Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Legal Child Porn?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
Cug

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
I have a question for everyone out there but Especially for my Libertarian friends.

Should Victimless child porn be allowed?

I am talking about drawings, art, books, computer generated images, etc? NOTHING THAT INVOLVES REAL CHILDREN.

As much as it disgusts me, and everyone here knows how I feel about pedophiles, I think the answer would have to be......

Yes.


My answer is also yes.

Freedom of speech is not meant to protect popular speech as popular speech needs no protection... It is meant to protect unpopular speech.

I also believe that freedom of speech also protects my right to find out who wants this crap and publish a list of people to shun for those who want to know.

Liberty also allows those who want this crap to hide that fact from others so they can't publish a list.

It can get confusing.




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I think it's important to remember that there is a fine line between art and pornography. Would these be Mapplethorpe style photos or something much, much worse? I think we can all agree that anything depicting sexual relations with children is absolutely wrong but at what line do we stop before art becomes sexual exploitation. I know that these aren't real children, that we are discussing, but the invoked emotion would still be the same. In my opinion, we would be taking a very dangerous path if we let something like this happen. Just like snuff films, rape portrayal, etc. child pornography is all about power over another. Children are completely innocent and naive, to the evils of the world, and this should never be exploited. There is definitely a difference between something such as this and adult pornography. I’m completely against censorship but I believe we must draw the line here.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I just want to know if we are discussing a real issue here or are we discussing a hypothetical? I know that there must have been a real case at one time or the Supreme Court would not have had to rule, but has anyone here ever seen such material? Is there anyone out there exploiting this ruling?

[edit on 05/2/10 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
As long as its not based on a real experience, than yes it is legal to write or draw a picture that depicts it.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I just want to know if we are discussing a real issue here or are we discussing a hypothetical? I know that there must have been a real case at one time or the Supreme Court would not have had to rule, but has anyone here ever seen such material? Is there anyone out there exploiting this ruling?

[edit on 05/2/10 by GradyPhilpott]



I looked for it and couldn't find it - I do remember something, but I think it was a circuit court case. The closest thing I could find was something out of Canada. This guy had pornographic pics of kids and graphic stories about them. The Canadian Court said that the stories did not amount to committing or advocating a crime and had artistic merit. Go Figure!


Link If you haven't heard about the case, here is a quick overview. Robin Sharpe, of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, was convicted for possession of child porn. He appealed the conviction in the B.C. Supreme Court and won (see transcript). Another appeal was launched in the Supreme Court of Canada. While the appeal was being heard, a year and more after the original conviction many cases of possession of child pornography were in limbo.

The appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada has since been heard — see summary in the CBC article The Supreme Court and child porn: Saving children or thought control?, by Martin O'Malley & Owen Wood, CBC News Online, January 2001, updated May 2002. The article contains a link to excerpts from the Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada then sent the Sharpe case back to the British Columbia Supreme Court for retrial in January 2002.

In March 2002, the [British Columbia Supreme ]Court found Sharpe not guilty of possessing written child pornography. He was found guilty on two counts of possessing pornographic pictures of children and later sentenced to four months of house arrest.

Justice Duncan Shaw [of the British Columbia Supreme Court] found Sharpe's stories did not advocate committing a sexual crime and had artistic merit, "irrespective of whether the work is considered pornographic."


Transcript

B.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I just want to know if we are discussing a real issue here or are we discussing a hypothetical? I know that there must have been a real case at one time or the Supreme Court would not have had to rule, but has anyone here ever seen such material? Is there anyone out there exploiting this ruling?


I have never seen such material unless of course you count the almost daily portrayals on movies and TV. The recent posting of a Boy Scout leader having Child Porn on his Computer reminded me of a book store in California (I believe) that was busted for having books portraying child sex. This was fought in court but I dont remember the verdict, maybe someone out there can help me on it.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I remember the Robin Sharpe case. As a bit of an update, he was convicted of indecent assault on a minor in 2004.



A man who took his challenge of child pornography laws to the Supreme Court of Canada was found guilty Thursday of indecent assault involving a minor in the late 1970s.

But John Robin Sharpe, 70, was acquitted of sexual assault and another charge of gross indecency was stayed by the Crown.

The charges related to alleged assaults involving a man who told court he was around 14 when the abuses began.

ctv


The reason he got away with the 'artistic merit' defense is becasue they were stories and pictures he had produced himself.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
If you're takling about paintings/drawings,I'd say they should be allowed.Paintings/drawings of child porn usually derives from the imagination of the artist himself/herself and not from a first-hand observation painting.

Take for example the Reinassance paintings dating back to the medieval times.Some of them have semi-nude/nude child paintings.Certainly paintings and drawings of child porn/child nudity are base on one's imagination and the child that he/she painted/drawn most probably doesn't even exist.Hence,it doesn't really count as a child porn to a certain extent.Unless,the child porn painting portrayed a child that really exist,I'll definitely say it's child porn.

I am AGAINST child porn before anyone thinks I'm not.It's the most sickest thing anyone could ever done to a child with their whole life in front of them.I SUPPORT the banning of every child porn.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
My answer would be yes, while such a thing sickens me. To answer this I had to ask myself "What would you rather? Them masturbating to real kids or just made up ones on paper"? I choose the latter.

In victimless child porn images no one is hurt, the child does not exist. The only thing hurt is the already damaged mind if the indivuduals who draw and masturbate to them.

It is very sick thing that I let alone anyone here can condone but as long as no one is hurt then I am fine with it. The victimless images may deter some who look at child porn from looking at real images, since these ones are/would be legal.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
For one...when I think of "child pornography" I think of a child, as I was, under the age of of 12....and while I fully understand that over the age of 12 up to 17 is still "child" pornography, I also assume that that's what is being discussed here, a young child. Otherwise how would the distinction be made in a drawing? No, it should not be legal, again, I have to ask, why would a normal mind paint, draw or depict such a thing? For the "beauty": flame:
of it
, for a fantasy? No because of serious issues!



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by astroblade
just for the record, depictions of child porn (i.e. drawings, sketches, computer art, writings, etc.) are currently legal, if my memory serves me right.


I believe they are illegal according to the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today or the PROTECT Act of 2003.


For instance, virtual depictions of children that are indistinguishable from real children can be created. Features of different children can be used to create an unidentifiable image or actual photos of children may be altered to appear computer generated. Regardless of whether not actual children are involved, those creating these images promote this kind of behavior. Failure to criminalize all depictions of child sexual abuse would leave open a loophole in which perpetrators can avoid prosecution. Under this new law, ALL images falling under this category will be classified as illegal.


www.nationalgrange.org...

I also agree that "any" depiction of a child in a sexual manner should be punishable by imprisonment.For it only serves to entertain the sadistic fantasies of existing/closet/potential pedophiles as well as further promoting this abomination to society in general.Athough pedophilia was practiced in ancient Greece/Rome/Sparta...we have evolved into a more noble society where such debasing acts towards the innocent should be dealt with swift & severely - for the scars & trauma left behind is unforgivable.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vajrayana
Athough pedophilia was practiced in ancient Greece/Rome/Sparta...we have evolved into a more noble society where such debasing acts towards the innocent should be dealt with swift & severely - for the scars & trauma left behind is unforgivable.


I think anyone that touches a child should be shot, but how is a drawing pedophilia? What child has been harmed?

Should a possessing a drawing of a murder be classified as murder?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
As much as it disgusts me, and everyone here knows how I feel about pedophiles, I think the answer would have to be......

Yes.

Before I am flamed by one and all let me say if no child was involved than who was harmed? An argument could even be made that some pedophiles would be satisfied with the porn and leave it at that.

And for us Libertarians how could we say otherwise? Who is harmed by a drawing?


I agree with Amuk, how could Libertarians say otherwise? Victimless crimes are a waste of time for the government to enforce, and what's the point? There's no victim...

If you like authoritarian government than go ahead and endorse punishments on victimless crimes.

- Attero

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Attero Auctorita]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Here are 3 arguments that can be elaborated upon but I'm not in the mood to type it all out.

No Child porn should not be made accessible in any way, shape or form. All it does is fuel Computer sex addiction. Cravings for more will come into play. It wouldn't be too long for the desire to start playing itself in the thinking mind.

Also not everyone that looks at these xxx images are of sound mind to make sound decisions for themselves. Being over the age of 18 doesn't make you immune to loosing control.

Similar to the public outcry if rappers started to incorporate the theme of childporn into their already explicit lyrics.


[edit on 10-2-2005 by websurfer]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
There are reams of Japanese Manga with titles like "Ogre Rape", and they captivate a huge percentage of the market share for reading material in Asian countries, and especially Japan. There are also countless movies that SEEM to depict underage sex, but the majority of them must carry a warning message before the feature saying that nobody being depicted is under that age of 18. That seems pretty ridiculous to me, because it sets a sort of precident. Does that mean fiction writers like myself no longer have the option to write about child abuse and the effects of it?

The supreme court says that pornography is anything that has no artistic merit and inspires sexual thought. Artistic merit is a matter of taste, and you CANNOT legislate taste, it's impossible. Therefore the rule is hollow, because one mans pornography is another's art. My writing might be considered by some to be pornographic because of excessive violence and sexual situations, but because my intent was to create a piece of art, that's what I'm going to call it. Anyone who disagrees with me is free not to buy my book, but censoring it because some people don't like my vision is illegal and immoral. The idea of a free press should be boundless. People don't like the idea of Nazi literature used for recruiting, well neither do I, but there's nothing that can be done about the printing of it! I think it should simply be illegal to recruit members for certain 'terrorist' organizations, but that sort of infringes on the right to free assembly.

Basically what it comes down to, wait to bring charges until the crime has been committed. If we want to try prevention that's fine, but we have to work within the confines of a generally accepted framework. You cannot prosecute people for thinking, or for wanting, or for painting and writing about things that are deemed offensive by some. It will end badly. The only solution is to try and educate our children better and not abuse them, so they don't grow up to be sick, violent child predators. As for the non-violent child molesters, as I said in my earlier post (which nobody appeared to read judging by responses), they are acting on their natural instincts and if you want to hold them accountable, we have to do something other than just lock them up or shoot them as some advocate. That's like shooting your mailman because he has blonde hair, and you are deeply offended by that particular color. It's insane, and in the end no better than killing for any other physical or mental byproduct of evolution.

There has got to be a better way, perhaps if children were better protected, child predators wouldn't have the oppurtunities they currently do. Most parents don't even watch their kids these days, is it any wonder so many are kidnapped and abused? This whole situation makes me really mad, because it deflects a huge portion of the responsibility from negligent parents and our apathetic society, and it places it on those whose instincts compel them. I repeat, there has got to be a better way!



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Let me state something to clear things up.

I am talking Kiddie Porn not art. BUT still porn that has no real children in it. This is just to clear up any Idea that we might be trying to differentiate between art and porn.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Amuk
I know what YOU are talking about. I just don't think most people do, or even have the sense to consider the logical ramifications of their 'values.'

Would you agree that the definition of art is subjective? If that is the case then we as a country have to decide on some sort of definition above and beyong the supreme court's ruling. Inspires sexual though, no artistic merit, that's every commercial on television! (I'm paraphrasing Bill Hicks.)

If we're talking about drawings of children having sex, those in between legal and illegal at the moment. It all depends on the whim of the prosecutor and the emotions of the community. Allowing emotions to dictate law is like allowing a hurricane to rake your lawn.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Unless I heard wrong on the news last night they were discussing this very issue.. and the discussion was involving paintings, and drawings and other "non-sexual" but nude material that had been taken under search warrant from M. Jackson's neverland ranch some weeks ago. All of it is reported to be involving children. This does not include the legal adult porn that is already in evidence.

They want to bring these items into court during his current sexual abuse trial.. and rumor has it that the judge is going to let this in.

I mean why would anyone have such things if they were not a pervert?

They also said none of these items were illegal, but could show jackson's motive and sexual lust for children.

Excuse me.. I feel sick now


[edit on 10-2-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
UM_Gazz
Probably nobody would have this sort of material unless they were a pervert. But being a pervert can't be made illegal now can it? And the material itself, we've already discussed why it can't be made illegal (at least not justifiably using reason). So what's the end result? What do you think we should do? Are we really so ready, as a society, for the advent of the thought police? I honestly never thought I'd see the day...



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
NO.


It would desensitize, these type of people should be shot and the number of cases would fall dramatically, this is one of the most vile crimes.


Make that Hell NO.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join