that a study of 1,400 sexual exploitation cases in Louisville, Kentucky “revealed that a significant number of molestation cases involve child pornography.” Id. at 92. The testimony that Congress heard is consistent with evidence from other sources. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported that most of the child molesters that it interviewed “said they had used [such] material to lower the inhibitions of children or to coach them into posing for photographs.” S. Rep. No. 537, supra, at 9. And a study conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department’s Sexually Exploited Child Unit revealed that more than 20% of the 320 cases investigated by that unit during a ten-year period involved the use of child pornography. The Sexual Exploitation of Children, supra, at 149.

The evidence before Congress also established that computer-generated pictures of child pornography can be used to seduce children just as effectively as pictures of real children. One witness explained that there is “no difference” between computer-generated pornography and pictures of actual children in terms of their effectiveness as a tool of seduction of minors. Senate Hearing 116 (testimony of Dr. Victor Cline). Another witness similarly testified that “[t]he real and the apparent * * * are equally dangerous because both have * * * the same seductive effect on a child victim.” Id. at 70 (testimony of Bruce A. Taylor). Since computer technology can be used to produce visual depictions that are virtually indistinguishable from unretouched photos of actual children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, it would be difficult to reach any other conclusion.

Indeed, even the student note relied upon by the court of appeals found it “relatively easy to infer from proof that children are swayed by images of actual children the conclusion that they will also be swayed by lifelike computer-generated images.” Adelman, supra, 14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. at 490. The note further stated that “computer-generated images may be even more dangerous than photographic ones,” since “t will soon be possible to create realistic sexually explicit images of a child’s friends or siblings in an effort to convince that child that engaging in sexual acts is acceptable.” [i]Id. at 490-491.


One could well conclude from the above that Congress has sufficient grounds to conclude that virtual child pornography does actually lead to child sexual abuse and that justified banning it -- at the very least where it doesn't have other redeeming value.
Last edited by The Cat-Tribe on Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:45 pm, 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
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:44 pm

Phenia wrote:That doesn't exclude my shit at all. I was engaged in a process of deliberately arranging elements

Obvious troll is progressively more obvious.
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
Dread Lady Nathicana
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 26053
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Dread Lady Nathicana » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:45 pm

Thank you to The Cat-Tribe for making a better argument than I did, with references that mine lacked.

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:48 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:One could well conclude from the above that Congress has sufficient grounds to conclude that virtual child pornography does actually lead to child sexual abuse and that justified banning it -- at the very least where it doesn't have other redeeming value.

Only using logic that would lead to and set precedent for the banning of a very large number of seemingly things. That argument is the blatantly obvious underpinning of a slippery slope.
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 » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:51 pm

The_pantless_hero wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:One could well conclude from the above that Congress has sufficient grounds to conclude that virtual child pornography does actually lead to child sexual abuse and that justified banning it -- at the very least where it doesn't have other redeeming value.

Only using logic that would lead to and set precedent for the banning of a very large number of seemingly things. That argument is the blatantly obvious underpinning of a slippery slope.


Bullshit.

There is concrete evidence you seem to blithely ignore that child pornography directly causes child sexual abuse.

There is research and expert opinion (and logic) that merely by being "virtual," virtual child pornography has the same effect.

No slippery slope is involved.

Disagree if you like, but a glib allegation of a logical fallacy doesn't cut it.
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
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:53 pm

The_pantless_hero wrote:
Phenia wrote:That doesn't exclude my shit at all. I was engaged in a process of deliberately arranging elements

Obvious troll is progressively more obvious.


Ad hominem is continually still ad hominem. Do you have an actual argument to make?

User avatar
The Schro
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 18, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:55 pm

Once again, banning something because it's possible for some people to use it is not, in my mind, a valid argument. It's stupid logic that can be applied to anything, whether it be drugs, pornography, guns, or even cars and chairs.

On the other hand, what exactly is the value of virtual child pornography? How does it contribute to the marketplace of ideas? What redeeming social value does it have that outweighs its potential harm?


Well, that depends who you ask. A few studies have found that allowing virtual child pornography might lessen actual crimes carried out on children. Second, think hard about this question: what social values do many other things have that outweigh its potential harm? Normal pornography doesn't have much to its name. "Chairs," as mentioned before, "are often used in barfights and the like; why not just let people sit on the floor? It'd probably be better for their backs, as well."

And one of the things that virtual child pornography give are protections from other dangers - such as more limits on our freedom. As has been mentioned before in the thread, if things like virtual child pornography can be banned, what would stop the same prosecutors from going after virtually anything on the market these days? It seems within the best interests of America, at least until substantial evidence of an actual correlation between virtual child pornography and the generation of a pedophilic mental disorder can be found, to leave it uncensored.

There is concrete evidence you seem to blithely ignore that child pornography directly causes child sexual abuse.


Where is it?

All I have is evidence to the former.

And, again, following some of my arguments already used, I hardly find its ability to be used relevant. The same thing could be said for candy being used to lure small children.

Virtual child pornography is just easy to attack and something that under a glance looks all-too-sinister.

If you don't feel like reading through all that, "actual studies that establish the link between computer-generated child pornography and the subsequent sexual abuse of children apparently do not yet exist."
Last edited by The Schro on Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alpes a Septentrionali imperium, Bombadil, Cannot think of a name, Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia, Dresderstan, Heloin, Infected Mushroom, Kanadorika, Kedor, LiberNovusAmericae, Nakena, Nioya, Samudera Darussalam, Serconas, Soviet Socialist States of Americ a, Tarsonis, True Refuge, Tuthina, Uiiop

Advertisement

Remove ads