• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ok so how strong is your commitment to free speech

I started a thread on this a while ago, as I believe someone was trading pornographic images of children (Computer generated) of children on the game Second Life.

If there are any strong stats on people moving on from computer generated child porn to real child porn, I may be tempted to support such a law, but at the moment I have the feeling this is more a moral decision rather than an urgent decision to curb the rape or supported rape of a young child.

If a man enjoys masturbating to an computer generated image of a father sodomising a young child, I find that quite disgusting, but that is just me. If this hypothetical man (Or woman indeed) finds it pleasurable, then why the hell not?

I saw a picture of Homer shagging Bart a while ago, I thought it was pretty funny, and I obviously didnt derive any sexual pleasure from it, but outlawing something like that is ridiculous.

I am still waiting as well, after years and years of anti-peado media attacks, to find one scientific experiment to show that peadophilia is anything other than a sexual preference, and none has come up. Many experiments have proven that it is very resistant to change, just like any other sexual preference. And numerous scientists, including ones who have carried out tests, want it to be taken off the medical register as a disease, just like homosexuality was. I have a strong adversion to a man interfering with a childs latency period, but if he goes home and masterbates with that child in mind, why should we call him an evil person? He gets pleasure from it, that simple.

This kind of baseless charge,
home office said:
inappropriate feelings towards children
Click to expand...
is something I think it pretty ****ing wrong in a free society.
 
Last edited:
Free speech?

Showing pictures of children being abused is free speech? I have no problem with porn, because as an adult, it is YOUR right to do whatever the hell you want. But child abuse? I would certainly advocate AND support a law that BANS it.
 
It's a tough one I agree. I actively campaigned in California for a bill that would outlaw the possession of child pornography. The ACLU fought for it, BTW. I'm generally with the ACLU.

You would have to demonstrate with objective data that it is likely to cause some degree of harm. Absent that I have to reluctantly support it.
 
No victim = no crime, in my opinion. If some sicko wants to fantasize about doing this kind of thing, and write it down for another sicko to join in the fantasy, I really can't say it's a crime. If, however, he encourages criminal behavior, then it should be a crime.
 
thaiboxerken said:
No victim = no crime, in my opinion. If some sicko wants to fantasize about doing this kind of thing, and write it down for another sicko to join in the fantasy, I really can't say it's a crime. If, however, he encourages criminal behavior, then it should be a crime.
Click to expand...

Fantasizing about it is WAY different than actually having children preform sick acts....or physically abusing them.

I don't really give a hoot if someone wants to write about sick, degenerate stuff. But I WILL NOT support child abuse.
 
Azure said:
Free speech?

Showing pictures of children being abused is free speech?
Click to expand...

That isn't what the bill is about that. Is about carton images not based on real events.
 
Azure said:
Fantasizing about it is WAY different than actually having children preform sick acts....or physically abusing them.

I don't really give a hoot if someone wants to write about sick, degenerate stuff. But I WILL NOT support child abuse.
Click to expand...

Didn't I just say that?
 
Azure said:
Free speech?

Showing pictures of children being abused is free speech? I have no problem with porn, because as an adult, it is YOUR right to do whatever the hell you want. But child abuse? I would certainly advocate AND support a law that BANS it.
Click to expand...

The law does not have anything to do with children being abused. It doesn't even have anything to do with photos of children being abused. It's about the non-photographic depiction of child abuse.

Myself, I don't really have a problem one way or another with such laws. If no children are actually being hurt I don't have a problem with people having sick fetishes. On the other hand these sorts of fetishes can move to action if the virtual stimulation isn't enough so I'd have no problem with a law outlawing it either.
 
geni said:
The home office is carrying out a consulation on "the possession of non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse"

Obviously with the intent to outlaw such images.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse

So would you actively oppose such a law?
Click to expand...
This article and thread bring to mind a different question:

How strong is your commitment to kiddie porn? That appears to be the question to ask of the proponents, though it is as imprecise and misleading as your opener.

I appreciate the significance of emulation/cartoon/non photographic CGI as the vehicle, but isn't there at least a modest argument against this move, with its root being the thin end of the wedge and desensitization?

I won't try to make it, since I am not from the UK and don't feel I have a dog in this fight, but I think an opponent might take a similar view to violence and sex and smoking and all that other rot in movies. It would point to the CGI approach as desensitizing. Once the CGI gets almost life like, may lead to the next step of

"You can't tell what is photo and what isn't, so why ban any of it?" No, that is not a particuarly stout line of opposition.

