Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: aknimitz on April 16, 2002, 11:30:51 PM
-
The Supreme Court of the United States held in a 6-3 majority that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech saves the day and strikes down major parts of the Child Pornography Preventation Act. I was incredibly surprised by this decision ... as it appears is the rest of the legal community.
Here are a few excerpts ...
From the majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on behalf of himself and Justice John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer:
"Our society, like other cultures, has empathy and enduring fascination with the lives and destinies of the young. Art and literature express the vital interest we all have in the formative years we ourselves once knew, when wounds can be so grievous, disappointment so profound and mistaken choices so tragic, but when moral acts and self-fulfillment are still in reach."
"The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it ... First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."
From Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia:
"The CPPA can be construed to prohibit only the knowing possession of materials actually containing visual depictions of real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, or computer generated images virtually indistinguishable from real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The mere possession of materials containing only suggestive depictions of youthful-looking adult actors need not be so included."
"The aim of ensuring the enforceability of our nation's child pornography laws is a compelling one. The CPPA is targeted to this aim by extending the definition of child pornography to reach computer-generated images that are virtually indistinguishable from real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct."
-
I'm sure NAMBLA will like this decision. Freaky isn't it?
-
It's pretty hard to defend kid porn. But I gotta agree with the principle of the decision.
-
You can make any stupid decision sound good with enough well written diatribe. I'm sure the nazi movement sounded sensible to the germans early on. Take a big step back and look at this with your common-sense glasses on. Are they not they saying that defending peoples first ammendment rights take precedence, therefore it is ok for innocent children to be sexually exploited? The rights of people to view child porn is more important than protecting the kids from losing their virginity at what? 4? 5?
This is some freaky chit.
-
Originally posted by hblair
You can make any stupid decision sound good with enough well written diatribe. I'm sure the nazi movement sounded sensible to the germans early on.
Sorry HB, you've lost any arguement pertaining to this thread, by default, as you were the first to use the term "nazi".
I have to tell, how surprise I am, that you, being so experienced in bbs's and all, would pull this card so damn quick.
-
nm
-
The interpretation of such potentially subjective terminology could be misconstrued as a prohibition of unalienable rights. The laws, as posed, would open too many frivolous cases to prosecution and impend persecution for an individuals’ thought processes. It is enough that today we allow investigations into 'why' acts have been perpetrated without opening the possibility of potential thought as a crime.
-
Not what the Supreme Court decided. Child pornography is illegal. No question. The issue was whether or not "virtual" child porn was a crime. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that it is.
Change the criminal activity from child pornography to killing or beating someone. No one questions the legality of games such as Grand Theft Auto III or Max Payne. It's virtual crime. Not real.
Now... if you think that virtual child pornography should be illegal, I expect that you'll also consider most first person shooters to be illegal as well. What about flight sims with guns? Is it okay to shoot down an aircraft? What if that aircraft has virtual people on board? What if that aircraft is a completely unarmed C-47?
Starting to sound a little silly, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sorry HB, you've lost any arguement pertaining to this thread, by default, as you were the first to use the term "nazi".
I have to tell, how surprise I am, that you, being so experienced in bbs's and all, would pull this card so damn quick.
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.
-
What is virtual child pornography sandman? Me don't know.
-
One example is movies...
Kennedy said a number of acclaimed movies, filmed with young adult actors and actresses who only looked like minors, explore themes that fall within the wide sweep of the law's prohibitions.
Kennedy cited the award-wining movies "Traffic," which has the 16-year-old daughter of the nation's drug czar trading sex for drugs, and "American Beauty," with a middle-aged man dreaming about having sex with his daughter's teen-age friend.
He said anyone who possessed these or hundreds of other films that contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity would be subject to the law's severe punishment, a maximum of five years in prison.
Kennedy said themes of teen-age sexual activity and sexual abuse of children have inspired countless literary works. He said William Shakespeare in "Romeo and Juliet" created the most famous pair of teen-age lovers, one of whom was just 13.
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(A), but also any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, 2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, 2256(8)(D). Thus, 2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called virtual child pornography, that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography.
-
Actually, from what I know, the bill was passed with a sleight of hand in the wording.
The original law said nothing that LOOKED like child pornography was acceptable.
The problem is, "virtual" child pornography (aka over 18 but LOOK like they were 12 or so.. supressed hormones or something).
According to the old law, even movies that hinted sexuality with a minor was punishable by 5yrs jail and fine. Well, what do you make of films and classics like Romeo and Juliet? Traffic? American Beauty? By that law just having a vhs tape of those would land you in jail. Thats one of the points.
