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.

 

Legal Child Porn?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
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.


So should anyone with a drawing of a murder be shot?

How about a picture of someone being tortured?




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
How many here would consider the book Lolita by Nabokov, to be pornography? How about the book by Piers Anthony called Firefly? What about Bastard out of Carolina, or Mysterious Skin? I'm really curious where peolpe draw the line when it comes to literature.

Maplethorpe was a sick puppy, and photography is quite obviously child porn since it uses real children. I wouldn't call most of his pictures art, and that includes his tamer subject matter. Once again though, I think that's a matter of taste, and nobody has really said anything that has made me rethink that opinion.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

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?


I understand where you're coming from where the lines can be blurred.You brought up a drawing of a murder-I'll apply it in the school setting.I know their have been recent cases involving a student's "art" depicting violence towards another student/teacher,even the president if i remember correctly, which was then confiscated and used against them as if it showed possible intent or premeditation to commit the act.Some of these cases have gained a new heightened level of sensitivity in the wake of Columbine,now 9/11 and with the fear of a domestic Beslan.I can not agree here with a drawing of a murder being evidence of possible malice aforethought of the crime depicted,or any other harbinger of harm,certainly not the crime of murder itself...for like you said no one was harmed,and any illustration can be subject to many interpretations,also the age,mood,psychological state of the artist while drawing the work-just these unknown factors alone indicate reasonable doubt to me if ever used to establish evidence of any sort of thought crime or
an indication of predispostion for violence in the creator of the work.If this was so, South Park could be a target of such scrutiny.Intentions of humor/lampoon/shock value/entertainment factor could always be used as an explanation for any violent illustrations so I think no prosecution could hold much weight establishing a crime from the artist's rendering without applying their own subjective bias,thus creating more reasonable doubt to a third party(jurist).
Also the differentiating between nudity & pornography.For example, if an artist agrees to draw a precocious teenage model in the nude,then afterwards discovers the model was underage,can/should they be prosecuted if age wasn't asked/given/established before the work proceeded,without knowing the details,some would surely be quick to condemn the artist,if not for being a svengali/seductress,certainly for their lack of judgement.
Like I said earlier,I believe it to be a high crime when a child/child's image is depicted in a sexual manner,as it aims to exploit the innocent by invoking illicit desires in the predatory.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Vajrayana]

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Vajrayana]



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join