[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
(Boldiong mine) Cite?
OK. I am going to ask you for the **third time ** to advance the argument that “child pornography is not a bad thing” (your words).
So far all you have done is say “some say” this and “some say” that. Please provide cites. And if you are up to it, tell us what **you ** say.
Those are not my words, I did not advance that argument in any way shape or form. Debate over.
Your words were “not all agree that child pornography is a bad thing” Run from them if you will but they are immortalized in post #45.
How about the cites I asked you for. Were those not your words either?
Again-
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
(Bolding mine)
Surely these are your words. Can you provide any support for any of your assertions other than your say so?
Is there a legal definition of child pornography that might help de-intensify this argument? Thank you, but the single picture we took of Brandon in his parents’ living room, at age 2, fresh from the bathtub and having eluded his mother with clothes in order to come see Uncle Dave and Aunt Barb, is not kiddie porn. On the other hand, the crap that is alleged to be out there of pre-teen children being raped and sodomized most emphatically is. Where is the line legally drawn? And does it differ for various states and nations?
I can think of quite a few. In Pat Califia’s book Radical Sex: The Culture Of Radical Sex, he discusses at least three instances of parents being arrested when photolab workers reported them for nude photos of their children in nonsexual situations. I can’t believe you’ve never heard of this. There was also the Canadian artist (Mary something), whose painting Water Babies, picturing her two little girls, nude and laughing, got her arrested on charges of child pornography. A very badly-written Canadian anti-child porn law had such a broad definition of child porn, that a fifteen year old’s account of a makeout session, written in their diary, qualified as child porn.
I have lent out my copy of Radical Sex to a friend, but once I get it back I can post page numbers and relevant parts of Pat’s bibliography for verification.
It has nothing to do with whether I have heard of it. It has to do with whether “many have been arrested for pictures that were innocently nude.” If four = many he may have a point. This was a minor assertion that I think he set up as a smokescreen. Of course, his original point was while it is bad to make child pornography, there is nothing wrong with viewing it. And that as long as the picture does not include actual sex acts then the child is not harmed anyway. He has demonstrated a striking ability to separate himself from his words, however, and it would not surprise me to find him disavowing any and all of his remarks.
**
Those are not my words, I did not advance that argument in any way shape or form. Debate over.**
Then someone is hijacking your computer. Are you just going to deny everything you said in post 45.?
*"If the “kiddie porn” only involves nudity- no actual sex- it that harmful to the child? "
“Then again- if one doesn’t buy it, but just looks at it- it’s going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim.”*
I’m not the poster, but I believe the phrase “‘kiddie porn’” is in quotes there for a reason. (Namely, one of the questions the poster was trying to raise was: is the practical legal version of “kiddie porn” bad enough to warrant such a high moralistic and legal furor?)
The current federal definition of child pornography can be found in this statute . Prior to this the law used was the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996.
This was more vague than the current law, and I knew someone who was arrested for distributing child pornography when he distributed some fliers his wife had prepared for some home lingerie parties. The old law stated that someone could be arrested and charged with child pornography for a depiction of a model that only appeared to be a minor, whether that model was a minor or not.
Based on a complaint from someone he was arrested for leaving these fliers, none of which were more obscene than the Victoria’s Secret TV ads, and none of which had a photo of a minor. It took some time, money, and a great deal of embarrassment to sort it out.
The new law references this definition of pornography. As you can see, there is very little chance of simple nudity legally constituting “kiddie porn” to a reasonable jury, although there is no guarantee that an overzealous prosecutor would not try to make a case of it.
If that was what he meant he had ample opportunity to say it. He was specific about referring to pictures that involve “nudity-no actual sex”, which leaves open a variety of situations where children are posed provocatively in sexual situations. I would guess (without ever having seen any) that a fair amount of what everyone would agree is child pornography fits that description. According to Dr.Deth, taking pictures of naked children in prurient sexual settings poses no harm to the child, and viewing those pictures for the purpose of sexual gratification is OK as long as one does not pay for the privilege.
The question of overzealous prosecution in cases where child nudity is clearly innocent, as referenced by Polycarp and Bill Door, is, in my mind, a completely separate issue; and as such was raised by DrDeth as a smoke screen, shortly before he stuck his fingers in his ears and ran screaming from the room.
Well, I have already made my point via art and family photos being called porn. Now I think I will actually post a case for porn. Not photographs, but drawling. I am an otaku no video, a fan of anime, Japanese cartoons. At the conventions, there are all kinda’ amateur made comics (dojinshi). Some of them depict male on male relationships, (yaoi )for the benefit of those (like me) who think that the default female companion of the hero is a whiny creep. (Relena, Misty, and soon. Over in the porn booths they often have hentai (perverted) yaoi of porn movie scenarios involving characters. Sometimes these dojinshi depict the younger girls in manga in pornographic situations, as far as I can tell from the covers. People are not invited to open up the bags they are stored in and examine the comics, but I am pretty sure that a cover that depicts Sakura, of the show Card Captor Sakura, indicates that it contains pictures of her inside the book. I was surprised to find that while the 'Merican government does not like it, it is perfectly legal. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/index.html
The ruling was the same one that now longer outlaws pictures of some guy’s wife in a schoolgirl outfit. Sure, lawmakers have tried to find some way to separate graphic drawings of rapped kids from the above example, and cases where there are artistic works dealing with teenage sexuality, but as far as I can tell, no go.
Now, that was just a legal defense, how about a moral defense? Well, I’ll bet that most of the artists have never seen a naked woman before, much less a naked girl, so most likely, no children wear harmed in the making of the drawling. In additions, if all depictions of nude children where rounded up and destroyed, all at once, I doubt that people who enjoy looking at such drawings would just throw up their hands and say, “Oh well, time to start buying pornography of grown women, now.” In short, “an it harm none, do what thou will”.
<minor nitpick> The CNN article refers to the official as a former Eagle scout. Unless the BSA revoked his rank (never heard of an instance of that happening, or of that happening in this case, though I havn’t looked around for it much) or he handed in his award (more likely, and I’m sure there was some calling for this from both his conscience and from other members of the scouting community, though still havn’t seen any reference to this), he still is an Eagle scout. One who I don’t pretend to defend, he’s a disgusting excuse for a scouting official, but he’s still an Eagle scout.</minor nitpick>
Those are not my words, I did not advance that argument in any way shape or form. Debate over
[QUOTE=DrDeth
"If the “kiddie porn” only involves nudity- no actual sex- it that harmful to the child? "
"Then again- if one doesn’t buy it, but just looks at it- it’s going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim.[/QUOTE]
OK. Whose words are they? “Debate over” notwithstanding. Whose words are these if not yours? Put an end to this silly back and forth, and tell me whose words they are.
DrDeth did not say “prurient sexual settings;” those were your words, Mr. Hysteria. He said “nude”. Those things are very different, and the line is not as hard and fast as you would think.
Example: A young nude boy sucking on a grown woman’s breast - child porn?
Dr. Deth’s only prohibition was that there be no actual sex, leaving every other possibility open, from innocent nudity to anything short of intercourse. If he meant to make the point that some pictures of children who happen to be nude are not pornography, a point I think most people would agree with, he chose a clumsy way to do it. Let me parse the infamous post #45 for you–
(A) Well- of course- the MAKING of hard-core child porn is harmful to the child, and is a heinous crime. Here he admits to the existence of a kind of pornography that is harmful to children.
(B)*But then after that you get into waters where things aren’t as clear. If the “kiddie porn” only involves nudity- no actual sex- it that harmful to the child?*Now he makes a distinction between the aforementioned kind of pornography and a lesser kind; still “porn”, but less bad, being (he asserts) without the attachment of “(harm) to the child.” This would have been a really good time to clarify matters by saying something along the lines of “what I am talking about are simple family pictures, or tasteful artistic nudes, or the like,” if that is indeed what he meant. It is clear from (D) below that that is not the case. It is further clear that if he only meant to assert that some pictures of nude children are not pornography, he would have had little else to say.
©Some would say it’s just our Victorian prudishness that says “the naked body is an obcene thing”, an that “nudity is a natural and good thing”.Ah, the old “opinion is divided” argument. Here is where I began to suspect that Dr.Deth ** does not have the courage of his convictions. This is a fairly innocuous statement, and really has little to do with child pornography, yet he could not bring himself to say “I would say” rather than “some would say.”
(D)I know one can argue that buying kiddy porn aids ands abets the person who makes it, who possibly wouldn’t make it except for the chance someone would buy it. But since there were penty of sites where perverts would download for free their “work”, it seems like a lot of the current kiddie porn swirling around out there isn’t commercial in it’s original purpose. Then again- if one doesn’t buy it, but just looks at it- it’s going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim.Here he is clearly talking about a product that everyone agrees **** is pornography.** No mention of “innocent nudes.” In other words–
Child pornography is bad because harms it the children involved.
Simple viewing of child pornography is not harmful to the children involved.
Simple viewing of child pornography is not bad.
This is clearly his argument, which he has refused to defend.
(E)It has been hotly debated- even here- whther or not simple “possession” of “kiddy” porn should be such a serious crime.Once again, it is clear that he is not referring to family pictures of naked kids, or artistic nudes. He has refused to advance this argument as well.
(F)Note- I am not advocating “free kiddie porn”- I am just playing the “Devils Advocate” and pointing out that not all agree that “child pornography is a bad thing”. It’s a complex moral subject, not a simplistic one. In what way? I have asked, to deafening silence. It may be a complex legal ** issue, in that the defintion is not hard and fast, and some laws are poorly written, but in what way is “child pornography is a bad thing” difficult to defend morally? I am sure that “not all agree” (opinion is divided.) Are you sure you want to cast your lot with those who assert that child pornography is a good thing?
Dang, hit submit too soon.
Two more points, kung fu lola.
Please show me where I have stated that the “line is hard and fast.”
It is interesting to me that you refer to me as hysterical, when it is your champion who has resorted to screaming the same mantra over and over, running from his words rather than defending them.
