Or the prophet Moham…gurk
In that case he knows more than I do about it. Sounds unlikely though.
Which is not illegal, only insensitive.
Anyone with vision that great must have superpowers.
This is what happens when you let overzealous morons run society. Almost everyone can be considerd a consumer of child porn if you try hard enough. You can literally accuse 100 million americans of consuming child pornography.
The movies traffic or american beauty? Child porn
The book Romeo & Juliet? Child porn
Photos of your kids taking a bath? Child porn
This is absurd. Now if someone draws a photo of a woman who is short with small tits that is child porn? I know women over 18 with small breasts and underdeveloped features.
I agree. The constant creation of nigh but impossibilities makes little to no sense. I have yet to see a single case where a person was prosecuted, let alone convicted, for any of your “examples” of child pornography. Not a one. Yet, like the guy who mentioned Michaelangelo’s David, they get trotted out every time to try and raise the spectre of facist enforcement of the law.
True, but note how South Park was ultimately unable to mock this.
First Glenn Beck, now this. I’m going to bed.
Okey… but since South Park isn’t a Swedish show, and it has nothing to do with child pornography, perhaps it is a bit off topic?
A couple in Arizona lost custody of their children for a month because of bathtub kiddie photos. Their names were put on the sex offenders registry.
They didn’t get prosecuted but give it time… I’m sure such an example will prop up eventually. The USA needs a good witch hunt every now and then and child porn is as good a pretense as any.
Btw, I mentioned Donatello’s David. Michaelangelo’s version of David would probably be considered too “over the hill” for the discriminating pedophile.
I would think animated/cartoon pornography should be encouraged, if anything. The more people who are satisfied with cartoon pornography, the weaker the market for the real thing.
Real child porn is illegal because it requires sexual abuse of children. Cartoon porn does not. So it shouldn’t be illegal. It’s not whether the drawings were of under age people or not that matters, it’s not whether they were pornographic that matters. It’s that they were drawings.
Even if they had been drawings of infants being sexually molested, and the guy had been caught masturbating violently over them, it should not be a crime. There is no victim.
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/92imu/woman_charged_with_child_pornography_for_taking/
It isn’t only that you ‘do’, it is that you ‘can’. Giving the courts, police, etc. so much leeway to charge whomever they want with something so serious can’t be good. I don’t support giving the police so much power over something so vague. I don’t trust the courts, law enforcement or DAs to use that kind of power wisely. Being accused of being a sex criminal is one of the most serious accusations you can make, and we are making the laws more and more vague.
But if some cop is a hardass or having a bad day, or he dislikes someone, and he finds photos of them bathing their kids now he has the power to ruin that person’s life.
I’m glad to see that the judge threw the allegations out and I hope the couple get a healthy settlement from the state for their troubles.
But, once again, the fact that a law can possibly be abused by idiots isn’t, to me, a good enough reason to get rid of the law.
I also have yet to hear of a single prosecution, yet alone conviction, for Donatello’s David either. Once again, creating outlandish examples of potential violations of a law does nothing, to convince me that the law is, in and of itself, outlandish.
Just so I understand, you are advocating that we should just dump child pornography laws altogether because the law can be abused? Doesn’t that strike you as a bit … extreme. Given the wrongful murder convictions, overzealous prosecutions involving child molestation (McMartin), and other laws that get abused, shall we dump those too?
How about we dump the child pornography laws that don’t involve actual children?
You haven’t heard of convictions for Donatello’s David because most/all child porn laws have exceptions for artistic value. And the presence of artistic value exceptions proves that lawmakers are well aware that these laws can be abused, and wished to avoid ‘frivolous’ lawsuits based on the laws being smacked against the pillars of society and showing just how dubious the laws actually are.
If drawing a picture of child porn is child porn, and writing child porn is child porn, then is it child porn if I write that I just drew a picture containing child porn?
So it sounds like you’re saying that you are for a depiction of something illegal being itself illegal. For example, a picture of naked child is illegal, so therefor a drawing of a naked child is also illegal. Does this also mean that you think that drawings of murders, kidnappings, or drug use should be illegal?
Well, Donatello’s David is 600 years old. Maybe somebody in medieval times did get punished and tortured for pleasuring themselves with it. Records of such arrests might be hard to come by since the Gutenberg printing press wasn’t widely available yet.
Look at the word “to” in your comment. It looks like an emoticon of a boy’s head and his arm holding an adult penis!
Either use a different font or a different word. Otherwise, you must face the consequences of jail time for your criminal thoughts.
There is a much better argument for that than simply screaming “but what about Romeo and Juliet!!!”.
Personally, I find that the free speech value of virtual child pornography to be so infinitesmally small that I would be willing to support a law that makes it illegal if it were narrowly written, if there were an adequate showing that it was necessary to “ensure the ability to enforce prohibitions of actual child pornography” and that there was the standard exception for artistic or scientific value. It’s certainly an arguable position, and the Supreme Court of the US has taken your side. I just disagree.
I think my point is not intricately tied to a lack of prosecution in the medieval era.
Good point.