Speaker: Won't Someone Please Not Think of the Children?
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
But neither the US and New Zealand gives text an absolute exemption, although Emma seems to be arguing that it should.
Ah, the taste of words being pushed into my mouth.
Sorry, I drew an inference, but was trying to avoid imputing opinions to you that you do not actually hold.
- there is a harm difference between text porn, and photographic or filmic porn, both in production and in accidental viewing, and
I quite agree there is a difference, but it is a difference of degree, rather than one of kind. Consequently, I have no a priori concerns about the idea of text based obscenity being prosecuted. The level at which any such prosecution would seem justified is certainly high, but this woman's ouvre (as you described it) is such that I do feel no discomfort about it in her case.
- it is not possible to effectively police net porn.
Well, in this case, it apparently was.
Richard, can I ask you a couple of questions? Do you think that sending this woman to prison is just?
Given the pitiful number of people who actually signed up, prison may indeed be overdoing it... But a spot of googling reveals that she apparently has a plea bargain, and will probably be sentenced to home detention. (Which, if I can say this without being unkind, has the whiff of the briar patch about it for a reclusive agoraphobe). And the same googling reveals that this will set no actual precedent, and it certainly does sound as if she had the misfortune to run into an exceptionally and perhaps excessively zealous federal prosecutor.
And what would have to get banned for it to bother you, where's your line?
I guess I'll know it when I see it. But material that involves sexual violence towards children is certainly on the wrong side of it.
-
I quite agree there is a difference, but it is a difference of degree, rather than one of kind.
Seriously? Wow. You don't see any difference in kind between writing a fictional story that involves child abuse, even if the depiction of it is entirely negative, and actually abusing a child in order to get pictures of that abuse to distribute?
-
__I quite agree there is a difference, but it is a difference of degree, rather than one of kind.__
Seriously? Wow. You don't see any difference in kind between writing a fictional story that involves child abuse, even if the depiction of it is entirely negative, and actually abusing a child in order to get pictures of that abuse to distribute?
This is not the question you asked. Yes, anything whose production necessarily involves the actual abuse of actual children is clearly in a different category. But you question did not make that distinction. Talk about words in mouth.
-
Joe, security stopped you on campus?
Back in February, I was collecting an interloan. A goon I'd never seen before. From his gloating manner he seemed convinced he had a live one. I felt I was entitled to know just what it was about me that lead him to pick on me.
"I've got the right to question anyone," he huffed.I believe this kind of low-key thuggery is pretty much an extension of the Sharp & Strongman vision for UC. Since that incident I'm outside the tent pissing in.
Anyway, excuse me, back to topic.
-
Sorry, let's see if we can start again on that one. When I said:
there is a harm difference between text porn, and photographic or filmic porn, both in production and in accidental viewing
by 'in production', I meant the process you have to go through to get your end product, your photograph or your piece of writing. I apologise if that wasn't clear.
-
So, if we have a big problem and limited resources, would it be acceptable to decide to devote your energies to the higher-harm end of the problem? Genuinely asking here. Because I get the feeling Fletcher was raided on the basis of 'ease of target' rather than 'degree of harm' - which I guess is another way to deal with the problem, to chase after people you think you can nail.
Yes, that may form part of the consideration. Or they may just being lazy and looking to improve their prosecution record for 'child sexual offenders' so they can run for an AG post or something.
-
In Canada it's still illegal to own or distribute a crime comic.
but they seem so civilised in their approach to seqential art:
[a bit of an aside from the topic at hand, since it relates to printed works]
In a thoughtful letter from the agency, dated 27 October 2006, the CBSA stated that the “depictions and descriptions are integral to the development of an intricate, imaginative, and artfully rendered storyline,” and that “the portrayal of sex is necessary to a wider artistic and literary purpose.” They concluded with “Its importation into Canada is therefore allowed.”
It was those pesky australians who confiscated issues of From Hell [fyi, as with all uncle Alan Moore adaptations thus far; book far far better than film]:
i fear i am wandering too far off subject here.
-
One should remember that the vast majority of child abuse involves relatives and has nothing to do with the internet or pornography. Not to mention that the problem seems to be worse in places where there is very little connectivity - Pitcairn, for instance.
-
Yes, that may form part of the consideration. Or they may just being lazy and looking to improve their prosecution record for 'child sexual offenders' so they can run for an AG post or something.
The way "sexual offending" is defined, pursued and prosecuted in America can verge on the obscene in and of itself.
Male teenagers put on life-wrecking public sex offender rosters for having sex with girls their own age, but under the local age of consent (which can be 18); the friend of a friend put on such a roster for taking a piss down an alley next to a small-town bar late at night. Karen Fetcher will be put on one of those rosters too.
-
having sex with girls their own age, but under the local age of consent (which can be 18)
When we were setting up Erotica, we looked for things we could just blanket ban. The first thing we tried was kiddy porn - which involved defining what a child was. Someone under the age of consent? Okay, is that sixteen, eighteen, thirteen? Even if you only took the US into account, which wasn't something we wanted to do, it varied hugely from state to state and sometimes for what kind of act it was - bless the convoluted engineering of laws so you can continue to discriminate against gay people.
And we have historical boards too. We had a woman object to a Classical Roman man in his twenties considering a fifteen year old male a legitimate sexual partner.
-
It probably was a RB listener column- I remember him talking about the America of the free and brave offering the internet to the poor Chinese, only to censor words like pron as s, etc...
so this meant no access to embassy sites or anything of that nature...
-
Male teenagers put on life-wrecking public sex offender rosters for having sex with girls their own age.
Then again, in the great states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C it's an act of "sodomy" to perform oral sex on anyone, regardless of the age or genders of either participant. In Georgia, eating out in the downstairs parlour carries a penalty of not less than one year in prison.
Oddly enough, you're exceedingly unlikely to be prosecuted and find yourself on a sex-offender register if the person you're going down on doesn't have the same genital configuration as you... but all the same.
-
Ahhh Craig. So well informed on those so important facts.
Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam
As they say (italics are just so Italic, doncha think?) -
Ahhh Craig. So well informed on those so important facts.
Well, yeah, Steve. I guess I'm just one of those cranks who don't actually think anyone should be facing a prison sentence for fellating a consenting adult in the privacy of his own home, or convicted of "aggravated child molestation" and sentenced to a mandatory ten years in prison, for an act that would have been a misdemeanor, punishable up to 12-months, with no sex offender status, if no oral sex was involved.
And, yes, Steve I actually do take an interest because I'm not damn complacent about the fact that I've actually got it pretty sweet as an openly gay man who rather enjoys the occasional blow job.
-
Man, the search ratings for this thread are going to go through the roof now.
-
Assuming that emotional maturity of the teenagers, is the main rational behind the law.
Rather than tilting the playing field in favour of the boys, you mean?
It's entirely by the by, but when I moved to New Zealand my partner and I had to prove that we were in a lasting relationship to achieve de facto status, and in those days (1997) you had to have been together for two years if heterosexual, four years if homosexual. It was still plenty more enlightened than most other nations - back in the old country, you could live together with another guy or gal for one thousand years and at most you could hope to achieve the legal status of "pretty good friends" - but it seemed a somewhat callous distinction. Then again, I'm pretty sure it's two years across the board now.
-
Then factor in the growing trend for criminal record checks for many jobs. You want a job working with children or vulnerable adults in the UK and you've been investigated (not even charged or convicted) by the Police or the like for an offence like listed in the OP and you may not even get past the check and there isn't much you can do about it. No idea if that is the same in NZ though
-
And, Steve, may I add that I'm deeply ambivalent about the value of sex-offender registers, but if we're going to have them there I sure hope they won't be used as a cheap stunt to prove that the Gummint is "tough on crime", no matter the consequences.
To take an example RB pointed out, I regard public urination as offensive on multiple levels. But on a par with rape and child abuse? An offence so dire you're required to notify Police if you move house, get a new job or travel? Come on...
And considering that Annette King was rather keen on ASBOs for a bit, you'll excuse me if I don't accept that a domestic version of Megan's Law can't happen here.
-
Craig. It is far too early for me to discuss this in depth, I think my head is full of socks or something, don't you ever sleep?
I do not disagree with you at all. I think people should be allowed to do all kinds of things that I wouldn't want to as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses.
In a country that glorifies violent behaviour (Rugby) I find it more than a little disingenuous to prohibit one from sucking a little dick occasionally. -
I would add for Craig's benefit that the US Supreme Court has reversed itself, and has effectively struck down laws regarding private, consensual behavior between adults.
-
Man, the search ratings for this thread are going to go through the roof now.
It's like Craig just got 100 random people to put money in a coin slot for Russell's benefit :)
-
It's like Craig just got 100 random people to put money in a coin slot for Russell's benefit :)
Well, Russell did say his 'looking for porn' hits had dropped off lately. I'd link, but it's somewhere on the Thread That Ate Tokyo.
-
the Thread That Ate Tokyo
first Godzilla, now PAS!?
what did we do to deserve this?
we're just trying to get through this stinking hot summer in one piece... -
I tried entering Craig into the Google engine. That didn't quite do it. However, the word blowjob did
I'd like to be surprised by that - and I think Craig doesn't need 100 volunteers, bless im. It's an interesting business model all right.
-
It's a bit late, but those who think that censorship is ok because it's only directed at yucky porn and the like should look at this Grauniad article.
The UK police are using an activist movie's lack of a certificate to prevent its being shown in pubs, cafes and cinemas.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.