The other "virtual" pornography was the well-known trick of altering images with computers. You can get a pic of.. say.. the girl that played the slutty daughter of Al Bundy and edit it so that she looks even younger (and like a minor).
That second kind of pornography is under the old,original law, punishable (and I agree).
-
Shooting people in the head is illegal...
But looking at pictures of people getting shot in the head is not illegal.
It's sick, but it ain't illegal.
This little thing called the Constitution. Give it a read ol'HB. :)
-
Here is the opinion of the court (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-795#section1).
You'll also find the dissenting opinion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-795#section3).
-
another win for the pervs .. Hustler's Larry Flynt smiling as he dreams up new "cartoon" ideas
another loss for the country's morality .. what's left of it :(
I'd rather error on the side of being over cautious when it comes to child pornography - virtual or not. It feeds sick toejame to sick minds.
just another day in paradise ... :rolleyes:
-
Thanks sandman. I agree that it would be difficult to police "virtual" child porn.
As far as the comparison to a man being shot in the head, Shooting an innocent person in the head is illegal. If one were to snap a photo of an innocent person being shot in the head and the FBI see it, there would likely be an investigation. Because it is illegal to murder. The same is true with child porn. It's very existance implies that a crime has been committed.
Also, pornographic images of children, virtual or not, fuel the fires of sick, twisted lust in molesters minds. I say to heck with the first ammendment in cases like this, IMO it should be modified er somehting. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say even "virtual" child porn should be illegal. Appoint a commision or something to determine what is adult or what is not. I know that sounds crazy, but I fell it is better than the alternative. People will just continue to push the law otherwise. Computer generated images can be made to look almost like the real thing.
-
Who cares if computer generated images look like the real thing? Producing them or viewing them isn't hurting anyone, and I'd personally much rather have any sick bastard who'd be prone to looking at such material be kept safely behind his computer screen jerking off than out looking for release elsewhere. Regardless, this was a decision on a specific act/bill/whatever and as far as I'm concerned their reasoning behind it was sound. It was nice to see Eagler whip out his stock "another loss for the country's morality" post tho'.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
I'd personally much rather have any sick bastard who'd be prone to looking at such material be kept safely behind his computer screen jerking off than out looking for release elsewhere
SOB
Interesting point SOB.
Having said that, can I borrow another 50 megs of webspace?
your pal,
HB
-
Your welcome SOB :)
but don't you think many will "graduate" from their computer screens to "live" action? The very least, it'll feed their twisted desires.
It's sick and should be stamped out in all forms.
-
Oooh... Now the escalating depravity arguement... wtg Eagler. :D
The Government submits further that virtual child pornography whets the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct. This rationale cannot sustain the provision in question. The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a persons private thoughts. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969). First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.
-
Get on it Sandman! I defer any of my arguments to Sandman as he appears to be well informed of the situation and ruling at hand.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oooh... Now the escalating depravity arguement... wtg Eagler. :D
Well sure.......just like "Doom" caused Columbine, and Ozzie Osbourne made some kid commit suicide!
Sounds like the Supremes made a very difficult and courageous discision. Can't call it a crime if the only thing having illegal sex is a pixel.
The true measure of freedom of speech is how well we protect the speech we hate.
-
It's only okay because politicians are criminals and pedophiles!
-SW
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well sure.......just like "Doom" caused Columbine, and Ozzie Osbourne made some kid commit suicide!
Sounds like the Supremes made a very difficult and courageous discision. Can't call it a crime if the only thing having illegal sex is a pixel.
The true measure of freedom of speech is how well we protect the speech we hate.
bah.
I know of 2 people at a local jail who were busted on child molestation charges. They both stumbled across child porn on the web and were mesmorized by it. They told me they had never thought of children having sex before that (and they had no reason to lie to me). But they became obsessed, and eventually solicited sex with children online. I think one of them actually had sex with some kids before he got caught. True, there was something wrong with them before they saw the images, but they didn't even know it.
BTW, what keeps a person from taking a photo, then running it through some software and giving it a skewed digital look? This seems so open ended to me.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Your welcome SOB :)
but don't you think many will "graduate" from their computer screens to "live" action? The very least, it'll feed their twisted desires.
It's sick and should be stamped out in all forms.
That's a good question...and I'll defer that answer to psychologists. If they're twisted enough to like that toejam, they should get help. If they don't get help, and look at virtual pictures on their computer, then they're the only ones who have to live with it. The moment they should choose to act on their fantasies with a live child is the moment they've also lost their right to live in society, imo, and should be shot promptly.
The problem I see with making a fake picture illegal is that is opens up the possibility for making other 'fake' things illegal. I do see a correlation between fake child porn being illegal and the possibility of fake killing (ie: doom/wolfenstein/quake/etc) also being illegal. It's sick that some person would be aroused by virtual child porn. But then, I suppose you could also call it sick when I get a big grin and let out a sadistic laugh as I torch several people with a flame thrower in Return to Castle Wolfenstein. :)
SOB
-
HB,
I suppose it is possible for a virtual picture to inflame illegal desires. Is this enough of a reason to make this form of speech illegal? I don't think so.
There was a video game produced a couple of years ago called "Going Postal" or something like that. In the game you got points for shooting co-workers, but if you wanted to, the school bus could be blown up too. Bottom line, this seems as dangerous to me as virtual child porn, but we cannot restrict free speech without losing something as a society.
-
Quit making such good arguements please.
Remember, I am right and you are wrong. :)
-
I had a friend (co-worker) that was recently sent to jail for 7 1/2 years for molesting his 15 year old step-daughter.
I worked with this person for about 4 years prior to the event. He tried to blame it on Desert Storm (Was out on mental disability from military) and child porn on the web... but I knew differently.
This person would tell stories from 15 years ago when he was first in the military about how he was the new-arrival laison for the base. He'd scam every new female troop that arrived and almost always was able to bag them before they wisened up to the scene. He was pleased with that.
He'd tell stories about the step daughter "aproaching" him as if to justify his longing for her. Finally he raped her. She was so thrilled about it that she left teeth marks almost all the way to the bone on his forearm.
This person still maintains that child pornography and the Gulf War drove him to this.
I know better.
As for the decision... I commend it. It is always tricky when someone attempts to broaden the definition of morality. Usually... I find those attempted definitions to be far too broad sweeping. I believe this was the case in this situation.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by hblair
I know of 2 people at a local jail who were busted on child molestation charges. They both stumbled across child porn on the web and were mesmorized by it. They told me they had never thought of children having sex before that (and they had no reason to lie to me). But they became obsessed, and eventually solicited sex with children online. I think one of them actually had sex with some kids before he got caught. True, there was something wrong with them before they saw the images, but they didn't even know it.
BTW, what keeps a person from taking a photo, then running it through some software and giving it a skewed digital look? This seems so open ended to me.
Like you said, they were sick in the head before. One good reason for them to lie to you (and themselves) would be to try and justify their actions somewhat. "I'm sick...if it wasn't for that evil online child porn from the devil I woulda never..." A normal person who stumbled across child porn on the internet would promptly delete it and hope that they never had the misfortune of stumbling across it again.
I understand your position though...it's a fine line between right to privacy and the good of society. Ultimately, I think the government should stay out of people's business if they choose to keep it private and not hurt others with it. On the other side of the coin, the above two examples crossed the line in the other direction and should be delt with. In my opinion they lost their right to live in society...others may have a softer opinion.
SOB
-
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.
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".
xBAT
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.;)
-
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.
-
Yeah, thats as ludicrous as saying EVERQUEST caused your kid's suicide.
*snork*
-
;)
-
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.
-
I'm sure HTC appreciates the correlation of their product to computerized child porn :rolleyes:
I think some of you are paraniod :eek:
-
In laymens terms:
Looking at a porn of a 20 year old dressed up in a schoolgirls uniform could be construed as virtual child porn. Not that you find many half naked chicks in schoolgirls uniforms on the web :rolleyes:
How often do you see the schoolgirl theme in porn? Does this make you and me paedephiles?
-
Looking at a porn of a 20 year old dressed up in a schoolgirls uniform could be construed as virtual child porn. Not that you find many half naked chicks in schoolgirls uniforms on the web
Vulcan
Or even on MTV (not quite naked) a la Brittney Spears.
Here’s a site that shows how such broadly written legislation can be misused. Perhaps some of our Canadian friends are familiar with the Spacemoose cartoon that regularly appeared from 1989 to about 2000 in the University of Alberta student newspaper, The Gateway. The strip is written by Adam Thrasher, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Alberta. The strip's protagonist, Spacemoose, is an entirely nihilistic moose from outer space that is purely a function of his own id. He does whatever feels good, with little regard for anyone’s feelings but his own basic pleasures.
It's easy to miss the point with Spacemoose, since the strips are totally over the top and certainly in bad taste. In general, Thrasher picks knee-jerk subjects that provoke the strongest politically correct, censor the bastard response from people not open to any criticism or discussion on beliefs they hold scared. He doesn’t just push puttons to tweak a politically correct response -- he smashes them with a sledge hammer.
