The particular CSAM I am talking about features legal actors. That is ZERO children. Such content is legal in the US - so asking you why you deem it abhorrent is a valid question. I think it is abhorrent - but plenty do not.
To be fair, I don't think Poem is watching a lot of porn. His argument doesn't require it, and a lot of his arguments suggest an unfamiliarity with the genre, its fans, and its distribution.
Citation?
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 2002.
Fair enough. Some depictions of children engaged in sex are legal in the US, if adult actors are used. Actually I think some such depictions might be legal even if child actors are used. The issue in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition was that the laws at the time were overbroad, also criminalizing things like Romeo and Juliet, and medical texts. I seem to recall we've been over this before, and that you don't have a problem with overbroad laws.
I'm guessing you haven't thought it through. Because if you actually have just have escalation as the reason to object to child porn... OMG, that's such a nonce stance...
The debate with Darat is about 18+ actors. You must have missed that bit.
Yeah, I wasn't clear. I meant in the generic "you". One doesn't owe someone making the positive claim to do the research and prove it for them. But yeah I could have phrased it a lot better.
Just for clarity, can you give an example of the particular child sexual abuse material featuring legal actors, that you are talking about? I don't want to re-run the discussion of "barely legal", if that's all you mean.
Was it? Because the last few pages have been about an article about people having images involving actual children, some as young as 7 years old. I don't think many 18+ people can actually pass for a 7 year old.
It would be a re-run.
You have just described it as CSAM - I find CSAM abhorrent, again if you don't understand why CSAM is abhorrent I really have no way to communicate with you - that you don't find CSAM to be abhorrent is very concerning to me.
Both are being discussed separately.
It is in the UK.
It's abhorrent because it can and does lead folk down the rabbit hole to CSAM (the sort that actually involves minors).
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But some of us find it icky as is, not for some slippery slope.
I stated that I don't find CSAM to be abhorrent where?
And it has not been shown there is a slippery slope.You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But some of us find it icky as is, not for some slippery slope.
Plus, as Darat already said, you were talking about CSAM, in your own question. How was I supposed to know that it means "but not really CSAM"?
You keep asking me why I find CSAM abhorrent - I was assuming therefore that it was not a reaction you share in. Again you are asking me why I find CSAM abhorrent, why are you doing that if you also find it abhorrent? You should be able to answer your own question.
Were you ever able to acknowledge that it's clear from legally published, legally rated porn films on DVD in the UK that sixth form school costumes and talk of naughty students and teachers do not, legally speaking, create the predominant impression that the persons shown are children, which is the letter of the law in the UK?
There is a huge market for this legal age / underage simulation type material. Countries like the US are major producers of it. They don't find it icky. Lots of money being made off of it right now.
That too.