• 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.

Moderated What's wrong with porn?

Southwind17 said:
Here's what I consider to be a draft workable definition of child pornography (both real and virtual!) intended to address physical, psychological and emotional harm to children (and affected adults!) whilst at the same time protecting innocent people involved in or connected with expressions involving children, set (highlighted) within the context in which I believe it should be criminalized. You will note that it excludes the scenario whereby a person creates tangible expressions for their sole, private use, which, I agree, is merely an expression of thought with no reasonably possible causative link to the harm of children beyond such thoughts. The focus on pre-pubescents is in acknowledgement that pubescents, even if still legally minors, are generally not reasonably distinguishable from adults. This definition and context should sit alongside whatever laws exist (or should exist!) addressing the specific preclusion of involvement of minors (applicable legal definition) in the actual production of child pornography:

"The attempted or actual solicitation or obtaining (or facilitation thereof) by a person from another/others, or the creation, generation, production, promotion, advertizing, storage, handling, distribution, display, sale or provision (or facilitation therof) by a person to another/others of verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons, the nature and composition of which, either wholly or partially, is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of the average person of the appropriate gender(s). For the avoidance of doubt verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons in combination with pubescent persons involving deliberate, non-incidental physical skin-to-skin contact of or clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas shall be deemed to constitute child pornography."
Click to expand...
What is it that you think you've accomplished with this definition exactly? The laws regarding child pornography exist to prevent a per se legal act that harms children (real children employed in the production of such material).

It's been understood and acknowledged for many pages that you would like to shift the basis of ilegality to the material and not the involvement of children in production. We get that. Perhaps someone has made an objection that I'm unaware of but for most of us, if I may be so presumptious, this defintion serves no purpose.
 
Southwind17 said:
You're correct, of course, my mistake. Let's try:

"The attempted or actual solicitation or obtaining (or facilitation thereof) by a person from another/others, or the creation, generation, production, promotion, advertizing, storage, handling, distribution, display, sale or provision (or facilitation therof) by a person to another/others of verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons, the nature and composition of which, either wholly or partially, is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of certain people of the appropriate gender(s). For the avoidance of doubt verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons in combination with pubescent persons involving deliberate, non-incidental physical skin-to-skin contact of or clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas shall be deemed to constitute child pornography."
Click to expand...

"certain" seems a little vague.

If the genitalia aren't positioned according to the rule-of-thirds is that OK?
 
Southwind17 said:
Here's what I consider to be a draft workable definition of child pornography (both real and virtual!) intended to address physical, psychological and emotional harm to children (and affected adults!) whilst at the same time protecting innocent people involved in or connected with expressions involving children, set (highlighted) within the context in which I believe it should be criminalized. You will note that it excludes the scenario whereby a person creates tangible expressions for their sole, private use, which, I agree, is merely an expression of thought with no reasonably possible causative link to the harm of children beyond such thoughts. The focus on pre-pubescents is in acknowledgement that pubescents, even if still legally minors, are generally not reasonably distinguishable from adults. This definition and context should sit alongside whatever laws exist (or should exist!) addressing the specific preclusion of involvement of minors (applicable legal definition) in the actual production of child pornography:

"The attempted or actual solicitation or obtaining (or facilitation thereof) by a person from another/others, or the creation, generation, production, promotion, advertizing, storage, handling, distribution, display, sale or provision (or facilitation therof) by a person to another/others of verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons, the nature and composition of which, either wholly or partially, is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of the average person of the appropriate gender(s). For the avoidance of doubt verbal or visual expressions of pre-pubescent persons in combination with pubescent persons involving deliberate, non-incidental physical skin-to-skin contact of or clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas shall be deemed to constitute child pornography."

OK all you cynics out there - feel free to take your potshots - let's see if it needs refining!
Click to expand...

Even

???

Okay.

"... or will or is likely to appeal, to ..."

Bad law.

This is where you let one person or group, based on their own morals and preconceptions, make value judgments about the thoughts and beliefs of some other person for the purpose of subjecting them to criminal condemnation and state sanctioned retribution.

Bad law.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with porn?

Nothing.

I tried some earlier today. It worked.
 
RandFan said:
What is it that you think you've accomplished with this definition exactly? The laws regarding child pornography exist to prevent a per se legal act that harms children (real children employed in the production of such material).

It's been understood and acknowledged for many pages that you would like to shift the basis of ilegality to the material and not the involvement of children in production. We get that. Perhaps someone has made an objection that I'm unaware of but for most of us, if I may be so presumptious, this defintion serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

You like to cut right to the heart of the matter, don't you? Us cynics have more fun tearing it apart piece-by-piece.:)
 
RandFan said:
What is it that you think you've accomplished with this definition exactly?
Click to expand...
Please clarify:
Southwind17 said:
Neither a criticism nor a dig, RandFan, but I get the distinct impression that you're no longer interested in a meaningful debate here, at least with me. If so, would you be so kind as to say so. That way I can avoid wasting my time and effort expressing my views and making points and arguments that specifically touch upon and relate to those matters that you and I have recently posted on. Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...
 
Southwind17 said:
Whiplash said:
You're right. I'm just seeing accusations of it.
Click to expand...
And forming judgements based thereon. Not good. ;)
Click to expand...


How very odd. I should think that you of all people would be quite comfortable with the idea of making judgments based on accusations.

After all, that is exactly what you've been defending for this entire thread.

Do you find being the subject of such an attitude less appealing than being the proponent of it?
 
quadraginta said:
This is where you let one person or group, based on their own morals and preconceptions, make value judgments about the thoughts and beliefs of some other person for the purpose of subjecting them to criminal condemnation and state sanctioned retribution.
Click to expand...
There is a vast array of evidence from actual prosecuted cases of what actually does appeal to prurient nature. Reference to such evidence is a sound basis for determining whether something else will or is likely to appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom