Ok so how strong is your commitment to free speech

I accept the existance of virtual child pornography. I do not see any good reason to be against it; just irrational emotion-jerking.

For that matter, I accept two adults "roleplaying" a child abuse scenario online, just as I support two adults roleplaying rape scenes online. Or violent scenes in general. I also support people virtually blowing the brains out of each other for no good reason online. I support people virtually blowing the brains out of kids online. I support people virtually kicking puppies online.

I'm a bad guy.

Right now, on FFXI, I'm running around beating the crap out of goblins and animals for no other reason than to harvest their sweet sweet items. And organs. I've committed grand genocide in videogames. Hell, I've committed grand XENOCIDE in videogames. I've tortured and I've killed and I've maimed. Rape isn't a big thing in games, and I've done none of that... yet. I've been an alien and a predator and a marine. I've been a starship pilot that's blown up entire colonies of people -- innocent or not. I've been a bounty hunter, I've been a hit man, and I've doomed the entire race in a post apocalyptic future.

I support 100% of it.

As long as nothing is harmed during the creation of it, I have no problem. I DO have a problem with non-virtual child pornography that involve actual abused children; but for the simple fact that children were actually abused in the creation of it. On the same token, I'm against a trade that involves photography of REAL murders, or REAL rapes, distributed for viewing pleasures.

I'm okay with virtual snuff. But the real stuff? Ban that sucker.

I find it intriguing. You can commit genocide. You can commit xenocide. Hell, you can commit rape or beat up prostitutes. You can shoot up cops, doctors, and civilians. You can blow up colonies, you can kill whole masses of animals for their organs, you can join the dark side and be responsible for thousands of innocent deaths (KOTOR, anyone?) You can also have all sorts of fetishes you want; you can be into all sorts of disgusting stuff that would make the average person retch. But virtual child porn? Too far, too far, back up! We need to be moral and not have that stuff in our fiction.

One more bit of evidence that humans don't think with the logical centers of their brain.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
scratchy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Showing it to others is already covered under the UK's obscene publications law.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Evidence people who fantasize about children are sicko's please.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Evidence people who fantasize about children are sicko's please.
Click to expand...

It's a subjective evaluation.

geni said:
Out of date. It was recriminalised under the PROTECT Act of 2003 which has not yet been taken to the supream court (because so far there has been no halfway sympathetic defendant). McCain is currently proposeing to have the powers of the act extended
Click to expand...

Oh poo. Just when I thought we actually liked freedom.
 
I wonder if they plan to apply this to paintings? The Rape of Ganymede was a popular subject for a few centuries. Art is littered with "youths" and "maidens" of varying ages being carried off or fondled by gods and goddesses.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I wonder if they plan to apply this to paintings? The Rape of Ganymede was a popular subject for a few centuries. Art is littered with "youths" and "maidens" of varying ages being carried off or fondled by gods and goddesses.
Click to expand...

The consultation claims there will be an exception for art which should be interesting.
 
Lonewulf said:
"should be" by definition of the court...? Not the individual?
Click to expand...

The "which should be interesting" is my comment on the clause it isn't part of the clause itself (milords I contented that battle raper 3 child extension pack has validitity as a work of art).
 
geni said:
The "which should be interesting" is my comment on the clause it isn't part of the clause itself (milords I contented that battle raper 3 child extension pack has validitity as a work of art).
Click to expand...

How the hell did I misread you? I need bed.

Regardless, I find it intriguing when the courts get to decide what is "allowable" and what is not. It's like a court deciding what is art and what is not.

It's okay if there's child rape in books -- but not in movies. It's okay if it's in paintings, but not illustrated in magazines to go side by side with a story. People should be banned from having virtual child porn, but there's nothing wrong with them xeroxing an image of a famous painting by the blah de blah for use as porn. Yeah, that makes sense.

A nonfictional law to protect us from evil fiction.
 
Last edited:
My two cents:

Personally, I find such things abhorrent, and have difficulties with people who fantasize about sex with five year old children as "just another sexual orientation" (an argument advanced by Undesired Walrus above).

However, in the end, my own personal standard for anything like this -- be it pedophilia, beastiality, snuff videos, etc. -- is that it not cause harm to others, or actively incite others to commit harmful acts. So CGI graphics, animations, etc., which depict such acts but do not actually involve harming any individual, I would put in my "you're a disgusting pervert but its your right" category. Heck, for that matter, there are things that I do which were once considered terrible perversions in the past (hey, I'm talkin' about things like oral sex here, folks, get your minds out of the gutter!).

Now, there are certainly individuals who have a strong predilection towards active pedophilia...that is, seducing/forcing children into real-life sexual acts. I don't think that such people will be prevented from such actions simply by making these materials illegal. But on the other hand, for someone who has already demonstrated that this is a serious problem, I'd be all for legally restricting them as individuals from access to anything like this. We tell convicted hackers that they're not allowed access to computers any more; we tell convicted drunk drivers that they're not allowed to drive any more; so why not tell convicted pedophiles that they're not allowed to view any materials depicting sex with children any more (regardless of whether is is real or simulated)?

So no...as disgusting as I think it is, I don't think that such materials should themselves be made illegal. But I think that there should be strict and enforceable laws regarding convicted pedophiles having access to such materials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom