Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Lisa, let me get this straight: You’re against cartoon porn? How is a pencil doodle in the possession of an adult a threat to children?

Smutty comix aren’t my cup of tea, but I don’t understand how a few scribbles on paper hurts anyone. Next thing you know you’ll be banning bannanas and train tunnels.

Is the ACLU defending Richard Hawes?

Otherwise, this is a hatchet job.

Lisa, the title of your post suggests that the ACLU is actively supporting child pornography, but there’s little support of that claim. You link to the child porn arrest has no reference to the ACLU, and your link to their “official stance” is actually a letter on a particular bill, which says:

H. R. 4623, the �Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002� is a hasty attempt drafted by the Department of Justice to override the United States Supreme Court�s decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. ____ (2002). While the intentions of the authors may be good, the bill is fatally flawed. We therefore urge you to vote against this bill.

H.R. 4623 seeks to ban �virtual child pornography,� and prohibit �pandering� of images as child pornography even if the images are not obscene or child pornography. It creates a whole new category of prohibited speech, prohibits using sexually explicit materials to facilitate offenses against minors, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction, and creates a database of minors who have been exploited in the creation of child pornography.

I’d love to hear a detailed analysis of whether the ACLU is right or wrong here (do we really want a government database of “minors who have been exploited in the creation of child pornography”?) but your posting is nothing at all like that.

Let the debate begin! and please, let’s keep to the facts :-)

Speech that harms others, does not come “free”, the expense is the person it harms.

Your solution is easy. Simply produce a study that demonstrates that virtual child porn leads to civic harm.

I referenced Hawes because, and I pointed out in the article that I really didn’t know, but what if viewing virtual child porn led him to do it? Also, that study I cited concluded that viewing child pornography on the internet (a crime) linked that over half of those had attmpted/already had molested a child.

People say pot is the gateway drug to other drugs. I think that cartoon smut involving children leads to the “real” thing. Can you honestly tell me that there are people who watch only anime porn without ever having viewing the “real” thing? Please…

As far as citing the article, this is the paragraph that alarms me:

The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

I’m sorry, but children are sacred to me, and alot of other people, so because of the high probability of this “free speech” escalating to a seriously sickening crime, yes, it should be illegal.

AP:

Children are not bananas. Children are innocent in the fact they they are easily exploited, manipulated, and hurt by adults. I do not think the ACLU should support something that walks such a fine line between being a “free speech” right and preserving the saftey of our children.

Lisa, except for indicting the ACLU which in no way is defending the actions of the Grandfather you elaborate upon, I agree with you as almost all Americans would.

There is however a gray area when it comes to adults recreating acts of people under the age of consent. I find the notion of adults recreating non-adult sex, highly distasteful and repugnant. I also believe, that the distribution of such material would appeal to and very likely enhance motivation by some sick individuals to fantasize or even pursue real pedophile acts.

And therein lies the gray area. If material is produced which promotes pedophilia, it should be illegal. On the other hand, the government has no place in trying to regulate fantasies of non-real acts entertained by adults in the privacy of their own homes.

If we think we need laws that address production and distribution of materials which induce the enjoyment of criminal acts including pedophilia, we are in very dangerous area. The reason is that the books, and movies and other media routinely create topical material based on criminal acts which the public finds entertaining. Example: Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood”, both book and movie.

Capote gave the public a rare glimpse into the mind of senseless and uncivilized murder. As a movie, it also served as entertainment. It was based on a real crime and remained faithful to the facts of that set of murders.

The huge number of movies about the Holocaust are another example. The movies were both educational as well as entertaining with survival of Holocaust and victory of allied forces uplifting the theme of the movies.

This is not an easy issue, and as an ACLU member, I would urge you and the ACLU to carefully consider the delicate balance that is required here on this topic.

Woody:

Did I say the ACLU was defending Hawes?

Let’s make it even more simple, which is safer for our children, given the studies that conclude that child pornography is involved in over half of child molestation cases:

To make “virtual” child porn illegal or not?

Who is the higher risk to a child:

Someone who views “virtual” child porn…

Or the person who doesn’t…

???

To make “virtual” child porn illegal or not?

Who is the higher risk to a child:

Someone who views “virtual” child porn…

Or the person who doesn’t…

It’s all speculative. Do you have any proof? Or are we do restrict inalienable freedoms on some self-righteous whim?

David:

You have my nail on the head. The ACLU defends the position of creating/possesing “virtual” child pornography. I think because of what this material promotes, it is very dangerous.

I understand about how the “gray” area can spill over into other non-porn areas. I am sensitive to this issue because we are dealing with a group of human beings that could never defend themselves. I also think that these criminals that exploit children do so because they KNOW children can’t protect themselves, and they pervert that into a sense of control.

The ACLU doesn’t support “real” child porn. They see it as “virtual” doesn’t actually harm a child, so it is free speech. I wholly disagree.

Joseph:

Speculative, or common sense?

Speculative.

Lisa,

Maybe “hatchet job” was a little strong, but that case doesn’t have a thing to do with the ACLU. It sounds like the pictures he took were blatantly illegal, and I can’t imagine that ACLU saying anything in his favor beyond that he deserves a fair trial. He exploited a real person.

Moving onto the core issue, I think you are missing something in that statement from the ACLU.

The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment.

By my reading, obscene material featuring virtual children would be illegal.

They see it as “virtual” doesn’t actually harm a child, so it is free speech. I wholly disagree.

Lisa, you mentioned earlier about child porn being involved in child molestation cases. Do you have any data on how many of those cases involved only dirty doodles?

Woody:

Of course, that gets into issues of what exactly constitutes obscenity…

I’m kind of curious as to how far this “virtual child pornography” idea goes. It makes me think of a book I read once, Necroscope by Brian Lumley. It’s a sci-fi/fantasy book, pretty much focusing on a sci-fi version of vampires. At least, I think it was the first book, it might have been another in that same series. Anyway, in it there is a flashback to the childhood of one of the main characters, and a sexual incident that happened between him and his two rather abusive female cousins, mainly its purpose in the storyline is to show how he got so fucked up mentally by the time he enters the story. (It’s been a long time since I read this book, so that may be an oversimplification, but it’s the best I recall.) My point is, would this fall under the category of “virtual child pornography”? Would this lead us to banning this book? Where are the lines drawn with a description so vague?

Lisa,

Woody is ABSOLUTELY correct! The ACLU does not support child pornography, virtual or otherwise. It is imperative to read the text as a whole and not take only a bit part of it when concluding what the ACLU is trying to say here. I remember a while back (I’ll try to find a link if anyone needs it)there was a big hullabaloo about some photos that a professional photographer and very close friend of Actress Susan Sarandon had taken some photos of her children playing, lounging, etc. In some of the photos the children were nude and I think there was one that showed genitalia perhaps. The photos wer not sexually explicit at all and were certainly not obscene. But there was controversy over whether or not they were child pornography.

Almost every family photo album I have ever seen from my own family to those of my friends and relatives have photos of their little ones taking a bath, or laying on their bellies (most of the time) and even on their backs. The babies, small children are nude and sometimes even the genitalia is exposed. Pornography? I say, no. They were notobscene.

I also agree that even photographs, drawings etc. that can in no other way be considered anything else BESIDES obscene are still free speech as long as it is not of children and not available to children.

Lisa, thank you for your reply. I have for decades held the position that pornography is anything that demeans and denigrates human dignity. Therefore, I agree with you entirely that “virtual” child smut is a danger to our society’s human dignity.

Where we probably don’t agree is how to combat it. I see government censorship and criminalization of “virtual” child smut creating as much or more of an assault on human freedom of expression and liberty as the “virtual” smut does.

