• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

Poem said:
US LENS.
HOW MANY MORE TIMES?
Click to expand...
Any other western country lens. How many more times? Either it's legal or it's not. If it's "barely legal" for anything, from drinking to DWI limits to driving age to whatever, then it's legal. Anything almost legal is illegal. There's a difference.

Just flailing and postulating it one more time won't make it magically true. We're not in The Hunting Of The Snark, and you're not the Bellman :P
 
HansMustermann said:
Any other western country lens. How many more times? Either it's legal or it's not. If it's "barely legal" for anything, from drinking to DWI limits to driving age to whatever, then it's legal. Anything almost legal is illegal. There's a difference.

Just flailing and postulating it one more time won't make it magically true. We're not in The Hunting Of The Snark, and you're not the Bellman :P
Click to expand...
I have quoted laws from countries that are strict about content that appears underage. No reference to the phrase 'barely legal' is necessary. Since barely legal is an Americanism and is used in the context of US law where appearing underage is legal (with no minimum age I might add), then the term is misleading.

I hope that clears that up.
 
Poem said:
I have quoted laws from countries that are strict about content that appears underage. No reference to the phrase 'barely legal' is necessary. Since barely legal is an Americanism and is used in the context of US law where appearing underage is legal (with no minimum age I might add), then the term is misleading.

I hope that clears that up.
Click to expand...
And yet, again, if that were so simple (except in your delusional mind,) then someone would have brought it to a court and had it ruled illegal. CS never even tried. Presumably because, no, having pigtails and wearing braces doesn't actually pass the muster for necessarily being a child.

I hope that clears that up. It won't, but I hope anyway :P
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
And yet, again, if that were so simple (except in your delusional mind,) then someone would have brought it to a court and had it ruled illegal.
Click to expand...
Who says it's simple?
Content on DVD and Blu ray is subject to restriction in the UK. Internet porn is another matter however.
HansMustermann said:
CS never even tried.
Click to expand...
CS?
HansMustermann said:
Presumably because, no, having pigtails and wearing braces doesn't actually pass the muster for necessarily being a child.
Click to expand...
As I said, there is ZERO TOLERANCE in Australia.
HansMustermann said:
I hope that clears that up. It won't, but I hope anyway :P
Click to expand...
It proves you haven't fully researched your post.
 
Poem said:
CS?
Click to expand...
Collective Shout, whose BS you quoted.

Poem said:
As I said, there is ZERO TOLERANCE in Australia.
Click to expand...
Zero tolerance still means you have to be shown to have actually broken the law. It doesn't mean you're automatically guilty if a few deranged loons on the Internet said so :P

I'm sure Australia isn't the Soviet Union :P
 
Last edited:
Joe Random said:
"Traffic to the airport was so heavy I barely made my flight."

Am I on the plane or not? The answer is not specific to the USofA.
Click to expand...
False analogy. Content that is described as 'barely illegal' in the US (and indeed always legal in the US) is illegal in Australia (zero tolerance remember). No mention of the phrase 'barely legal' need be made from Australia's perspective. It is just CSAM. End of.
 
Poem said:
False analogy. Content that is described as 'barely illegal' in the US (and indeed always legal in the US) is illegal in Australia (zero tolerance remember). No mention of the phrase 'barely legal' need be made from Australia's perspective. It is just CSAM. End of.
Click to expand...
Is it? And yet nobody ever got a court to convict anyone of possessing "barely legal" material. It's almost as if it weren't as illegal to have pigtails and braces as you or your AI hallucinate. Go figure :P

And AGAIN, "zero tolerance" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It still means you have to be convicted first, not that some internet lunatic said so.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Collective Shout, whose BS you quoted.


Zero tolerance still means you have to be shown to have actually broken the law. It doesn't mean you're automatically guilty if a few deranged loons on the Internet said so :P

I'm sure Australia isn't the Soviet Union :P
Click to expand...
We are back to examples from that Beyond Fantasy: Barely Legal film. Are you saying some of those girls don't look 14...or even 12?
 
Poem said:
We are back to examples from that Beyond Fantasy: Barely Legal film. Are you saying some of those girls don't look 14...or even 12?
Click to expand...
Looking young isn't the same as being or portraying children. I've had classmates who looked much younger, and classmates who looked older. If we judged age by looks, one of my classmates wouldn't have been allowed to marry or even drive until her late 30's.
 
HansMustermann said:
Looking young isn't the same as being or portraying children. I've had classmates who looked much younger, and classmates who looked older. If we judged age by looks, one of my classmates wouldn't have been allowed to marry or even drive until her late 30's.
Click to expand...
The countries who still have a modicum of integrity left aren't interested in such cavilling. If they look underage and they are deliberately attempting to appear so then it's illegal.

The content in that Beyond Fantasy video will be available on mainstream sites; US citizens know that it is perfectly legal to upload it and perfectly legal to watch it.
 
Poem said:
False analogy. Content that is described as 'barely illegal' in the US (and indeed always legal in the US) is illegal in Australia (zero tolerance remember). No mention of the phrase 'barely legal' need be made from Australia's perspective. It is just CSAM. End of.
Click to expand...
How is legal age performers portraying legal age characters doing legal things "just CSAM. End of" in Australia?

Can you show the law? Can you show a case where someone was found guilty of producing such content, by an Australian court?
 
Poem said:
Well that is absolutely incorrect. This has been dealt with before (Ashcroft v. FSC).
Click to expand...
If it's legal, then why aren't pornographers doing it? They're usually johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to legal loopholes for distributing pornography. I think you must be misinterpreting Aschcroft v. FSC in this context.
 
theprestige said:
If it's legal, then why aren't pornographers doing it? They're usually johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to legal loopholes for distributing pornography. I think you must be misinterpreting Aschcroft v. FSC in this context.
Click to expand...
What do you mean, 'why aren't they doing it'? Are you trying to gaslight me? What are you suggesting, that that Beyond Fantasy: Barely Legal is totally fake? - that the named porn actors/actresses don't exist nor the producers?

I have quoted laws and provided evidence. What have you got? A newspaper article saying otherwise?
What have you got theprestige?
 
Poem said:
What do you mean, 'why aren't they doing it'? Are you trying to gaslight me? What are you suggesting, that that Beyond Fantasy: Barely Legal is totally fake? - that the named porn actors/actresses don't exist nor the producers?

I have quoted laws and provided evidence. What have you got? A newspaper article saying otherwise?
What have you got theprestige?
Click to expand...
Where's the Australian court cases, finding such content illegal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom