Euty and all, my sincere apoligies for posting those links. After thinking about it I realize That I could have made my point without them. I posted them from heat-of-the-moment emotion rather than cooling off and using common sense, for this I am sorry.
This isn’t the the first time I have seen pedophilia on the net, but it is the first time I have seen anything so graphically glorifying the rape of babys on the “open” net, by which I mean not requiring an age verification of any kind.
I can only hope that neither your children nor mine stumble across something like this while doing a school project and innocently searching for babys or such.
I do agree with free speech and oppose the “thought police”, but I have to wonder how thin the line between thinking and doing must be for any sad individuals who could entertain this type of thing in their minds long enough to actually take it out of their thoughts and pollute the web with it.
Don’t sweat it. You didn’t offend anyone, I don’t think.
The link might have, but in the context of your point, it was okay to post it; just as it was okay for the moderator to delete it in the context of this board’s policies.
It sparked discussion, some people feel differently, and this is not bad.
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, one day, 19 hours, 30 minutes and 38 seconds.
7032 cigarettes not smoked, saving $879.06.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 10 hours, 0 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)
The real problem here on the net isn’t what the first amendment says about anything. The first amendment does not apply to the net, because the net is an INTERNATIONAL entity. Child porn IS illegal in the United States, and in most other countries that think like we do. (altho the age at which it is considered “Child” porn varies.) However, it may NOT be illegal in the country that the site is from. Therefore, how do you enforce the laws of YOUR country, when the origin is in another? You make VIEWING such content illegal in your country. Therefore it is VERY possible that it was VaHermit that actualy broke laws in this country by Viewing that site.
SO, I suppose that writing fiction about murdering someone is also illegal?
People, we’re not talking about pictures of kids doing unmentionable things. We’re talking about fictional stories about… I assume the same horrific things.
But I submit that, while even the stories are reprehensible, they are no more illegal in this country than writing a murder mystery.
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, one day, 21 hours, 23 minutes and 52 seconds.
7035 cigarettes not smoked, saving $879.45.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 10 hours, 15 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)
People interested in the real world impinging on internet stories might like to read this about Jake Baker. I’d suggest against clicking on any of the links (you’re warned which ones to avoid if you’re squeamish). Definitely one sick fuck, but the article raises lots of the issues we’re nutting over here.
A couple of years ago, IIRC, some Coast Guard members were suspended for viewing kiddie porn.
In a nearby county last year, the head of the VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE DDEPARTMENT of the county government was jailed for possessing kiddie porn. At first, he admitted to having downloaded “regular” porn on his work computer (!), but did not know there was any kiddie porn included. After a few weeks, he finally admitted to knowing that the offending pictures WERE in the files he had downloaded. It ended up being some 300 pix and he was sentenced to about 4 months in prison. Since then, his department was dissolved due to the failure of actually helping any victims!
BTW, whatever happened to Gary Glitter, Isaac Asimov’s son, and a few other “celebrities” who were caught with kiddie porn on their computers?
However I think that stuff like that is good, because pedophiles are like gays(or everyone for that matter) in that they don’t have a choice how they feel and in cases like that thinking is alot better than doing.
Anything written is clearly protected by the 1st Admendment. We cannot cross the line and prohibit anything. (Even slander is protected to some extent, as you cannot be sued do much for writing it, as you can for the damage it causes. No damage, no slander).
Childporn that is pictures, is different. In order for it to have been “real”, someplace, sometime, a REAL child must have been harmed. Thus in order to prevent that harm, we can make selling & possessing it illegal. Thus, the courts have said that simulated childpore is likely legal, as no real kids were harmed. No matter how sick the fuckers were.
This is why i beleive these FBI 'entrapment" cases will never hold up, if they are ever fought to the dire end. However, the FBI always gets a plea-bargain, as they offer a 'no prison time (or very little) deal", vs a zillion life imprisonment conviction- if they 'fight". Oh, all you folks falling over yourselves to turn these guys in- at a rough guess, up to 90% of the “kiddieporn” sites out here all run by various Law enforcement agencies. Thus, clicking on one, and then sending it in, could get YOU in trouble. Sure, you would probably win— umm, got a 100K for those legal expenses?
Personally, I am not sure that even possesing kiddie porn should be illegal. On the otherhand, the punishments I would have on hand for the guys who MADE the stuff are “medieval”.
Are you fucking SERIOUS?
How can you HONESTLY equate homosexuality with pedophilia?
Can’t help how they feel? Try going to a psychologist!
Also, most pedophilias were sexually abused as children-that is the most major cause, I believe.
This thread’s subject reminds me of an incident that happened in the city where I used to live.
A group of pedophiles (maybe NAMBLA?) wanted to get together to discuss furthering their cause politically, and they wanted to do it at one of the conference rooms at the local library. Everyone in town was very upset at this, especially because their children needed to use the local library. However, they could find no law to prohibit the pedophiles from assembling, since they did not exchange kiddie porn at their meetings; they only engaged in discussions, and this was protected by the First Amendment.
Then the townfolk found a way of removing the pedophiles from the library. Yes, the pedophiles could assemble and discuss, but there was no law preventing the local television news crew from also attending and filming all of the attendees for broadcast on the local news.
If writing fictional child pornography is illegal, what if someone wrote a novel about a child advocate, for example, prosecuting a pedophile. Would the writer be legally required to skirt gingerly around the actual “crime”? Would including details of such a fictional crime be unlawful?
How carefully would he be required to be? Could he write “The pedophile is on trial for doing X to the child,” where of course he spelled out X? Or would he have to resort to Victorian style euphemisms?
If it’s illegal to write fictional situations that include incidents of pedophilia, then wouldn’t it be illegal to say of an adult character that her father had sexual intercourse with her when she was a child?
I agree that child pornography is one of those subjects, like slavery or the Holocaust, that requires special attention and a different set of standards from most subjects, but I can’t imagine that any and all reference to it, even in detail, is automatically unlawful.
Suggesting that a person’s sexual orientation is inherent is not equating homosexuality with pediophilia. The cause of a person’s desore to commit pediophilia is irrelevant; they can control only their actions, and it is only on thier actions (including the action of supporting the kiddie-porn industry) that we can judge them.
As a side rant, I have said for years that this is why homosexuality should not be justified by homosexuals on the grounds that “it’s not a choice.” Who cares if it is a choice? The fact is, it is something that happens between to consenting adults, and it is okay regardless of why those consenting adults want to behave the way they do. Saying “It’s ok because I didn’t choose to be this way” opens up thew door for NAMBLA and thier ilk to make this exact same arguement.
So you’re suggesting that we should, in order to thwart NAMBLA, lie about whether we can choose to be gay or not?
You are, in essence, saying that we are lying: that we can choose.
In the second infuriating place, hon (don’t you even think these things through?), your point is entirely circular and, in addition, empty: it still wouldn’t matter because what NAMBLA advocates is not between consenting adults. They can claim to be hardwired all they like, but that fact won’t change.
So whether I choose to be gay or not is utterly, utterly irrelevant to the discussion: it’s not related in any way. By saying what you did above, you continue to make the outlandish case that “normal” homosexuals are in some way responsible for the public perception of NAMBLA, to which I offer you my sincerest fuck you.
Lissner, you missunderstand me. I am not saying that homosexuals should lie about whether or not they choose to be a certain way. I am saying that the issue of whether one’s sexual preferences are due to “choice” or “forces beyond one’s control” should not be used to legitimize homosexuality. Homosexuality is legitimate whether or not it is a choice because it involves consenting adulte. Pediophilia is illegitamate *whether or not * it is a choice because it involes individuals who cannot consent.
I am objecting to a specific type of political rhetoric: everytime someone calls for expanding the civil right of homosexuals “because they didn’t choose to be that way”, they are saying that unorthodox sexual behavior is acceptable because it was not chosen, implying that choosen behavior is open to legislation and censure. I hold that it is ok for someone to fuck a member of their own gender just cause it seems like a good idea at the time.
By forming the TOTALLY UNNECESSARY political position that the element of “choice” is relevant in desiding what types of behavior are socially accepted, we have given the NAMBLA types an aguement to imitate. If gay rights activists stuck to the arguement that homosexuality is ok because what happens between consenting adults is no ones’ business, that would not be true.
I know someone who is gay who doesn’t like that, “I didn’t choose to be” argument because it implies that he’s somehow fucked up and it’s not his fault-that it would be immoral if he DID CHOOSE.
I for one, don’t care whether it was a “choice” or whether you’re born that way. That should not have anything to do with whether or not homosexuality is moral/immoral.
Even if you DID choose to be that way, would it be wrong then? NO, of course not!
(BTW, I do know of people who “chose” to be bisexual-experimentation, trying to do the trendy thing, etc…does that make them bad people? No, annoying and hopelessly trendy yes. Immoral? No way!)
I’m going to kick this dead horse one more time and then I’ll walk. I fear I’ve already alienated some potential friends here and that was never my intention.
I won’t bother restating my opinions about pedophiles, they are only that …my opinions, and like assholes, we all have one.
The one main point I was trying to make in each of my post seems to have been left by the wayside, and so I will throw it out one more time.
Granted, the written word is protected. Does that mean I could print a hundred copies of this story and hand them out to children on the corner, I don’t think so. So why is it alright to put this crap openly on the net where children can find it.
Ok, it’s only porn (for the sake of argument), Isn’t porn by law supposed to be blocked from minors. Shouldn’t this stuff at least be on an adult site?
I guess I’ve been living in my cave too long.
BTW, FWIW, I find the comparison between gays and pedos to be ludicrous, consensual sex between adults (whatever the form) is infinity away from this discussion.
Consentual sex between adults is far off topic, but the issue of being sexually attracted to people that society deems inappropriate is somewhat germane. Some people are attracted to members of the same sex, others are attracted to toddlers. Neither of these is morally repugnant in and of itself. However, the consentual behaviour between adults is vastly different than the behaviour between an adult and a child.
By protesting the argument that homosexuality is acceptable because it is not a choice, one is only protesting the introduction of flawed logic to support a correct conclusion. When one uses that argument, one requires acceptance of a premise that says that behaviour that is based on preferences that one has no choice over is acceptable. By that logic, pederasty is acceptable, while I would be prohibited (as a straight guy) from giving matt_mcl a blowjob just for kicks.
And daniel, about this:
From my handy legal dictionary (which you mocked me for getting), “If defamatory meaning is apparent on the face of the statement, it is said to be slanderous per se.” I believe in this case, damages do not need to be shown for it to be considered slander. But this is a pretty minor nitpick, as damages are still the concern, even if they need not actually occur in some circumstances.