There are a not-insignificant number of people who think pornography only involving adults causes actual harm to actual minors. The pornography debate is nothing but slippery slope, especially when children get mentioned (and never forget that anyone under the legal age of consent is a child just like a seven-year-old is a child as far as the rhetoric goes).
No.
If people didnt look then others wouldnt be taking the pics.
Yes. I said that.
Apologies for not understanding.
He apparently thinks Julian Assange should be assassinated, as well.
Just to add a bit of context for US Dopers: Tom Flanagan has sometimes been called the “Karl Rove of Canadian conservatism.” He and the current Prime Minister go back about 30 years, and Flanagan was credited with the strategizing that lead to the election of Stephen Harped and the Conservatives in 2006.
He also appears to have hunted down and skinned the Sasquatch!
Buh-bye Tom.
What a maroon.
Rachellelogram, perhaps you should check out the definition of “child pornography” used by the Criminal Code of Canada, and which is the basis of the discussion here:
I remember reading about a case of a Canadian being prosecuted for having (or making?) drawings of children that were naked, possibly sexual. They were drawings rather than photos, but some considered them child pornography, and it sparked a lot of debate, including on this board.
2009 sounds about right, or maybe a bit earlier. Perhaps that’s what the original comments were about, taken out of context?
Sounds like you’re thinking of R. v. Sharpe, but that was 2001, not 2009.
This matches my theory above: that he was using the word “pictures” distinct from the word photographs and that he was simply tone-deaf to the fact that most people use the word “pictures” inclusive of photographs (in fact, many people say “pictures” with photographs as the primary meaning).
When I offered my theory, I had no idea that there was recent controversy in Canada regarding pornographic drawings. Putting it into context, I am now certain that is what he meant.
Still, he was extremely stupid not to choose his words more carefully.
Taking a step back from the outrage, there is an interesting question here: how much should a person be sanctioned for an opinion? At the end of the day, Flanagan is not a policy maker nor is he a part of the justice system. In his opinion he wouldn’t feel comfortable putting people in jail for viewing child pornography.
Is viewing child pornography a criminal act subject to sanctions of the Criminal Code? If it is, there would seem to be the possibility that a person could end up in jail because they mistyped a URL or opened an email, despite having no way of knowing there was child porn on the other end. On the other hand, if viewing child pornography is not defined in the Criminal Code as a crime, Flanagan’s opinion may be distasteful but also factually correct. As a general principle we should all be uncomfortable with being jailed for things that aren’t crimes.
Also, while his opinion is offensive, it definitely falls into the category of free speech, which he is constitutionally entitled to. If I was fired from a job for exercising my constitutional rights, you can bet there would be a lawsuit. And if we’re going to start sanctioning people for expressing unpopular opinions, there’s a lot of people in the comments section of every website who will need to be lined up against a wall long before this guy.
Really?
You are seriously asking this?
So no, mistyping a url will not cause you to go to jail.
The first amendment applies to the government. Not to a private organization. They have have every right to fire him in this case.
And even with government jobs you have limits. You can’t just walk up to your boss, call him a douchebag and then cry “freedom of speech!” when he fires your ass.
I’ve got no sympathy for him. Really, that level of ignorance is just appalling.