I realize that is slippery slope, and that the key distinction is the presense of real child "actors/victims" being exploited versus video creations, cartoons that amount to Fritz the Kitten gone CGI.

What is the likelihood that an objection of that style, or angle, will succeed in opposition to the pro side?

DR
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
The law does not have anything to do with children being abused. It doesn't even have anything to do with photos of children being abused. It's about the non-photographic depiction of child abuse.

Myself, I don't really have a problem one way or another with such laws. If no children are actually being hurt I don't have a problem with people having sick fetishes. On the other hand these sorts of fetishes can move to action if the virtual stimulation isn't enough so I'd have no problem with a law outlawing it either.
Click to expand...


Evidence please. The only study I have heard of linking porn to sexual assault was the one that showed availibility of porn had a negative link. If that carries over to child porn, more depictions equals less actual child molestation.

There's thems that thinks about it, there's thems what do it. While not mutually exclusive, I'd like to see some better linkage before stuff like cartoons are illegalised. Hey, EVERY child molester eats potatos, should we criminalise possession of tubers?
 
Darth Rotor said:
This article and thread bring to mind a different question:

How strong is your commitment to kiddie porn? That appears to be the question to ask of the proponents, though it is as imprecise and misleading as your opener.

I appreciate the significance of emulation/cartoon/non photographic CGI as the vehicle, but isn't there at least a modest argument against this move, with its root being the thin end of the wedge and desensitization?

I won't try to make it, since I am not from the UK and don't feel I have a dog in this fight, but I think an opponent might take a similar view to violence and sex and smoking and all that other rot in movies. It would point to the CGI approach as desensitizing. Once the CGI gets almost life like, may lead to the next step of

"You can't tell what is photo and what isn't, so why ban any of it?" No, that is not a particuarly stout line of opposition.

I realize that is slippery slope, and that the key distinction is the presense of real child "actors/victims" being exploited versus video creations, cartoons that amount to Fritz the Kitten gone CGI.

What is the likelihood that an objection of that style, or angle, will succeed in opposition to the pro side?

DR
Click to expand...
I don't think that there is any objective evidence that there is any statistically significant likelihood of harm. I would have to ask of those who would make such an argument to supply the evidence.

Bear in mind the same kinds of arguments about adult pornography are being made to this day.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
If there are any strong stats on people moving on from computer generated child porn to real child porn, I may be tempted to support such a law, but at the moment I have the feeling this is more a moral decision rather than an urgent decision to curb the rape or supported rape of a young child.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting idea. Lets just say 30% of people who look at computer generated child pron move on to looking at real child porn. Would that be enough to make it illegal? How about 90%?

Sounds like thoughtcrime to me. Hope your crimestop reflexes are in good working order.

LLH
 
you can have non-photographic depiction of real child abuse. But, yeah, if it's not real, then who cares.
 
geni said:
That isn't what the bill is about that. Is about carton images not based on real events.
Click to expand...
And furthermore, its not about using free speech to show the pictures to others. Its about the possession of such pictures, be they made by the possessor himself or by someone else.

I feel safe myself about this particular law, but its a scary thought that governements should set up laws against products of fantasy that people just happens to possess. When that barrier is broken, whats next?
 
Last edited:
If this passes, then all those fans of child-sex hentai will be pissed.
 
casebro said:
Evidence please. The only study I have heard of linking porn to sexual assault was the one that showed availibility of porn had a negative link. If that carries over to child porn, more depictions equals less actual child molestation.
Click to expand...

Child abuse is different from adult on adult sexual assault. But I don't have any studies at this time and am not going to start plugging searches into Google and PubMed while I'm at work. I'll see what I can dig up at home or I'll retract that sentence fragment.

casebro said:
There's thems that thinks about it, there's thems what do it. While not mutually exclusive, I'd like to see some better linkage before stuff like cartoons are illegalised. Hey, EVERY child molester eats potatos, should we criminalise possession of tubers?
Click to expand...

Straw man. Note
On the other hand these sorts of fetishes can move to action if the virtual stimulation isn't enough
Click to expand...
I didn't suggest every potential pedophile either had a) started with real or simulated child porn or b) had started with child port before moving on to molestation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom