Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by batdog
Ever notice all the friggen "Young" Porn sites out there now. Its kind of disturbing. I surf porn now and then... but I'd rather eat a bullet than hurt or contibute to the hurt of a child.

No... I hadn't noticed.  I had noticed that the FBI has been nailing a significant number of people in "child porn web rings".  Can't say I feel a bit of pitty for anyone subject to prossecution in that particular area.

To me its just bloody common sense... you dont mess w/Kids. You SHOULDNT have kids having sex in movies, virtual or otherwise... its sick. Hell some societies w/out execute a man for sleeping w/a girl that wasnt "of age".

I disagree that its common sense.  That is part of the problem.

I've seen highschool girls and thought "wow"!  What I haven't done is see highschool girls, think "wow" and then go attempt to seduce them.  Its my own sense of values that takes input from the body and mind and stamps a big old "veto" on them.  My common senses are what I'm fighting.  Granted... for me... as I get older I find that much less of a fight... but when I was younger... it was much more difficult.

Sometimes... I feel a tad bit of pitty for those that weren't able to adequatly stiffle initial impulses and feelings.  Then I see the victim and I'm over it immediately.

AKDejaVu

[batdog]

Well..what I'm getting at is simple. If it depicts a child or uses a child its wrong..period. I do not see the difference. Virtual or not... it just doesnt matter.

I think we see to often things that should be pretty simplistic over complicated by so called lawmakers.

If you deal in child porn..of anysort, under any name you should fry. Period.

xBAT

P.S. And for those w/inquiring minds on what I "surf"..short shorts. Nothing like a great pair of short shorts to make life seem so much better.

[Greese]

What about the kids who are forced to be in the pictures?  I think if it supports child abuse, it's wrong.  Sure, some sick guy might be playing with himself behind a computer screen, not thinking he's hurting anyone, but what about the sick guy who forced the kid to do what they are doing in the picture?  By viewing the pictures, you are supporting child abuse.  It's not innocent.  Maybe you aren't the one physically forcing the poor kid to spread their legs, but someone who is feeding your obsession and making money off you is.  

As for the supreme court decision, as sick as I believe kid porn is, I believe the decision was right.  Two things.  First, it sounded like the law was two broad, leaving a lot to interpretation.  Secondly, even though it's sick, it's not the governments job to legislate morality.  For the most part, I wish they could wipe it out.  But if I gave them the power to do that, before I know it, Christian sites would be banned as "hateful" and intolerant", schools would not allow good literature, on and on.  It sounds silly, but who knows where it would end.  If you have a problem with moral judgements made by some, by gods sake, teach your kids and support their good decisions.  That's where morality issues such as these are BEST dealt with.

[Trell]

The problem is that virtual child porn could be anything thing.
who is going to judge it?

i am willing to bet that if this was passed  that
japanese anime  would be banned shortly.


fenrir

[AKDejaVu]

Greese.. you are way off base.  This thread and the court's decision have nothing to do with child pornography involving children.

Basically.. it pertains to the portrayal of children (not children were victimized during the making of the pics/movies) and the affect of those portrayals on criminals considering perpetrating crimes against children.  That is... does looking at a drawing of a naked child make someone want to rape a child.

Its indirect at best.

AKDejaVu

[mietla]

Good decision. Thought, words and pictures can never be a criminal, only actions and deeds can.


If a real child was used to produce an image, it's real child porn and should (and already is) illegal. If the image is purely generated, there is no victim, therefore no crime.

[Greese]

Deja-

     I should contact my wife on that one.  She is the one majoring in counseling psychology.  I'll have her do some research on the effects viewing child porn has had on a males tendency to act out towards kids.  See if i can get from her the number of cases of molestation where the guy says he started out on kiddy porn.  I would bet that although the jerk may be sick to begin with, kiddy porno is referenced in almost every case.  I am guessing, though based on things she has told me.  I will get statistics on this from her.  BTW, it might take her a bit of time, but we'll figure it out, and source references.

[batdog]

deleted.... to me its simple still...if it uses a kid, depicts a kid, acts like a kid...then the producer/publisher wanted you to view as a kid. If that depiction shows sexual intercourse...using or not using cigars then its wrong.

xBAT

[LePaul]

My first reaction, like the media's over reaction, was "what planet are these guys from?".

Then I read the decision

And the case is dealing with some vagueness of the act.

This is the first "Clean Up" act Congress passed in a huff and got it wrong.

Child Porn is bad, no doubt.  But read the decision and releated details carefully.  I had the same reaction as some of you, until I realized what the crux of the issue was.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by hblair


I wasn't implying that the child porn industry were "nazis", just using the example of germany at the time being consumed so much by the nazi movement that they lost sight of right and wrong. I was comparing that to societys view of porn these days. People seem to be so consumed with it that child porn seems to be viewed as "bad, but hey we gotta look out after the first amendment because it's more important than those kids".

Using the nazi's in germany at that time may have been a bad example, but give me a break with the word "nazi cannot be used". That's just a crock.

 

Yeah it is a crock.  Should have added one of these.

[Maverick]

Reading some of the replies was interesting. (couldn't read them all due to time). The most interesting fact I saw was the probability of this decision impacting our game ideas here. Think about it.

The decision (majority) said the depiction or possession of the material, even though offensive, was not being held as a primae fascia CAUSE of an actual crime of child molestation being committed. Possession was also not considered a crime in and of itself absent an overt act to act on it.

In our terms, having AH, or any first person shooter like Delta Force doesn't CAUSE a person to go out and commit a homicide. If they DID hold that there was a causal relation then there would be justification to ban that type of game and we'd lose a lot of enjoyment in playe\ing them.

This is what I got out of the blurbs that were provided here. It may have been an incorrect interpretation based n lack of the rest of the decision.

I am not saying I like the idea of child porn being out there but I have to agree that it would seem to be a good idea not to cause a restriction of first amendment that could be expanded to other topics like computer games and what not.

[Tac]

Yeah, thats as ludicrous as saying EVERQUEST caused your kid's suicide.

*snork*

[hblair]

[funkedup]

Nearly all people who abuse children were abused themselves.  If you can figure out that one you can break the cycle of abuse.   That's where I want the government spending my money, not on prying into people's hard drives.

[Eagler]

I'm sure HTC appreciates the correlation of their product to computerized child porn

I think some of you are paraniod