For me the issue is very akin to the illegalization of drugs. Government criminalization of drug useage created the most lucrative black market and number of murders for a single purpose, any nation at anytime in history has ever witnessed. The cure created more harm than the problem did in so many unintended ways.

I believe we need a national educational and advertising campaign that elevates human dignity and demonstrates the harm of virtual smut without criminalizing it. That said, as long as the interent is open access and virtually free, eradicating “virtual” will be impossible by any means, legal or otherwise. We can only hope to ostracize those whe become known to promote or partake in such denigration of human dignity. To criminalize it will result in other assaults on human dignity that will negate the intended effort in the first place.

Joseph -

Are you serious that you think proof is needed of a link between virtual kiddie porn and illegal acts? How many people do you know who read porn (of any kind) and don’t then want to commit sexual acts with the subjects thereof? That’s the POINT.

Allowing people to market virtual kiddie porn (which, AP, is quite different from “cartoon” anything) is analagous to setting up a store specializing in automatic weapons in the ghetto. Could they be bought and used without breaking the law? Theoretically, yes. But is it really worth the risk?

And does regulating kidding porn honestly endanger your right to political, religious, philosophical, factual, scientific or the other kinds of speech which our First Amendment was designed to protect?

Anyone who takes photos, draws or in anyway creates images of children in sexually suggestive poses should be immediately taken into custody. If I were the one arresting him I would get him to run, whisper “stop or I’ll shoot” and then see if all the range practice paid off.

It goes without saying that anyone filming children participating in actual or virtual sex activities should be running alongside the guy I described above.

If you can regulate pornography so that it is available to adults used in the confines of their own homes it would be OK.

A summary of the ACLU’s points:
Under the definition of Virtual Child Porn, non-obscene material, and/or material where the particpants are of age but look otherwise could be construed as child porn.

The parts concerning unlawful speech rely too little on harm to actual minors, or incitement to imminent actions, and does not protect speech that resembles but does not go to the lengths that the unprotected speech does.

It also does not protect legitimate use of the prohibited material, as in research to determine the legitimacy of the law, or use in anti-abuse documentaries, or of computer generated images by researchers.

The Pandering provision outlaws even a person implying that the material contains child pornography. In a rather pointed example:

While using different language, section 3 suffers from the same infirmity; it makes it a crime to “describe†an image as containing a “visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.†Thus, the description would be a crime even if the image itself was neither obscene nor child pornography. For example, a person could describe the movie Thelma and Louise as containing a picture of a minor engaging in sexually explicit activity and go to jail, despite the fact no such picture exists in the movie.

The laws sets aside a category of material as automatically obscene, which runs counter to the currently accepted process of defining obscenity, where the Government must first prove in a court of law that the material is obscene.

It shifts an impossible standard of defense onto defendents charged with possession and distribution, requiring people who may have no contact whatsoever with the subject to produce the material or persons required to assert that the subject is of age.

It could punish a parent who shows a picture to their child to ascertain whether such an act was done to them.

Provisions in law even cover material and companies outside the United states, setting a precedent for extraterritorial jurisdiction on the internet, comparable to the case where Yahoo, an American company, was sued by France for because it hosted a site on which Nazi Memorabilia was available. This act was illegal there, but legal here.

The law violates fourth amendment rights by requiring ISPs to actively search their database for illegal material to report, rather than merely requiring the reporting of inadvertantly found material. This amounts to searches with no probable cause or warrant.

There is no protection in the bill for the privacy of those Children whose images are entered into the database, thereby allowing the number of people who can get their hands on this highly sensitive information to skyrocket, with no requirements that the uses and disclosure of this information be audited.

———————————————————

I think what we have here is political conservatives pushing crappy law for political gain, bills they can attack people like the ACLU on, when they oppose it on perfectly sound legal grounds, rather than any sympathy towards child molesters.

By all means, tighten the law around child pornography. But follow the constitution and preserve protected speech while you do it.

Yes, lets use an emotional hot button issue to once again attack the ACLU, and in so doing, destort all their valiant and noble attempts at defending the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment in particular — no matter how loathesome free speech may sometimes seem.
What always strikes me when the topic of the ACLU defending pornagraphy as free speech comes up (in spite of the fact that they have never *advocated* for anything that pornagraphy may depict) is the fact that he same people who deem the Second Amendment so sacredly inviolate can turn so easily around and speak of the need to put limits on the nature of the First whenever they feel they’ve found a subject sufficiently disgusting enough.
Let’s face it, almost everyone is a prohibitionist of some sort or another, but it is in knowing where to draw the line between protecting our citizens from harm, and allowing the government to become the thought police of the entire American populace.
I think the ACLU does one hell of a good job of drawing that line, even though they face a constant barage of crap from people who wish to discredit that difficult endeavor and make America a much less free country.

If computer generated images of child porn can be outlawed because of the belief that it automatically promotes the crime of child molestation, should computer generated images of fighting and warfare also be outlawed for automatically promoting gun violence?

“the fact that he same people who deem the Second Amendment so sacredly inviolate can turn so easily around and speak of the need to put limits on the nature of the First whenever they feel they’ve found a subject sufficiently disgusting enough.”

And vice versa.
Very well said Adrienne!

“should computer generated images of fighting and warfare also be outlawed for automatically promoting gun violence”

Already being done.

Lisa,

I’m in complete agreement with you here. There are some awfully sick people out there that even when viewing “virtual” child porn get aroused, and half ar likely to commit an act of pedophilia.

In my book, child porn is child porn, and it…in any form…is created and used for the sole purpose of arousing the sickest among us.

But, what do you expect from the ACLU? Logic? If they view their statement as logic, it is very twisted logic at best.

Hm, I would like to know if the slippery slope argument applies here (like it supposedly does with gun control laws). If we start banning the bad stuff does that mean we will start banning the not-so-bad stuff?

Why dont we leave porn for a second and look at NAMBLA North American Man Boy Love Association.

The ACLU Clearly supports that.

www.operationlookout.org/lookoutmag
/aclu_to_defend_nambla.htm

www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

WorldNetDaily: ACLU defends child-molester group:
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE

I could Cut and paste all day. Just search “aclu”+”nambla”

So even if they didnt support child porn, virtual, porn or no porn, They support the worst of the worst.

They ACLU say it doesn’t need to defend the 2nd ammendment, someone else can/is doing that.

Last I knew they DO defend NAMBLA, whats the reason for that?

Forget photos and vidios, how about books teaching the best way to molest children without getting caught? That is free speach right?

Most everyone agrees that books are free speech, but defending sick crap like that ?

This is an uncomfortable problem, but one that has to be faced nonetheless.

If we say that NAMBLA cannot freely assemble, so long as they break no law, then we compromise that right for any unpopular group.

There’s no slippery slope here- lawful assembly is lawful assembly and free speech is free speech. The moment we start taking law abiding citizens (no matter what perverts they are) and start legislating whether they can gather, the same option is open to government wherever their whim will take them.

If NAMBLA members get caught with child porn, or it’s revealed through warranted or probable cause-based searches that they’re running a child porn ring, by all means, bust them. Same thing if it’s found they’re acting out their fantasies. All those things are illegal and they can be punished for them.

But punishing for crimes not yet committed, or committed in thought alone? Tempting as it is, it’s not the rule of law, because at that point the authorities are given the power to make their own law and decide it. Maybe the next thing they do to eliminate molestations is ban gay groups. Or maybe somebody decides that you are pedophile, and uses the law to get you into the county jail, and interrogate you at length until you admit the tendency just to end the ordeal. Such open ended laws are abuses of power waiting to happen.

The problem is not that Virtual child porn itself should not be regulated. If they were able to narrow the issues of what constitutes virtual child porn down to a well-defined concept without the kind of creeping looseness of this bill, I’m all for it. The problem comes when the language of the bill damages other civil liberties in ways that don’t relate to child molester CGing naked boys.

Are you serious that you think proof is needed of a link between virtual kiddie porn and illegal acts? How many people do you know who read porn (of any kind) and don’t then want to commit sexual acts with the subjects thereof? That’s the POINT.

Yes, I am serious. I just don’t think it is a given that a person who looks at virtual child porn (or even actual child porn) would therefore want to go out and molest children. Just as I don’t believe anyone who looks at standard adult porn would then want to go out and molest women. Just as I don’t believe someone who watches a violent movie like Texas Chainsaw Massacre would then want to go out and brutally murder random people with a chainsaw. What turns you on and what motivates you to action are not the same, and far from equal. What is required to motivate such acts needs be much more powerful than provocative imagery.

There is a new trend in sexual addiction spawned from the internet and pornography. There are institutions, books, classes and recovery programs for what is now considered among those that are studying the subject to be the number one addiction in this country, and possibly, the world. There are solid links that what is generally accepted by society because “it can’t hurt anyone” actually can. Do the research yourself. I am no religious fanatic, but check out purelife ministries online, they have a ton of info. on the subject, to name just one place. The book “Secret Sin” is another… I could go on and on. there is nothing innocent about some “scribblings” on paper.

And does regulating kidding porn honestly endanger your right to political, religious, philosophical, factual, scientific or the other kinds of speech which our First Amendment was designed to protect?

Irrelevant. The point is this: if the governement has no business with it, then it shouldn’t bother with it. They have a business in ciminalizing and prosecuting child pornography because there are offenders and victims. They have no business in virtual child porn because there is no verifiable measure of social harm.

AP~
Since you want to keep saying “doodles” over and over to make it seem like a less offense……what if that “doodle” is of your daughter? Could this become an easy escape for these whackos? Don’t pull out the camera just force them to pose for a sctetch.

EVERYTHING about CHILD pornography is illegal. If these people are really needing something w/ a child on it rather than an adult, I think it’s time to fear what they are capable of!

I will admit that I have viewed porn in several different mediums as I suspect most have at least once or twice, but I gotta tell ya, I wouldn’t be able to joyfully set through something I’m not into. I suspect most men are not into children and have no need what-so-ever to view them!

Scottie:
“Why dont we leave porn for a second and look at NAMBLA North American Man Boy Love Association.
The ACLU Clearly supports that.”

Beagle:
“Last I knew they DO defend NAMBLA, whats the reason for that?”

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations August 31, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK—In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

Good posts, Stephen and Joseph!

Joseph B.~

“Yes, I am serious. I just don’t think it is a given that a person who looks at virtual child porn (or even actual child porn) would therefore want to go out and molest children. Just as I don’t believe anyone who looks at standard adult porn would then want to go out and molest women. Just as I don’t believe someone who watches a violent movie like Texas Chainsaw Massacre would then want to go out and brutally murder random people with a chainsaw. What turns you on and what motivates you to action are not the same, and far from equal. What is required to motivate such acts needs be much more powerful than provocative imagery.”

These other examples do not apply since they do not contain “CHILDREN”.
The issue here is not to go on a banning spree….just for Gods sake leave children out of it!!

Real children or virtual children…Why is it necessary to have such garbage available…It first amendment gives us freedom of speech, not freedom to put garbage out there…The people who want this kind of stuff are really, really sick…They need to get a life…Looking at pornography is not normal and anyone who says it is, is just plain sick themselves…If a person needs pornography child or otherwise definitely has something wrong with their wiring and should seek help…I get so tired of hearing everything from porn to whatever stated as a freedom of speech…As for the ACLU, they do far more harm than good.

Sandra~

Don’t blow the point here. There is a big difference between adult porn and child porn. Adult porn, no matter how you view it is still legal and between consenting ADULTS.

Traci:

One of the points you’re apparently missing is that, as defined, “virtual” child porn can include sex between consenting adults who “look” young, or an adult dressed in a “schoolgirl” outfit to act out a fantasy, and other similar acts which involve no children. The “look” young part is especially vague.

Kudos to Stephen Daugherty who previously brought up this point.

Jarandhel~

No my friend, you are missing the point….”looking young” is still LEGAL if you are indeed an adult! Besides not many women can pass for an 8 yr. old, not even me who at 30 no one ever believes me and I show my I.D. everywhere (On top of that I’m 5 foot)!

These other examples do not apply since they do not contain “CHILDREN”.

Illogical. Just because (virtual or real) children are involved does not increase one’s predilection to commit an act. Unless you have some study to prove otherwise? You want to take away someone’s right to look at virtual child porn. I think you need to supply some justification to get involved. Speculation and self-righteous hand waving don’t qualify as justification.

Joseph~
?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Joseph~
Are you not aware that CHILD porn. is already illegal?

Traci:

(a) Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable (as defined in section 1466A) from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or’.

What do you think “virtual” child porn means, exactly? It means something which is taken by the mind, through the process of *imagination*, to be child pornography. ” And we’re not just talking about eight year olds here, we’re talking anyone under 18 if we’re talking minors. Here’s some commentary from when the Child Pornography Prevention Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. H. R. 4623 pretty much repeats these problems from the CPPA.

The literal language of the statute would prevent two types of activities that did not involve, in any way, the use of children. The first is “virtual child pornography,” or images that were completely computer-generated that “appear” to be minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The other activity involves the use of young-looking adult actors, thereby giving the appearance of “minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

It is important to note that for purposes of the statute, a minor is defined as someone under the age of 18. Therefore, applying the literal language of the statute, a “sex scene” with two 18 or 19-year-olds, who happen to look 16 or 17, would expose the filmmaker to the possibility of a criminal conviction. The expansion of the statute to cover both completely computer-generated images or the use of young actors is especially troublesome, for the penalty upon conviction — for the first offense — is up to 15 years imprisonment.

Forgot to cite that second quote:

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-all/landau-2002-07-all.html

Stephen Daugherty:

“Under the definition of Virtual Child Porn, non-obscene material, and/or material where the particpants are of age but look otherwise could be construed as child porn.”

I don’t understand. If it is non-obscene material, how could it be construed as pornography, underage or not?

Stephen Daugherty:

“If we say that NAMBLA cannot freely assemble, so long as they break no law, then we compromise that right for any unpopular group.”

I think “so long as they break no law” is key. Isn’t their assembly for the express purpose of teaching/learning how to best be a child molester criminal conspiracy? I’m no lawyer—someone help me out here.

AP:

I think there is a quantum leap between a guy sitting at his desk doodling and the technical development of cartoon kiddie porn. I think there is a place for intent here, as well, just as there is in many other areas of the law.

Jarandhel~
I am speaking from the point of law in which an actual arrest is to be made. Legally minors (under the age 18) cannot be used in pornography! You’re right some people can “look” 16 or 17yrs. old. This has always been, big deal, there will always be exceptions. In major porn industries the cops can have them verify I.D.’s!
The movement I think most people here are referring to are those that are inclined to “getting off” on smaller children ages from 6 to 12! Virtual or otherwise you cannot mistake this age range!!

“Lisa, let me get this straight: You’re against cartoon porn? How is a pencil doodle in the possession of an adult a threat to children?”

I’m not Lisa, but please let me respond…In the same way a 5yo pointing a drawing of a gun is a threat to society.

tomd~
Excellent comeback!

Traci:

I am speaking from the point of law in which an actual arrest is to be made.

So am I. This legislation speaks of criminalizing images which are “indistinguishable” from porn involving minors. Can you distinguish between porn involving young looking adult actors of 18 or more, and actors which are seventeen, if you weren’t involved in its production? Seventeen year olds are minors too, and as written this legislation covers them as well, not just younger children that are easily distinguished.