So far, strips bashing ultra feminism (as in Andrea Dworkin -- check her and Catherine McKinnon out sometimes….shudder) and fundamental Christianity (Jack Chick style) have provoked the greatest response. It's interesting to follow the backlash from outraged individuals, who call for censoring the strip. Their logic gets pretty thin as they try to justify such actions in legitimate terms, without saying what you can read behind each word: "...the strip pisses me off, I don't want to hear it, so your voice and arguments should be silenced."
With his strip “Clobbering Time,” he attacks the “Take Back the Night” program where females symbolically march to take back the night from the oppression of male dominated sexual violence. The strip shows Spacemoose and his cohorts providing armed resistance. I believe Thrasher thought the whole movement a bit overboard, particularly with the militant, militaristic overtones behind the program where there was clearly an us (females) and a them (males). It was an obvious parody, but an obvious hot button tweak that got him fined and the strip removed from the university Web site (he eventually won on appeal).
Why is this on topic again? The reasoning for his censure was because some of the women felt “threatened” victimized and unsafe because of a visual depiction of male vs. female violence that many, myself included, found entertaining and humorous in the broader and subtle context behind the strip. You get the feeling that they were more disturbed by his opinions and attack on the Women’s Studies program than any real personal fear from a cartoon, and that they were using the broad campus policy on threatening environments as a tool to get him silenced.
Here’s the link, check out Antler's of the Dammed (under Controversies) and the Archives (early/mid 90s on the best) for a good laugh if it’s your thing. (Adult humor, so surf accordingly)
Clobberin' Time (http://www.spacemoose.com/clobber/index.htm)
Charon
PS Here'a teaser, not from the strip in question but certainly related to the topic :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I'm sure HTC appreciates the correlation of their product to computerized child porn :rolleyes:
LOL... I'm sure they do. :D
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.
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".
xBAT
In all my surfing years, I've NEVER chanced upon any pictures of kiddie porn. IMHO, you can't find it unless you go out deliberately looking for it and even then I think you're going to find most of it to be "virtual" or simulated "children". Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm not going to go looking myself to confirm this belief. Call me a coward.
Also... sick thoughts are not illegal xBat, no matter what they are about.
-
Yup some of us manage to keep a grip on the difference between our fantasies and reality...
hey creamo... sexy bellybutton ;)
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Also... sick thoughts are not illegal xBat, no matter what they are about.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
In all my surfing years, I've NEVER chanced upon any pictures of kiddie porn. IMHO, you can't find it unless you go out deliberately looking for it and even then I think you're going to find most of it to be "virtual" or simulated "children". Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm not going to go looking myself to confirm this belief. Call me a coward.
Also... sick thoughts are not illegal xBat, no matter what they are about.
Sandman... I'm talking about those pop-ups that push "young" women etc. By young I quess they could mean 18 or whatever but I still find it disturbiing. I dont surf porn much anymore simply due to this. I've also seen every damn free picture out there 20 times over, lol.
I quess its simply reflective of a society that pushes "young is best" in everything we see. America has a strong Puritain streek that tends to cause alot of people to view sex as dirty and something to avoid seeing/thinking about etc. This prob leads to all sorts of problems...
I wonder if the Europeans have problems w/this?
xBAT
-
Originally posted by batdog
America has a strong Puritain streek that tends to cause alot of people to view sex as dirty and something to avoid seeing/thinking about etc. This prob leads to all sorts of problems...
I wonder if the Europeans have problems w/this?
xBAT
Hit the nail on the head right there.
-
has a single European even commented in this thread? I honestly didn't look at everyone's name who posted. Don't most European countries have lower age requirements for engaging in explicit photos, movies, etc? (I honestly don't know)
xbat is right on the popup thing. the teenage stuff pops up right next to the pregnant, interracial, group, asian, mature, voyeur, and so on. Given that, I've never come across a site that has actual child porn on it (with the exception of one video. It was promptly removed from the website after an email to them.) Sure, there are girls in plaid skirts and white shirts, but they all have the "all models over 18 disclaimer." Is this virtual child porn? Hell, I've got a pic of an ex-gf who was 24 at the time dressed up like that, is THAT virtual child porn? (NO, I'm not posting it! Tho, I'm sure I'll get many requests from the FDBs) My point is the schoolgirl dressup is just one fantasy for men out there along with the other "fetishes". As long as the partcipants in that medium are of legal age (and they consent to the pic, movie, whatever) I think there's nothing wrong with it. The Supreme Court made a good decision in the virtual regard of child porn.
Exploitation of real children is absolutely wrong, that's not an issue. Honestly, I don't see how anyone even would want to see some young children engaged in sexual acts. The thought disgusts me. Now a nice 18+ year old in a short plaid skirt or cheerleader outfit? Nothing wrong with it. :D