It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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]
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."
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?