Also, to put in perspective criminalizing computer-generated images that appear to be younger children engaged in sexual acts, will we also then criminalize computer generated images that appear to involve a sex act that results in death? After all, isn’t that a “virtual” snuff film? Doesn’t the same logic apply there? Or what about computer-generated images involving rape, or slasher movies involving a rape scene? Aren’t these things either virtual depictions of illegal sex acts, or indistinguishable from them? Where exactly are we going to draw the line on this if we stop dealing with the substance of the charge, the actual crime, and start dealing with virtual equivalencies drawn only in the imagination?

Joseph~ Are you not aware that CHILD porn. is already illegal?

No shit. But did you realize that virtual child porn is not illegal? I thought that’s what we were discussing. The fact that I brought real children back into the argument was because Chops had asserted that viewing porn (of any sort) would necessarily lead to acting out on whatever fantasies were viewed. I then felt it necessary to counter this fallacy and even extend back into reality. Just because one might view child porn (virtual or otherwise) does not mean that one would then molest a child. I’m not defending child porn; I’m pointing out the fallaciousness of Chops’ assertion. You tried to get into the argument with your “Think of the CHILDREN!!!” wailing and asserted that my comparisons were invalid because they didn’t involve children. I pointed out that this argument is illogical. Do you have any counter-argument, or just more question marks?

Traci:

Also, you should note that this isn’t just about criminalizing the production, it’s about criminalizing owning the images. So it’s not just about having cops verify the ids of the actors, in many cases those possessing the images wouldn’t even know the names of the original actors or who produced the images originally.

Why would ANYONE in their right mind defend child porn of any kind?
ONLY A PERVERTED SICK PERSON WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT KIND OF RUBBISH!
If any of those basterds get near one of my grandkids the cops will never find him.

Another thing to consider is what actually constitutes a virtual child, as Jarandhel has pointed out. Japanese Manga uses a not-so-clever trick of drawing their characters with the features of young teens but the story describes them as 18 years old. If a similar technique is used in the US, how would one prosecute? Just because the characters look like children? Like Traci said, it is legal to lust after 18 year olds (“looking young is still legal if you are indeed an adult”), so if the story describes the character as 18, despite looking like a 16 year old, how would one justify prosecuting someone for creating or owning such pornography? A fast and loose society is understandable. Fast and loose legislation is not.

Why would ANYONE in their right mind defend child porn of any kind?

Because Lisa wrote an article to discuss the issue? And to be clear, the arguments only concern virtual child porn, not actual child porn. No children have been harmed in the creation of this article and discussion.

It’s also interesting to note that this legislation, as written, would actually criminalize at least one episode of Robot Chicken that I know of. (For those who aren’t familiar with the show, it’s a short cable comedy show involving the use of action figures to act out skits using stop-motion photography. Some of it is just bizarre, other parts are hilarious.)

Enough of this trying to excuse those adults who are “looking young”. That constitutes a disguise.

Anyone purposely appearing as someone or something else is subject to the rules of conduct and law that apply to the person or group being imitated.

Child pornography actual or, as is indicated here “virtual” or computer generated, etc. still transmits the message. Enough of this “they are only cartoon characters” or, unreal in other ways, the message is clear.

People involved in this type of thing are way out of the mainstream of normality and, as such should be put away.

Creating and/or possessing the images should be a crime. Difficult to monitor and control to be sure but, a crime nevertheless.

I HEAR YOU STEVE!
However some people just look younger than they realy are. My yougest child is 21, but she looks like she’s 13.

Sandra Wilson:
“It first amendment gives us freedom of speech, not freedom to put garbage out there…”

I know it is hard for many people to accept, but yes, the first amendment gives Americans the right to put out a lot of garbage.
For instance, the Klan is legally allowed to march down the street spouting hate speech and carrying images on signs that are blatantly against people who are Black, Catholic, and Jewish. Disgusting and abhorent, yes indeed, but first amendment protected free speech as long as no crime is being committed. Virtual child porn is identical in this way.

“Looking at pornography is not normal and anyone who says it is, is just plain sick themselves…

Hilarious! You have just described at least 85 percent (if not more) of all the men in the world!!!
IMO women should just grow up about the fact that men are (ahem) hardwired to think about sex a whole lot more than we do, and looking at pornographic images simply comes with that territory. It may be difficult for us to understand (it certainly is for me, although some women claim to like porn too), but we must be willing to forgive them and find the humor that is to be found in the fact that often until they reach a very senior age, they are basically at the mercy of their natural urges.
Uh-oh — I just said that men wanting to look at pictures of naked ladies is normal, which, according to Sandra’s interpretation, makes me “sick” too.
:^) Oh well…

“As for the ACLU, they do far more harm than good.”

What utter nonsense.
Where is the harm in defending the Bill of Rights?

Steve:

Thank you for providing the best rationale yet for not creating laws like this.

Traci:

As long as there are people like Steve who are willing and eager to consider adult actors looking young as the same as child porn and prosecute them for “sending a message”, how do you know that this legislation will be used as you think it is intended? The wording would let Steve do just what he desires to, and put away those he considers “way out of the mainstream of normalcy”, regardless of what actually harm to others they may or may not have done.

err, “way out of the mainstream of normality”, sorry about the misquote.

Scottie:

Just thought I’d put my two cents worth in on this:

For all of you who bash the ACLU as being a “liberal” Organization. Tell me this, are you not happy they have fought for your rights when you buy that television set on “Sunday”? Or when they have defended your rights to buy a gun? I know that many of you are damned Happy of the fact you can proudly fly that “stars and bars” of yours, NO MATTER how much it disgusts me and others, are you not? Well, guess why you have those rights, who do you have to thank for these rights? By the by, the ACLU has fought for “OUR RIGHTS” as American citizens. That’s right the ACLU. We may not ALWAYS agree with what they represent, remember they exist because there is someone out there that wants to control what you say, think, or do. Do you want someone controlling your mind, bodies, and they fight for all of OUR RIGHTS. So, next time that you want to log onto your computer, go anywhere in Cyber-Space that you want, Look at anything you want to take out your checkbook and send in a donation, I am sure that they will send you back a Thank You note, unlike many politicians.
My point is this, were the ACLU not defending the rights of the low-life of this country, the same way you’d want yours to be defended. LOOK OUT FOR BIG BROTHER, he just might decide he didn’t like the way you were doing something.
Point being, the ACLU protects all citizens no matter status, race, creed, religion color, ..etc. Like them or not, we are all better protected and can be rest assured that our rights are being well looked after by The American Civil Liberties Union.

As Always,
Wayne

Jarandhel & Joseph~

You’re obviously bent on this issue and not receiving what I am saying. Maybe I’m not wording myself correctly or something, but as I read your replies I’m like……”What the…????”

Traci:

Have you considered the possibility that maybe you’re the one who’s bent on this, and not understanding an aspect of the issue under discussion?

For the record, I’m not against porn “virtual” or real, as long as it has consenting ADULTS.

I do not think this issue is a slippery slope, because it has to do with the suject of CHILDREN. It’s not censoring people who want to profit from the adult entertainment industry whether actors, film directors or othewise. It’s that children can NOT be consenting, and therefore having laws in place that act on their behalf is what is at stake. It’s not a matter of “free speech” as the ACLU supports, it’s a matter of protecting those with no voice.

And, I’m fully aware that the ACLU doesn’t support “real” child porn. That’s why this article is about V-I-R-T-U-A-L C-H-I-L-D porn. I’m not writing about adults, because that IS a free speech action, and I’m not writing about “real” child porn & the ACLU, because they don’t support that. This is about “virtual” “child” porn being covered under the 1st amendment because it doesn’t acutally “harm” a child.

