Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

Southwind, have you read the article linked by JFrankA and I posted here.

Yes, and I've responded.

 

[Southwind17]

Citing "case precedence" [sic] in law seems to be a rote principle of yours that you have used repeatedly as a crutch to your assertions in this thread. Why should a response to it be taken to another?
There is a great deal of precedent in law for the overturning of precedents. This is in fact how laws adapt to changing circumstances rather than becoming moribund, irrelevant, and outright dysfunctional. This is how laws grow and change to reflect a culture's enlightenment over superstition and bigotry. Precedents such as those condoning chattel slavery or the disenfranchisement of citizens based on gender,ethnicity, or wealth have routinely been overturned by enlightened cultures for exactly these sorts of reasons. Do you discount only the precedent of discarding precedents out of the ones you seem so fond of?
Examples specific to this discussion are to be found in the precedents overturned by the Supreme Court in the cases cited upthread, establishing yet a new precedent which has resulted in Congress's recent convoluted attempts to craft a law which would somehow survive constitutional scrutiny.
Your failure to address these recent and significant precedents in particular is telling, but not surprising.
Your apparent evasion of the well known principle that even precedent can be malleable in law is not surprising either.

Is there a point or question arising from thie diatribe?

 

[RandFan]

Your call RandFan.

No. It's your's. There are a lot of unanswered questions and one of the disputed premises is left unresolved. You don't seem willing to honestly address the issues but that is your prerogative.

 

[RandFan]

And it reads "pretty much [as though] most of [you have written it]". Hence it does not alter my position one iota.

My thanks to Southwind. I missed this.

On our side: The opinions of experienced jurists utilizing a plethora of resources (legal assistants, lawyers, precedent, opinion, etc..)

On Southwind's side: The opinion of Ed Meese which was contrary to the data found by his own paid researchers.

It makes for a fine epilogue.

 

[JFrankA]

If you want people to treat you like an adult JFrankA you're gonna have to start behaving like one.

Seriously? A snide remark because you've finally admitted that this definition is based on your opinion and nothing legal or official?

That's why I say that my definition would be also based on my opinion. Both of our definitions might be close to the real law of a real country, but essentially without useing the exact wording, it's just opinion.

Look - laws are invariably a compromise. Generally speaking, they are necessary to protect the majority from the minority, such as murderers and rapists. Societal living requires that one acknowledges and accepts such compromises in the interest of what such laws derive in the greater good. If the application of a law can be defined in terms that are absolutely categorical such that a clear line can be drawn between right and wrong, then great. Otherwise, the line has to be drawn in the best possible place under the circumstances. If that means that a small minority are prejudiced in the interests of the vast majority then so be it. That's just one of countless compromises that democratic, societal existence necessarily requires. What would you prefer - absolute freedom (anarchy) or a reasonable compromise?

I'm sorry, Southwind. You've got that all wrong.

There is a middle ground, you know. There is a freedom side to laws that is not anarchy, and I believe this is the crux of what is this disagreement between us is all about.

By what you wrote, I am guessing that you don't quite understand what the US Consititution's philosophy is all about. Yes, part of what the laws in America are supposed to do is protect the innocent, but the most important thing that the laws in America are supposed to do is protect the rights of all individuals.

I'm going to state this as fact: In America, it is more important for our laws to protect the individual rights of people than it is to protect "majority from the minority, such as murderers and rapists".

Individual rights include the right to speak freely, create freely, write freely without any government cencering, and something I'm a big believer in, "Innocent until proven guilty". The stipulation of these individual rights is that one individual's right do not interfere with another person's individual rights.

As an example, and I have posted this before: If Person A kills Person B, then Person A has committed murder, which is taking the life of someone else, but what is more important American law-wise, Person A has taken quite a few individual rights away from Person B.

Another example: If Group A wants to march promoting hate speech about a race down Person B's street, Person B cannot stop them. It is Group A's right to march and speak, but, it's Person B's right to protest and speak against Group A's ideas, even when Group A is marching.

There is a line, but it's not drawn where you think is should be. The line is where one individual's right ends and another begins. Sometimes, this can't be done clearly, but that's what America's laws are supposed to shoot for. It's not to protect people from "majority from the minority, such as murderers and rapists", because then the government isn't a government. It is a big babysitter.

The US laws are to give people the freedom to express themselves and do what they want, and yes, be able to make bad decisions as long as people do not interfere with other people's rights.

Now, in the US, any media is protected by this right to free speech except for media that a real crime takes place. In other words, if someone creates a piece of media that is an actual crime that may or may not include actual people being harmed then creating that media is not protected because in creating that media, the creator has taken rights away from that someone in that piece of media. Child pornography is a crime because it is proof that a real crime took place. Just like, for example, doing a real murder, a real bank robbery, a real rape, etc to create a piece of media would constitute a crime and such creation is not protected because it is proof that a real crime took place.

However, a piece of media of a virtual person commiting a crime on another virtual person, even if the victim of the crime is a virtual child or a piece of media where real life people fake a crime without really doing it, would NOT constitute a crime. Why? No one got harmed, no victim, no rights taken away from anyone, no crime.

Now there are people who might worry that such a piece of media (which I will now call "virtual-type" media for clarity), would make a person who is willing to commit a crime would trigger that person to do so. But that doesn't matter because the right to create, distribute and own a piece of "virtual-type" media overrides the "what a person could do after viewing "virtual-type" media."

This is true of the US laws with any piece of "virtual-type" media that fits that criteria: the "virtual-type" media does not contain real crime which does not interfere with rights of other people. I must also point out that it is also the opinion of the US that simply viewing such a piece of "virtual-type" media is not harmful in any way. Why? Because the US laws also uphold "Innocent until proven guilty". In other words, just because one owns a "virtual-type" media that includes a crime, doesn't mean that that person is guilty of that crime.

The only exception is with VCP. The only one.

In other words, one can make a movie where a virutal adult kills a virtual child in a very bloody, graphic scene, and as long as there is not one hint of sexual contact or nudity, and it's legal. One can even create that same scene with real adult and child actor (the child actor protraying the victim), and since the crime is not really done, and there isn't a hint of sexual contact or nudity, it's still legal. Why? No one got harmed, no victim, no rights taken away from anyone, no crime.

Now in my humble opinion, this doesn't fit with the rest of what the laws in America are supposed to do. The reasons VCP is illegal in this country is because a) it assumes future guilt of the owner/creator, (which contridicts "Innocent until proven guilty"), b) it is inconsistant, (protraying a killing of a virutal child is legal but portraying sex with a virtual child is not) c) there is no actual crime done (again, portraying murder of a virtural child is legal) d) the US banned VCP because they are worried that a virtual child created by computer would be indistiguishable from a real child (which has nothing to do with someone who HAND DRAWS a virutal child or WRITES a story) e) there is absolutely no evidence, no proof, no data that shows that someone who has the potential to be a child molestor will molest a child after seeing VCP. None. (anyone who is saying this is saying it out of emotion, fear, and their own prejudices. It is an appeal to emotion and conjecture and, at least in the US, the people who make the laws try not to give into that fallacy).

I want to add here that I don't mean to sound "patriotic". I am merely explaining what my thoughts are and where I am coming from. But as you said to me, Southwind, that my postings and links "does not alter [your] position one iota", in sixty pages plus, you have done nothing but strenghtened mine.

It's a proposal JFrankA. Nothing more; nothing less. If you don't like it then you're free to say why. That's all.

I have been saying why. I've posted why. But the most important thing is that it's not the real law. That's what I'm disputing, and yes, I am coming from the perspective of what I grew up as an American.

No. It falls outside the definition by any reasonable application of such definition. If you're suggesting that judges could act unreasonably to twist the application to suit their own purposes than that's no different from any other law. As I wrote earlier, that's a whole different generic problem, the debating of which is the subject of a whole separate thread.

This debate isn't only about "your definition". This discussion is about our opinion why all of us think VCP should be legal or not. Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted your definition in the first place, you wouldn't have explained what you think the law should/should not do above.

Thank you.

No, seriously, thank you. I appreciate it when I get honesty.

If you say so.

We've been through this over and over. Your definition is based on your opinion and what you think it should be. It may be close to how a law defines it, but it is not exactly how a law defines it. It is merely your opinion as to what the definition is.

You're free to leave.


Again, you're free to leave.

But I won't. And you are dismissing my point: I am saying that since you don't want to go back and re-read what I've said, since you want me to repost what I have said, and even what you have said, I don't think it's fair of you to tell people to go back and re-read or re-post either.

So what, exactly, are your objections to a law based on the definition and context per my proposed definition of VCP?

I have alreadsy stated that, so the spirit of my previous statement, here's the link to that posting: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5349161#post5349161

"... is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of some people." Who decides? Whoever is presiding over the case, by reference to case precedence, if necessary. Why? Because that's the way the judicial system works.

Because we are talking more than just a court case. We are talking about the law and why we disagree with it.

I believe you were going to summarize your position. Please proceed to.

It's above. It's not a definition, but it's the best I can do.

If you want to posit an alternative definition and legal context please go ahead. I'd hardly like nothing more.

I will eventually, but really, why would my definition mean anything? My postings should tell you my opinions.

As I wrote above, whosoever is presiding over the case, by reference to case precedence, if necessary. This is normal legal process.

Sorry, SW, that's a cop out. That's an appeal to authority. I've already said that if you are going to argue "that's the law don't break it", I will agree with you without question.

But in America, laws are not made by judges period. In America the citizens start the ball rolling for laws. Again, I am going by what America does, because quite honestly, I don't know how it's done in other countries.

Yes, that's what I wrote, and I stand by it. What's your point?

*sigh* My point was that when I explained to you how VCP could be included in a story not intended to invoke sexual arousal, but to invoke anger and justice, your reply was "Well, it would be better without it".

...how do you even KNOW that?

It comes down to whosoever is presiding over the case. But let's seek to test the definition, JFrankA - what would you say, and why?

You know, again, I will come up with a definition eventually, but a) that is my opinion, (just like your definition is your opinion) of what the definition is, b) it does not mean that it is what any law actually says, c) we have both given our opinions without the need of a definition, so a definition by me or you is pretty much useless, to be honest.

Again, whosoever is presiding over the case. "... is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, to the prurient nature of some people.", by reference to case precedence, as necessary.

Again, a judge by himself does not a law make. May be part of the process, but not "judge decision = law". In America, which is what I know, so admittingly, my opinions come from the US Consititution's philosophy and procedure, people propose the law, debate about it and vote on it's existance and changes. Judges are part of the process, yes, but that is not the end all and be all of law making.

 

[RandFan]

Is there a point or question arising from thie diatribe?

Yes, but we can't get you to acknowledge that which you will not see.

 

[Toke]

Your call RandFan.

The question is whether to respond or not.

 

[Matthew Best]

Since when did "I contend that anyone who responded to this thread with anything other than the word "nothing" is severely misguided and/or wasting their time. I realise this now includes me." = "nothing"?!

Never. It doesn't = "nothing". Thus bef is including himself in the group of people who are either severely misguided and/or wasting their time.

Perhaps if you hadn't had as much to drink as you had, you would have been able to figure that out for yourself?

 

[JFrankA]

Who decides? Whoever is presiding over the case, by reference to case precedence, if necessary. Why? Because that's the way the judicial system works.
<snip>
It comes down to whosoever is presiding over the case. But let's seek to test the definition, JFrankA - what would you say, and why?

One other thing: you realize by stating this, you are making your definition completely invalid and is a failure. That's because you are defaulting to someone else's opinion.

So, for example, one judge can rule that a picture of boy in underwear to sell the underwear as "intent to arouse" while another can see a picture of a virtual child having sex with a virutal group of people with no "intent to arouse".

By saying "whosoever is presiding over the case", you are defaulting to someone's subjective views as to what porn is, thereby making your definition completely subjective depending on the opinion of the judge.

I know you've put in nudity in your definition, etc, but since you are defaulting to a judge's decision, or defaulting to a higher authority, that judge or higher authority can override anything in your definition.

Your definition has not set any kind of standard.

 

[JFrankA]

Well, JFrankA, if nothing else this is certainly something we are in agreement on, which is why I've indulged myself with more of it today! Ironically, Eid, a Muslim religious holiday, is the very prompt for my indulgence

I hope you had a good time, then, and my belated good wishes to you on your holiday.

 

[not daSkeptic]

By what you wrote, I am guessing that you don't quite understand what the US Consititution's philosophy is all about. Yes, part of what the laws in America are supposed to do is protect the innocent, but the most important thing that the laws in America are supposed to do is protect the rights of all individuals.

To add to this, it is often said that the U.S. Constitution exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is a guard against the fallacy of appealing to popularity.

 

[JFrankA]

Too late to edit, so I have to add it as a new post. One little clarification I'd like to make to my previous rant in post #2405. (I've bolded the correction below. Sorry if I caused confusion. I really shouldn't be posting at work ):

In other words, one can make a movie where a virutal adult kills a virtual child in a very bloody, graphic scene, and as long as there is not one hint of sexual contact or nudity, and it's legal. One can even create that same scene with real adult and child actor (the child actor protraying the victim), and since the crime is not really done, and there isn't a hint of sexual contact or nudity, it's still legal. Why? No one got harmed, no victim, no rights taken away from anyone, no crime.

Now in my humble opinion, making VCP illegal doesn't fit with the rest of what the laws in America are supposed to do. The reasons VCP being is illegal in this country doesn't work with what the US laws are supposed to do is because a) it assumes future guilt of the owner/creator, (which contridicts "Innocent until proven guilty"), b) it is inconsistant, (protraying a killing of a virutal child is legal but portraying sex with a virtual child is not) c) there is no actual crime done (again, portraying murder of a virtural child is legal) d) the US banned VCP because they are worried that a virtual child created by computer would be indistiguishable from a real child (which has nothing to do with someone who HAND DRAWS a virutal child or WRITES a story) e) there is absolutely no evidence, no proof, no data that shows that someone who has the potential to be a child molestor will molest a child after seeing VCP. None. (anyone who is saying this is saying it out of emotion, fear, and their own prejudices. It is an appeal to emotion and conjecture and, at least in the US, the people who make the laws try not to give into that fallacy).

 

[gumboot]

If sexual impulse was so strong, so overwhelming, the actual sexual act would be done in the streets and the office and seen as acceptable. The "pizza guy and the horny girl" scenario would be common place, hell guys would deliver pizzas for free.

Ironically, if sexual impulses were that strong there would be no need for pornography, for the reasons explained above - everyone's day would be one giant never-ending porno film.

As another personal anecdote... today I was filming scenes for a TV series involving completely naked cast - all dancers (so very nice bodies) - and I was primarily responsible for looking after them.

I'm a normal red-blooded male, yet unbelievably, I somehow managed to overcome the urge to attempt to have sex with the cast right there on the set. Fancy that. I guess I must possess super-human self-control.

If SW's argument boils down to "A person is incapable of resisting a sexual urge" (and frankly that appears to be all it actually consists of), SW has no argument whatsoever. Even the idea is patently absurd.

 

[MontagK505]

To add to this, it is often said that the U.S. Constitution exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is a guard against the fallacy of appealing to popularity.

Actually the first 10 amendments known as the “Bill of Rights” were added for that specific purpose. The constitution without the bill of rights wouldn't protect the minority from unlimited abuse.

 

[Southwind17]

My thanks to Southwind. I missed this.

Yes - it's not the first time you've missed something, by your own admission, I've noticed!

On our side: The opinions of experienced jurists utilizing a plethora of resources (legal assistants, lawyers, precedent, opinion, etc..)

So "your side" is founded on a classic appeal to authority. OK.

It makes for a fine epilogue.

You're leaving - eventually?!

 

[Southwind17]

Seriously? A snide remark because you've finally admitted that this definition is based on your opinion and nothing legal or official?

I hope you've eaten all of you greens. There'll be no pudding for you sonny if you haven't.

That's why I say that my definition would be also based on my opinion. Both of our definitions might be close to the real law of a real country, but essentially without useing the exact wording, it's just opinion.

"Both of our definitions"? I don't recall having seen yours yet. Are you going to posit one or not?

There is a middle ground, you know. There is a freedom side to laws that is not anarchy, and I believe this is the crux of what is this disagreement between us is all about.
By what you wrote, I am guessing that you don't quite understand what the US Consititution's philosophy is all about. Yes, part of what the laws in America are supposed to do is protect the innocent, but the most important thing that the laws in America are supposed to do is protect the rights of all individuals.
I'm going to state this as fact: In America, it is more important for our laws to protect the individual rights of people than it is to protect "majority from the minority, such as murderers and rapists".
Individual rights include the right to speak freely, create freely, write freely without any government cencering, and something I'm a big believer in, "Innocent until proven guilty". The stipulation of these individual rights is that one individual's right do not interfere with another person's individual rights.
As an example, and I have posted this before: If Person A kills Person B, then Person A has committed murder, which is taking the life of someone else, but what is more important American law-wise, Person A has taken quite a few individual rights away from Person B.
Another example: If Group A wants to march promoting hate speech about a race down Person B's street, Person B cannot stop them. It is Group A's right to march and speak, but, it's Person B's right to protest and speak against Group A's ideas, even when Group A is marching.
There is a line, but it's not drawn where you think is should be. The line is where one individual's right ends and another begins. Sometimes, this can't be done clearly, but that's what America's laws are supposed to shoot for. It's not to protect people from "majority from the minority, such as murderers and rapists", because then the government isn't a government. It is a big babysitter.
The US laws are to give people the freedom to express themselves and do what they want, and yes, be able to make bad decisions as long as people do not interfere with other people's rights.

Utter tosh. As I wrote before, without laws everybody would have complete freedom, i.e. the right to do whatever they wish (anarchy), like a herd of wildebeast, for example. All that laws do, quite rightly, is limit rights for the greater good. I'm sure a herd of wildebeast would welcome nothing more than the "rights" of lions to be restricted by the introduction of a "law" making the killing of wildebeast illegal. See?

Now, in the US, any media is protected by this right to free speech except for media that a real crime takes place. In other words, if someone creates a piece of media that is an actual crime that may or may not include actual people being harmed then creating that media is not protected because in creating that media, the creator has taken rights away from that someone in that piece of media. Child pornography is a crime because it is proof that a real crime took place. Just like, for example, doing a real murder, a real bank robbery, a real rape, etc to create a piece of media would constitute a crime and such creation is not protected because it is proof that a real crime took place.
However, a piece of media of a virtual person commiting a crime on another virtual person, even if the victim of the crime is a virtual child or a piece of media where real life people fake a crime without really doing it, would NOT constitute a crime. Why? No one got harmed, no victim, no rights taken away from anyone, no crime.
Now there are people who might worry that such a piece of media (which I will now call "virtual-type" media for clarity), would make a person who is willing to commit a crime would trigger that person to do so. But that doesn't matter because the right to create, distribute and own a piece of "virtual-type" media overrides the "what a person could do after viewing "virtual-type" media."
This is true of the US laws with any piece of "virtual-type" media that fits that criteria: the "virtual-type" media does not contain real crime which does not interfere with rights of other people. I must also point out that it is also the opinion of the US that simply viewing such a piece of "virtual-type" media is not harmful in any way. Why? Because the US laws also uphold "Innocent until proven guilty". In other words, just because one owns a "virtual-type" media that includes a crime, doesn't mean that that person is guilty of that crime.

And here endeth the first chapter of "The First Amendment 101 by JFrankA", except that you're showing youself to have but the most rudimentary of understandings. Laws don't protect the right to free speech. They simply, and quite rightly, restrict the exercising of an otherwise carte blanche right.