This is what the issue is.

Come on people, I’m not advocating child porn either real or virtual, but please tell me who the victim is with virtual anything. As far as people watching virtual porn, either child or adult causing people to commit real crimes, I would have to see the data. I don’t see the difference in outlawing alcohol because half the accidents involve people drinking or making chocolate illegal because fat people like it and will eat it.
If a crime don’t have a victim, it shouldn’t be a crime. Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

I just can’t understand why anyone would want law enforcement resources wasted on pursuing and prosecuting virtual child pornographers when their time would be better spent on pursuing and prosecuting actual child pornographers.

You’re obviously bent on this issue and not receiving what I am saying.

Traci, what arguments of yours addressed to me have I not addressed? And what parts of those I have addressed make you go “Wha?”

steve smith,

People involved in this type of thing are way out of the mainstream of normality and, as such should be put away.

An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

Child pornography actual or, as is indicated here “virtual” or computer generated, etc. still transmits the message. Enough of this “they are only cartoon characters” or, unreal in other ways, the message is clear.

This is a fallacy of subverted support. You can neither prove that whatever message you imagine is being transmitted is actually the intent of the producers, nor can you prove that this message is inevitably received by the consuming party. You might presume the message is “molest children” but maybe the message is “get aroused, get off, and leave the kids alone.” Maybe the intended message is simply “buy my product, you perv.” As for the consumer, maybe the message they get is only arousal and release, and not encouragement to molest children.

Also, the prescription that I intuit from this is a form of thought policing. You want to outlaw the message whereas current criminal prosecution of child pornographers is based on actual harm done. There is no harm done with virtual child porn. The fact that someone gets aroused by such is no basis for criminality.

Again, if anyone can produce an actual study from a credible source that demonstrates real harm from virtual child porn, I would be glad to reconsider my position.

Thinking about killing someone is not the same as killing someone. Thinking about it is not illegal.

Looking at pornography is not the same as having sex. In the same way, if no children are harmed in the production of the porn, it should not be illegal. Owning child porn is illegal because children were harmed in its manufacture and owners can be charged by extension.

Virtual porn is not real. It’s only thought. Do want to be arrested for what you think?

Dave:

Virtual porn is not real. It’s only thought. Do want to be arrested for what you think?

No, they want to arrest others for not thinking the same as themselves.

You, Joseph, tomd, and Wayne have all made excellent points. I hope they will be understood and listened to, but I have a feeling the response will be more “What the…????” and accusations of us being “obviously bent on this issue and not receiving what [they are] saying”.

Real or virtual it’s still child porn, and only perverts see nothing wrong with it.

Ron,

Of course it’s disgusting. But it shouldn’t be illegal. Read 1984 (again?).

So, are you libs saying that when the kids that lit up Columbine wrote about their plans on paper, there was no problem, and that was their right? That the terrorists that currently keep their bombing plans for our schools on paper or disk, that nobody is getting hurt, so it is not a crime?

Would you keep this same position if your baby daughter was raped, tortured, eventually murdered in her own blood, and the man that did it said “virtual child pornography” desensitized him to the real act?

There IS something wrong with “virtual” child porn, because of what it represents and condones.

Ron:

Riiiight. So I guess all movies, books, etc with rape in them should be banned and/or burnt too. After all, real or virtual it’s still rape and only perverts see nothing wrong with it.

By the way, out of curiosity, where would this whole idea of virtual child porn leave books such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Incidentally, this book was on my required summer reading list in High School. In it, there is at least one scene depicting several hundred naked children of both genders playing outside, and it is noted that many are involved in playing simple “sex games”. Would this count as child porn and need to be banned? Where do we draw the lines on *fictional representations* of underage sexual conduct that are acceptable and unacceptable?

I was waiting for someone to accuse those opposed to criminalizing virtual child porn as pervs. Good job, Ron. It’s good to see a reasonable discussion ruined by a baseless ad hom. Please, point out what other character flaws you suspect we have. I’m sure they will only strengthen your position.

Seriously though, is that the best you’ve got? How utterly weak. Obviously, you can’t muster a real argument so you simply resort to trying to insult the opposition.

Lisa:

So, are you libs saying that when the kids that lit up Columbine wrote about their plans on paper, there was no problem, and that was their right? That the terrorists that currently keep their bombing plans for our schools on paper or disk, that nobody is getting hurt, so it is not a crime?

Would you keep this same position if your baby daughter was raped, tortured, eventually murdered in her own blood, and the man that did it said “virtual child pornography” desensitized him to the real act?

There IS something wrong with “virtual” child porn, because of what it represents and condones.

There is a large difference between planning an act out, and representing something which may not even involve real individuals who exist. As written, the legislation does not require there to be real children matching those who are depicted in the virtual child porn to make the fictional representation illegal. If the same individual in your example had said that a violent video game had desensitized him to real violence, would you be clamoring for the banning of all fictional representations of violence? What if he blamed it on violent movies? Hell, what if he blamed it on being teased in high school, would you start criminally prosecuting those who tease their fellow students? How credible are excuses like that anyway?

As for representing something and condoning it… I think that’s a leap of logic. You could just as easily say that the representation serves as a substitute for the real thing.

So, are you libs saying that when the kids that lit up Columbine wrote about their plans on paper, there was no problem, and that was their right?

Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. I’m not a fan of conspiracy laws since they stink of thought policing but there are instances when I see it as justifiable such as conspiracy to commit murder, or conspiracy to produce child pornography even.

Well, all I know is that the ACLU does support NAMBA which is the North American Man/Boy association. If they support this wretched organization, what’s kiddie porn to them?

Greg,

The ACLU does not “support NAMBLA”
They are co-defending against a civil suit where the claimants charge that because 2 murderers possessed their magazine, they killed a boy. This would mean that anti-abortion groups whose literature a doctor murderer had read, or whose website they visited, could be sued and held responsible for the actions of the murderer.

The ACLU does lots of things that sound stupid but we’re all the better off because of them.

Would you keep this same position if your baby daughter was raped, tortured, eventually murdered in her own blood, and the man that did it said “virtual child pornography” desensitized him to the real act?

My hypothetical self would not be concerned with the hypothetical rapist’s ad hoc diagnosis of his own hypothetical motives. Hypothetical I would be more concerned with the well-being of my hypothetical daughter and justice being served upon the hypothetical perp. Like Jarandhel, I don’t buy such excuses as “Twinkies™ made me do it.” I believe in personal responsibility (unless the hypothetical perp is somehow verifiably mentally incompetent and incapable of being personally responsible whereupon I would seek justice against those hypothetical entities responsible for the hypothetical perp). I wouldn’t blame an abstract idea set to media; I would blame the people responsible for the actual crime.

Lisa-
Let me put it to you in this way: The ACLU’s doing you a favor. What good will that law do against actually offenders if it’s ruled unconstitutional because of serious legal flaws in it’s wording?

The constitution represents the highest law in the land, and since Marbury vs. Madison, the court has had the role of striking down laws with such fatal flaws as indicated here. A good law will protect your children while not conflicting with the necessary protections of the constitution.

I mean, let’s say for the sake of argument you take a nice cute picture of your kids skinnydipping in a pond over at grandmas. Do you want your ISP reporting you to the police over such an innocent photograph, even if the mistakes is cleared up? Don’t treat this question lightly. I want you to really think what it would be like for yourself to go through this, as much as you would fearfully imagined your kids being pursued by a predator.

There must be a position from which both concerns can be addressed. It may require that you allow the perverted bastards to keep on meeting and discussing their perverted fantasies, but then, they would do that any ways, and have those fantasies anyways.

The reality is, for every study that says that pornography primes and desensitizes, there’s another study that argues it does no such thing. Consider: one has to choose to view such pornography, choose to pursue such filth. I think there is a relationship between desire and the object of the desire, that people aren’t merely blank slates conditioned by their surroundings. Child Porn is wrong because it takes the innocence of the child in question. The simulated kind might be more of a question of obscenity, and what kind of simulation we’re talking about. There is a difference between teenage looking boys who are actually 24 and 22 doing a porno (legal, though you may find it distasteful) and a guy creating an obscene photoshop image of a sex act with a child.

In spelling out that image, we should protect the speech that allows a publication to describe the graphic detail of the act for research purposes (criminology and forensics), that allows artistic novels and stories dealing with an incident of that kind to portray such a tragedy, and which allow parents to communicate with children who have been abused.

We do not need a law so overly broad that one could discuss an entirely nonexistent image of child porn in a movie, and get arrested for that alone.

We don’t need laws that punish intent that never becomes behavior, although planning of certain kinds constitutes prosecutable behavior under the law. We need laws that tell sex offenders: you are safe if you do nothing, but if you so much as lay a hand on those kids, you’ll regret it. We can’t prevent people from fantasizing, or utterly root out pedophiles from the population, but we can hit them, and hit them hard with the book when they do cross the line.

Another point regarding virtual child porn:

When discussing computer-generated images that purport to be children engaging in sexual acts, so far the assumption seems to be that the only purpose of such images is to allow adults to fantasize about committing sexual acts with children. One alternative I think has been overlooked is that they can also serve as a focus for adults fantasizing about *being* the child in the image. There are adults who fantasize about themselves being younger than the age of consent and associate this with sexuality (some in truly bizarre ways, like the whole infantilism thing which really disturbs me but is clearly none of my business to try to make illegal for those who do like it.) I’m not sure the intent, or even the focus of the desires, is always as clear cut as it’s being depicted in this debate. For the sake of argument, IF the person looking at the computer generated image is fantasizing about being the child engaged in the sexual conduct, rather than molesting a child, is that a perversion that society “needs” to be protected from?

I think there’s a line that this crosses that strays easily into regular pedophilia.

Stephen:

That would seem to contradict your previous position on virtual pornography. If merely fantasizing about oneself *being* a child engaged in a sexual act crosses a line that strays easily into regular pedophilia, wouldn’t virtual pornography involving children also cross that line and lead to the act?

I agreed with your prior posts, but you seem to have suddenly taken a 180 with this latest one.

Chi Chi:

I just noticed you asked a question a while ago that deserves a reply, but doesn’t seem to have gotten one. Allow me to take a shot at it:

“If we say that NAMBLA cannot freely assemble, so long as they break no law, then we compromise that right for any unpopular group.”

I think “so long as they break no law” is key. Isn’t their assembly for the express purpose of teaching/learning how to best be a child molester criminal conspiracy? I’m no lawyer—someone help me out here.

I don’t know a lot about NAMBLA, but according to their Wikipedia page no, that isn’t the purpose of their meetings. They’re a group which advocates, among other things, the removal of age of consent laws.

NAMBLA describes itself as a “support group for intergenerational relationships,” and uses the slogan “sexual freedom for all.” According to the group’s web site, its aim is to “support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.” [3]

One of the group’s arguments is that age of consent laws can unnecessarily criminalize sexual relationships between adults and minors (particularly boys). [4] In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, proposed by Tom Reeves, which said: “(1) The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. (2) We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws.” [5] This policy was still in NAMBLA’s “official position papers” in 1996.

NAMBLA advocates a comprehensive youth rights platform of which sexual freedom is only a portion. In addition to supporting the repeal of age of consent laws, NAMBLA has also opposed corporal punishment, rape, and kidnapping, and has declared that sexual exploitation is grounds for expulsion from the group. [6]

Examining their desire to remove age of consent laws, and their stated intent to benefit minors who themselves desire older partners, there might actually be something to their arguments… most of us are familiar with the legal tangle right around the age of consent, where if you have an older partner, even just a year or a few months older, actions that were legal when you were both under 18 suddenly become illegal for you to perform when the older partner turns 18, until the younger one does as well. This has never really been a result that makes much sense, but it is the result of current age of consent laws that place a strict barrier between minors and adults, even if the two persons are very close in age. I don’t know that I would advocate eliminating them entirely, as NAMBLA does, but the mere existence of someone drawing attention to the issue by advocating their removal certainly doesn’t seem threatening to me, and I’m glad the ACLU supports their right to assemble. As Stephen Hopkins put it in the movie 1776, “Well I’ll tell ya, in all my years I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell yes! I’m for debating anything.”

All that said, if there is actual evidence that this stated public goal differs from the actual events of meetings, and they really are all about training people to molest children, that would be an entirely different matter and would not be protected speech nor supported by the ACLU. So far, I gather, there has been no hard evidence of this, only allegations and accusations of guilt by association (individual members convicted of molestation, so by extension the whole group is guilty).

I hope that answers your question, it’s pretty much the best information on it I could find.

“Thinking about killing someone is not the same as killing someone. Thinking about it is not illegal.”

“We don’t need laws that punish intent that never becomes behavior”

VERY well said guys, please pass that along to others on the left who support anti-gun laws.

Traci my love
Virtual porn is sick and disgusting and like you, I believe “most” people who create or possess it are inspired to commit acts with minors based on those images. Its common sense, especially if your a parent, who knows how special and vulnerable our children are.
But “most” does not mean “all” and punishing people for only thinking about it would be wrong.
It is so confusing with all the hypocrites out there. You CAN draw or create a picture of a little kid nude or having sex because it won’t lead to anything but you CAN’T draw a picture of a gun or bomb because that will lead to something.??? It makes no sense at all!
But BOTH are just thought crimes where the only person involved was the one who created it.

Every time I hear of an abduction, I think of what I will personally do to a person if they even TRIED to abduct my own child and with the upmost sincere thanks to the US military I can guarantee you that it will not be pretty, it will last a very long time and that I will be able to get it done.
Even though that IS what will happen and IS still too good for the sicko, it is not the lawful way.
My thinking about it, drawing it or my fantasies about it would make most people very upset and probably physically sick but I should not be punished for these thoughts or created scenario’s which are only in my head and involve nobody else.

Sacrificing rights because of what a few have done or will do is not the way we will keep ALL of our rights. The anti 2nd Amendment people prove this more and more with each passing year.

kctim:

Thank you, you make some very good points. For what it’s worth, I’m not against the second amendment, and am actually against many aspects of gun control policy. I’m pretty sure gun control laws are targeting the wrong people by criminalizing owning the gun rather than criminalizing it being used to hurt or kill someone, or commit armed robbery. I’ve come to equate ownership of a gun with ownership of a sword in older societies… in older societies, if you were someone not allowed to own a sword, and dependent on another for your protection, they had a word for you. The word was slave. To be armed and to see to one’s own defense is the right of a free man.

Jarandhel-
Why would those interested in pedophilia (the sexual love of children by adults) be interested in abolishing age of consent laws?

Sounds to me like a question that asks itself.

As for my position on virtual child porn and engaging in a fantasy sex life where one plays the role of a child, I’d say it amounts to the same thing in the end, if you take it to it’s logical conclusion: erotic pleasure derived from underage participants in a sex act. Even if that underage participant, symbolically speaking, is one’s own self.

Hi All:

Like a double-edged sword, your worst nightmare or your lovliest daydream:

I believe that as long as the ACLU is supporting causes that we feel strongly in favor of, We are all for them, cheering them on. As soon as the cause they support flips around and you no longer find yourself in favor with what they support, you will turn on them as avidly and eager roaring for their defeat. So you see, it really is double sided sword. Just as valient whether on your offensive or in your defense. I for one am Happy they there, always Ready to defend my rights as an American.

As Always,
Wayne

I am going to take a swipe at the ACLU one more time. The ACLU has never fought for me. They have an agenda that is foreign to my values.

To fully understand the damage that child porn can do whether it is virtual or otherwise, one must be able to think like a pedophile. I hope none of you are pedophiles. The pedophile has a criminal mind and does not see right and wrong the way a normal person sees it. Yes, I said normal, meaning that pedophiles are abnormal. Pedophiles are usually male. Males are sexually aroused by sight and sound and very rapidly. With only that information I conclude that child porn whether it is virtual or not should be treated as a real threat to children and prosecution of violators should be to the utmost.

Anyone purposely appearing as someone or something else is subject to the rules of conduct and law that apply to the person or group being imitated.

Yikes! So if I dress up as a gorilla for Halloween, I’m subject to the law of the jungle?

Somebody asked if this is a slippery slope issue. You tell me: child porn is illegal, now dirty doodles are going to be illegal, fireworks are outlwaed in many states, can bananas and train tunnels be far behind?

And let’s just be clear, the ACLU doesn’t support the sale of dirty doodles, just those already in the posession of an adult.

BTW, should an 11 or 12-year old be arrested for sketching a dirty picture of a classmate? I understand her art skill would be limited and she’d probably just draw a stick figure with a couple balls and a weenie, but the intent would be clear.

Tom, How do you know if a pedophile always has a criminal mind and cannot see right or wrong? Do speak from personal expirience or are you just speculating about something you know very little about and inject your own biases into your speculation?

WTF?!? (1) The ACLU is not supporting pedophilia or child pornography! Have you people not read anything posted here?
The NAMBLA freaks are being sued because the murderers of a family’s child were in possesion of NAMBLA literature. The literature in no way promotes anything to do with the crime. This is tantamount to suing Coulter because someone who owned her book killed a liberal. It sounds good to me, but it would still be wrong.

(2) kctim said: “please pass that along to others on the left who support anti-gun laws.” It is gun control laws. It’s not making owning the gun illegal it’s saying lets wait a few days to make sure a purchaser is allowed to own guns. Most NRA fanatics would rather Saddam Huessein be allowed to buy a gun first then asked later “have you been convicted of killing anyone, lately?”.

(3) Jarandhel; in our society, if you’re not allowed to own a gun, the word is “ex-felon”

(4) Tom, the ACLU defends the bill of rights. Your free speech here is in part due to defenders of those rights. Including the ACLU. I would venture you really don’t know much about them, except for the lies and mistruths spewed by the (R) pundits that is.

You CAN draw or create a picture of a little kid nude or having sex because it won’t lead to anything but you CAN’T draw a picture of a gun or bomb because that will lead to something.???

Eh? I can draw a picture of a bomb. Anyone can. Hell, I’ve drawn pictures of nukes. I’ve drawn pictures of guns, too. That’s not illegal. What would be closer to illegal is a schematic of a nuke combined with a list of materials and material vendors, a spreadsheet of costs, a timetable for construction, an architectural layout of the target, an itinerary for the attack, and a contact list of persons involved either through bribes or support.

In a case such as Columbine, it’s not that some drawings of killing fellow students would be illegal, it would be the written plans of how to execute a plan to kill the fellow students, shared and refined with other co-conspirators. Even then, it’s not so much that such material itself is illegal, per se, more than it is evidence of the actual crime: conspiracy to commit murder.

“It is gun control laws. It’s not making owning the gun illegal it’s saying lets wait a few days to make sure a purchaser is allowed to own guns.”

AND knowing exactly who owns them!
A-freaking-mazing! Ok to sacrifice and infringe on the rights you do NOT agree with but yet you wish to whine when they try it on rights you DO agree with.
Maybe we should make these pervs “register” their little sick virtual creations with the govt and then come back in 7 days, after a perv background check, and claim their innocent little doodles.

“Most NRA fanatics would rather Saddam Huessein be allowed to buy a gun first then asked later “have you been convicted of killing anyone, lately?”

First, the NRA is a worthless org.
Second, your saddam reference is just the other side of the coin.
Would you rather Jeffrey Dahmer be allowed to create child porn first then asked later, “have you been convicted of raping and eating any kids lately?”
The case against gun ownership isn’t even about thought crimes, its a “may happen” crime.
You don’t want one punished for a thought crime against the most vulnerable among us but yet you want to punish people for what “may” occur at some point in the future? Didn’t you guys make fun of Nancy because she used a psychic?
Talk about totally disregarding the individual rights of others.

“Tom, the ACLU defends the bill of rights”

The AAclu defends parts of the Bill of Rights that IT agrees with.

But, if you will look into your crystal ball and give me next week’s lottery numbers, I will gladly take back what I just said:)

Joseph:

Then isn’t drawing children in sexual acts the crime? It’s not the drawing of the naked child, it’s the drawing of a child performing sexual acts that makes it a crime?

If you use your take on the Columbine incident, then drawing children acutally PERFORMING the sexual act WOULD be a crime, because it shows the conspiracy to commit the act, on a medium.

So, theoretically, a drawing or picture of a naked child should not be the crime, it would be if the child, real or virtual was being depicted in a sexual manner.

Just like drawing a gun or a bomb isn’t a crime, it’s the act of how they are using it and showing intent that is.

Sounds the same to me…

AP,

“Anyone purposely appearing as someone or something else is subject to the rules of conduct and law that apply to the person or group being imitated.”

“Yikes! So if I dress up as a gorilla for Halloween, I’m subject to the law of the jungle?”

Very clever response, I even snickered myself. I think my reason for being amused was twofold, 1) because you know full well that I was referencing the child porn issue in response to someone who said that young adults can dress as children for child porn purposes and, 2)it is once again distorted and used to grossly downplay and humorize a serious issue in advancing your theory that everyone, everywhere should have the right to do anything they want irrespective of it’s harmful and/or moral agenda.

Darling kctim~

It’s about time you showed up on this here thread!!!HAHA
I know, I know, I know, I’m not into “bans” either, I just get way to emotional about young children!
Maybe if everyone started off w/ “This is clearly “morally” wrong”, and then moved on to the legal aspect it wouldn’t feel so much as they were defending the act itself!

kctim, Sorry, the following arguments are rhetorical and vacuous:
- “AND knowing exactly who owns them!” is completely irrelevent (e.g. the law could require destruction of records after approval for purchase). If you’re worried about gov’t intrusion have you read the Patriot Act? I venture you support it.
- Comparing gun ownership to porno doodles by Jeffrey Dahmer? And that has to do with what and makes sense how?
- “The case against gun ownership isn’t even about thought crimes, its a “may happen” crime.” What’s this about “ownership” again? It’s not against ownership, it’s about keeping psychos and criminals who are legally banned from buying guns from legally buying guns. It’s an impediment to crime, not punishment or cure.

Additionally,
- The ACLU defends all of the bill of rights, not just the part YOU agree with.
- You want a crystal ball? Go call the 900 numbers, I deal with reality.

I would agree that the abuse and manipulation of children is repugnent in all it’s forms. It’s just that not all of its forms can be illegal, specifically when it does not involve actual children.
It is easy to forget that morality is relative. It’s easy to ignore that community standards vary by community. It’s a truth that you can’t legislate morality, just look at Iran and the Taliban for wonderful examples.

You don’t want one punished for a thought crime against the most vulnerable among us but yet you want to punish people for what “may” occur at some point in the future?

kctim, you sound as if you think giving guns to criminals and insane people is a good idea.

advancing your theory that everyone, everywhere should have the right to do anything they want irrespective of it’s harmful and/or moral agenda.

steve, you’re just making stuff up again. I never said or implied anything like that.

AP,

Yep, everything that cannot be directly read and the text interpreted as meaning precisely what it says is “making stuff up”.

I was using an example, grossly exaggerated to demonstrate my impression of those who are passionate advocates of what I consider an over-permissive outlook on a variety of issues.

Would you consider this quote by you in response to a point I made in a previous post as a sensible interpretation of the spirit of the point I was making.

“Yikes! So if I dress up as a gorilla for Halloween, I’m subject to the law of the jungle?”

You make some very good points in your posts. IMO where you come up short is that you are much to quick to demean, belittle and make ridiculous quips to dismiss a counterpoint without having to directly respond.

I was using an example, grossly exaggerated to demonstrate my impression of those who are passionate advocates of what I consider an over-permissive outlook on a variety of issues.

If that’s what you want to do, fine. Just don’t attribute it to me.

Would you consider this quote by you in response to a point I made in a previous post as a sensible interpretation of the spirit of the point I was making.

I’m not a mind reader, steve. I was responding to what you wrote. Frankly, I thought it was pretty silly, so I’m glad it’s not what you really meant.

If you use your take on the Columbine incident, then drawing children acutally PERFORMING the sexual act WOULD be a crime, because it shows the conspiracy to commit the act, on a medium.

Just like drawing a gun or a bomb isn’t a crime, it’s the act of how they are using it and showing intent that is.

The drawings in all these cases do not inherently prove any intent. Possession of a drawing of a child in a sex act does not in any way prove intent to molest a child. Posession of a drawing of a gun does not prove intent to shoot someone. Possession of a drawing of a bomb does not prove intent to blow anything up. This is why I said “combined” with the other evidence listed in the case of the nuke schematic.

kctim, you sound as if you think giving guns to criminals and insane people is a good idea.

I’m really interested in your response to this because I suspect you favor gun control in some form or another, but I gotta sign off and I’ll be on a plane back to the States for the next couple days. I’ll catch up then.

kctim, Sorry, the following arguments are rhetorical and vacuous:
- “AND knowing exactly who owns them!” is completely irrelevent (e.g. the law could require destruction of records after approval for purchase). If you’re worried about gov’t intrusion have you read the Patriot Act? I venture you support it.

Yeah yeah yeah. The law could also require destruction of the records after approval of the doodles. This is nothing but tit for tat. You either agree that thought crimes are wrong for all issues or you are a hypocrite. It really is that simple.
Patriot Act? support?- actually, we are on number two right now with more to come.
Dude, I read infowars.com religiously. Check it out and then start to venture on whether I support the Patriot Acts or not.

- Comparing gun ownership to porno doodles by Jeffrey Dahmer? And that has to do with what and makes sense how?

Infringing on peoples rights to own a gun because they “may” use it to commit a crime is no different than infringing on the rights of sickos because their doodles “may” cause them to commit a crime against a child.
While JD thought about doing the things he did for a long time before he started, he was not punished for it until he started acting on it.

- “The case against gun ownership isn’t even about thought crimes, its a “may happen” crime.” What’s this about “ownership” again? It’s not against ownership, it’s about keeping psychos and criminals who are legally banned from buying guns from legally buying guns. It’s an impediment to crime, not punishment or cure.

Bull ka rap. Criminals are the ONLY ones who are NOT detered by this type of thinking.
This very logic you use supports the idea that ALL people, even the innocent majority, must loose their individual rights because of what a few psychos or criminals do.
Now if you think we should monitor what the psychos and criminals draw, create, fantasize about or look at, basically monitor what they are “thinking,” then you are at least being consistent. But how you determine who is psycho beats me.

Additionally,
- The ACLU defends all of the bill of rights, not just the part YOU agree with.

Thats the problem Dave. I agree with “everything” in the BOR!
I don’t argue that the AAclu doesnt defend some rights and I dont complain when they defend rights.
I argue that they re-interput things to support their agenda and that they DO NOT support the BOR as a whole.

- You want a crystal ball? Go call the 900 numbers, I deal with reality.

I’m not sure which dimension your reality is based in but I would love to be there. AH, Utopia. LOL!
But seriously, that was GREAT, I love when others try to state their case and still have a sense of humor. Thanks.

PS
Cant use the 900 numbers anymore. For some reason there is always a pretty hot sounding lady on the other end and it always ends up costing me alot of money. Ms. Warwick has a pretty dirty mind:)

“Then isn’t drawing children in sexual acts the crime? It’s not the drawing of the naked child, it’s the drawing of a child performing sexual acts that makes it a crime?

If you use your take on the Columbine incident, then drawing children acutally PERFORMING the sexual act WOULD be a crime, because it shows the conspiracy to commit the act, on a medium.

So, theoretically, a drawing or picture of a naked child should not be the crime, it would be if the child, real or virtual was being depicted in a sexual manner.

Just like drawing a gun or a bomb isn’t a crime, it’s the act of how they are using it and showing intent that is.

Sounds the same to me…”

8^O
I honestly can’t believe this thread! It has reached heights of ridiculousness that my reasoning brain cannot fathom.
We are now to lock up people for drawing pictures?!!!
Yes, why don’t we lock up every teenage boy in America — they draw pictures of kids having sex, humans having sex, animals having sex, monsters having sex, robots having sex, aliens having sex, you-name-it having sex…!

Get real and try to use your brains people — pedophile sickos are an enormous danger to our society, but there is also danger to society when people start talking this illogically.
Watch your kids like a hawk. Teach them to be extremely wary of adult strangers who try to befriend them — especially if they aren’t good friends of your families. Demand tough laws that get these creeps be locked up for life, rather than allowing them to be released back into society, or even insist that they be castrated.
But for godsakes, it is nothing but utter crazytalk to suggest we should incarcerate people who haven’t actually committed a crime!
You do see this, yes?
If not, then the age of the American Thought Police has indeed arrived.

Dave
Child porn is the issue here not the ACLU. But I could give you a history lesson on the ACLU.

Adrienne~

“especially if they aren’t good friends of your families”

not a big deal, I just wanted to point out that most of these sex crimes, occur w/ relatives and “friends of the family”! The minority of these crimes occur by strangers, that’s why it’s harder to detect! I know because I was a victim of molestation and their “power” comes from telling you that no one will believe you! A “stranger” would have been easier to deal w/!

AP,

I have been overly sensitive in a few posts to you and in reading back through possibly have made them a bit too personal.

Back to normal now. (insert little smiling guy I don;t know how to do it)

tom; Not required. But if you can’t stop, please no neocon pundrity (especially the worldnetdaily ilk), and keep to the last 30 years or so. You need to go back to last night in this thread to see the ACLU kick off.
kctim; Please take off the blinders for a minute and listen:
I am talking about gun control not gun banning. I’m not talking about what people may do I’m talking about making people wait before taking delivery so that we can check they are not criminals. It has nothing to do with tracking who owns guns. Do you think there should be no permitting required so anyone can own guns?
As far as the ACLU and the Bill of Rights, they would be first in line to defend your right to speak your mind, wether they agree with you or not. Are you unwilling to do the same for them?
I checked that infowars site, do you really believe that ‘stuff’?

Traci:
“I just wanted to point out that most of these sex crimes, occur w/ relatives and “friends of the family”! The minority of these crimes occur by strangers, that’s why it’s harder to detect! I know because I was a victim of molestation and their “power” comes from telling you that no one will believe you! A “stranger” would have been easier to deal w/!”

I’m sorry that happened to you, Traci, that’s really terrible. Perhaps I should have simply said people who parents absolutely KNOW they can trust with their children. Hard to do, yes, but sometimes possible if you’ve known someone for many, many years. Also, it might be a good idea for parents to let their kids know that they are always free to talk about anything that upsets them.

Adrienne~

It’s really not something I dwell on