The only exception is with VCP. The only one.

So where within your wonderfully insightful analysis of freedom of speech did you mention inciteful speech, for example?

In other words, one can make a movie where a virutal adult kills a virtual child in a very bloody, graphic scene, and as long as there is not one hint of sexual contact or nudity, and it's legal. One can even create that same scene with real adult and child actor (the child actor protraying the victim), and since the crime is not really done, and there isn't a hint of sexual contact or nudity, it's still legal. Why? No one got harmed, no victim, no rights taken away from anyone, no crime.
Now in my humble opinion, this doesn't fit with the rest of what the laws in America are supposed to do. The reasons VCP is illegal in this country is because a) it assumes future guilt of the owner/creator, (which contridicts "Innocent until proven guilty"), b) it is inconsistant, (protraying a killing of a virutal child is legal but portraying sex with a virtual child is not) c) there is no actual crime done (again, portraying murder of a virtural child is legal) d) the US banned VCP because they are worried that a virtual child created by computer would be indistiguishable from a real child (which has nothing to do with someone who HAND DRAWS a virutal child or WRITES a story) e) there is absolutely no evidence, no proof, no data that shows that someone who has the potential to be a child molestor will molest a child after seeing VCP. None. (anyone who is saying this is saying it out of emotion, fear, and their own prejudices. It is an appeal to emotion and conjecture and, at least in the US, the people who make the laws try not to give into that fallacy).

So what, exactly, is your objection to the banning of VCP? You claim (wrongly) above that VCP is the only exception to freedom of speech, so it can't possibly be the "thin end of the wedge" argument. It could, I suppose, be the issue of an insignificantly tiny proportion of innocent people falling foul of the law, but I've posited that that is capable of being easily fixed. It could, I suppose, be the issue of the ban being so broadly defined and applied that it effectively criminalizes other artistically legitimate media, but I've posited that that, too, is capable of being easily fixed. So, it seems that you must see some intrinsic merit in VCP that justifies not banning it. In which case, what, exactly, do you consider intrinsically meritorious about a virtual image of a child being sodimized by an adult, for example?

I want to add here that I don't mean to sound "patriotic".

Your patriotism is admirable. On the other hand, your apparent patronising is both misplaced and unnecessary.

I am merely explaining what my thoughts are and where I am coming from.

Er ... "I'm going to state this as fact: ..."

But as you said to me, Southwind, that my postings and links "does not alter [your] position one iota", in sixty pages plus, you have done nothing but strenghtened mine.

There's nothing to feel proud about in holding a misguided view, especially a strengthened one!

I have been saying why. I've posted why. But the most important thing is that it's not the real law. That's what I'm disputing, and yes, I am coming from the perspective of what I grew up as an American.

What's not the "real law"? What, exactly, is the "real law"? Of course, not knowing anything about "what you grew up as" I am not in a position to consider the relevance of such statement.

This debate isn't only about "your definition". This discussion is about our opinion why all of us think VCP should be legal or not. Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted your definition in the first place, you wouldn't have explained what you think the law should/should not do above.

I agree.

We've been through this over and over. Your definition is based on your opinion and what you think it should be.

Ah, that's better - it's based on my opinion (but it's not actually my opinion). Big difference.

It may be close to how a law defines it, but it is not exactly how a law defines it.

I developed it from first principles. I have no idea how close it might be to any actual law. So what?

It is merely your opinion as to what the definition is.

Oh ... and there was I above thinking that you'd finally got it.

But I won't. And you are dismissing my point: I am saying that since you don't want to go back and re-read what I've said, since you want me to repost what I have said, and even what you have said, I don't think it's fair of you to tell people to go back and re-read or re-post either.

Of course, you're free to do what you want or don't want (within limits!).

I have alreadsy stated that, so the spirit of my previous statement, here's the link to that posting: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5349161#post5349161

And here and here are links to my responses to those posts that proceeded to drive a tractor right through them, and which, consequently, have essentially gone unchallenged.

Because we are talking more than just a court case. We are talking about the law and why we disagree with it.

No. You wrote:

It's a very valid point! With your definition, SOMEONE has to make the decision as to whether the media in question had the intention to arouse or not. Who gets to decide that? Why? [emphasis added]

You are clearly alluding to a single, hypothetical case context, not the law generally, and I responded accordingly by answering your two questions very directly.

It's above. It's not a definition, but it's the best I can do.

I hope you appreciate that my comments above demonstrate why I don't concur with your position.

I will eventually, but really, why would my definition mean anything? My postings should tell you my opinions.

It might not mean anything, but if you come up with something tantamount to my definition it will serve at least two important purposes:

1. It will force you the think objectively about VCP in the context of how it can be differentiated so as to address only the potentially harmful expressions from the innocent expression. This would be a useful extension to simply stating a flawed opinion, and
2. It will show that at least two workable definitions are possible.

That's an appeal to authority.

Never a truer word! You do realize that case precedence carries immense authority, yes?!

My point was that when I explained to you how VCP could be included in a story not intended to invoke sexual arousal, but to invoke anger and justice, your reply was "Well, it would be better without it".

My reply was that such imagery is unnecessarily borderline in terms of its potential to fall foul of child porn law. But regardless, my proposed definition of VCP would clearly allow it.

You know, again, I will come up with a definition eventually, but ...

Neat dodge.

... a) that is my opinion, (just like your definition is your opinion) of what the definition is ...

Again ... a proposed definition is simply that - a proposed definition. It might well derive from opinion regarding the subject matter of the definition, but a proposed definition most certainly is not of itself an opinion.

... b) it does not mean that it is what any law actually says ...

Of course. So what?

... c) we have both given our opinions without the need of a definition, so a definition by me or you is pretty much useless, to be honest.

It's not useless at all. A large part of many people's arguments here is that VCP should not be banned because it's impossible to have a workable definition that serves to protect innocent expression. I've proceeded to show that to be an urban myth.

Again, a judge by himself does not a law make. May be part of the process, but not "judge decision = law". In America, which is what I know, so admittingly, my opinions come from the US Consititution's philosophy and procedure, people propose the law, debate about it and vote on it's existance and changes. Judges are part of the process, yes, but that is not the end all and be all of law making.

Yes, I know this, but thanks for the reminder!

 

[Southwind17]

One other thing: you realize by stating this, you are making your definition completely invalid and is a failure. That's because you are defaulting to someone else's opinion.
So, for example, one judge can rule that a picture of boy in underwear to sell the underwear as "intent to arouse" while another can see a picture of a virtual child having sex with a virutal group of people with no "intent to arouse".

And you'd say that these are sensible judgements, right? What do you really see as the root problem here?!

 

[Southwind17]

I hope you had a good time, then, and my belated good wishes to you on your holiday.

Thank you - but there are still 4 days to go!

 

[Southwind17]

As another personal anecdote... today I was filming scenes for a TV series involving completely naked cast - all dancers (so very nice bodies) - and I was primarily responsible for looking after them.
I'm a normal red-blooded male, yet unbelievably, I somehow managed to overcome the urge to attempt to have sex with the cast right there on the set. Fancy that. I guess I must possess super-human self-control.

Don't flatter yourself - there are one or two more people around with similar self-control. Actually, come to think of, there are many people like that. In fact, most people. Silly me for claiming that nobody has any self-control. Hang on ... no ... that's wrong. No ... I was referring to a minority of people wasn't I. Yes ... that's right ... I'm pretty sure now that I was. I really should pay more attention to what I write ... try to avoid people here getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.

If SW's argument boils down to "A person is incapable of resisting a sexual urge" (and frankly that appears to be all it actually consists of), SW has no argument whatsoever. Even the idea is patently absurd.

And if SW's argument doesn't boil down to that ... if, instead, gumboot is simply incapable of reading and comprehension, what then? Ironically, that idea isn't patently absurd - evidently!

 

[Toke]

Gumboot,
Your "lack of reading comprehension" seems to be the norm on this tread.