You have never worked in the adult industry. You wouldn't believe what people get accused of over very simple things. People who are looking for something illegal or immoral will find it, no matter what. Especially when it comes to sex.
Well in that case I suggest you need to be appropriately cautious, by which I mean more than the average person would. This might seem a little tenuous, but I'll try it anyhow: You might well know this, but anybody holding themselves out as a professional, such as a doctor, or an architect, or an engineer, for example, owes a legal duty of care to anybody to whom they provide advice or services, even if they're not really qualified to provide such advice or services (notwithstanding that many professionals need to be licensed to practice). Typically, for professional services contractually procured the Professional's duty would be:
to provide the Services with the degree of professional skill, care and diligence expected of a consultant experienced in providing the same or similar services, acknowledging that the Client has entered into this Agreement in reliance upon the Consultant’s representation that it has such professional skill and will apply such care and diligence in providing the services
What's my point? If you're operating in the "adult industry", particularly if you're producing porn, then it is reasonable to expect that you will be familiar with, understand, appreciate and observe all related laws and regulations. Accordingly, you should be better placed than most people to determine where to draw the line, and you should be expected to seek legal advice if faced with the risk of crossing it. If you heed this then you should have little if any real concern. If you heed this and you still cross the line (other than contrary to what you should either reasonably be expected to know or have been legally advised) then you will probably have very good defensive grounds. If you don't heed this, for whatever reason, and you cross the line, then you should not be surprised to be looked upon with suspicion, to say the least, and deservedly so.
Those people who were banned on Second Life, for one. Anyone who has a naked picture of a child could as well.
Hang on. We're talking about punishment for
thinking something, aren't we (that's what you wrote!)? So where do
these examples fit into that?
I'm sorry, that was a rather verbose response to you saying that I think with my genitals.
It was more than verbose JFrankA; it essentially proves my point (which is
not that you think with your genitals, but that some of what you write is just plain wrong in the extreme, for which I elected to euphemise in a slightly more polite way than the so-called proverbial) so thanks for that!
Basically, I believe in freedom of thought and what they enjoy and believe provided that it doesn't interfere with anyone Else's same freedoms. I may be an atheist, but I do not think everyone should think like I do. In fact, I defend the rights of other people to have their religion they choose. I may be a heterosexual, but that doesn't mean I think everyone should be. In fact, I defend the rights of homosexuals. And since I have unusual fetishes myself, I don't feel I can call anyone Else's fetishes illegal provided, again, they do not interfere with anyone's rights and safety.
You've lost the plot JFrankA. Since when did freedom of thought enter into the debate? There are no laws or regulations governing what people may or may not think, by definition!
Given that, I still do not see any harm in someone who has a fetish, enjoy it with a willing partner or makes a virtual portrayal of it, because it's still not actually hurting anyone nor interfering with anyone Else's safety or rights.
If by "fetish" you're including child porn (I think you are, by your reference to "virtual portrayal"), then you need to start thinking a little outside the box (and I think this comes right back to my claim earlier that a fantasy, especially an enacted fantasy, is a manifestation of a real underlying desire). If not, then I'm not sure what's prompted you to make this statement.
Yes she is. It is said in the film, if memory serves, that she is the "youngest in the family". She has the classic "little girl" look, pigtails, pink room, stuffed animals. They don't say her portrayed age, but it is strongly implied.
Well then, at best, the producers are on dodgy ground and deserve to be challenged, at least.
Not sure, to be honest, SW. I think we are still clearing the air here. I get what you saying is the law, period. What I'm offering is why I think the law is wrong.
Sure, but you're not saying it in a very compelling way JFrankA, because:
- you don't seem to appreciate what the law requires and doesn't require, even at the fairly basic level
- you keep muddying the waters by introducing and referring to irrelevant scenarios and examples
- you seem to not want to open your mind to why the law is worded the way it is, preferring to dogmatically default to "the law's an ass - if I'm not directly harming anybody I'll do what I damn well want to"!
No, I wasn't calling it Japanese art to strengthen my arguement. I called it that because that's what it is.
But it's also
porn (by definition), where we "come from". Get it? If witch-hunting and burning somebody in Kenya is legal and called "fair play" but it's illegal and called murder in the States you can't hide behind the "fair play" argument when you're in the States! Go live in Kenya if witch-hunting is what floats your boat, or Japan if "Japanese Art" means so much to you. Get it?
Manga is big in Japan, and a lot of it crosses to here in the states. Not all of it sexual. Most often it's superhero stories with a possible incidental sex scene involving school girls. It's not intended to be arousing, just part of the story sometimes.
Oh come on JFrankA - get real. How on earth can an "incidental sex scene involving school girls" not be reasonably interpreted to be intended to arouse? What other possible purpose would such a sex scene serve. Seriously JFrankA, your credibility and sincerity are both wearing desperately thin, at least with me.
And your last sentence really shows how one person can judge an entire person and culture right off and is also why I am paranoid like you've mentioned before.
At least you admit it, but I can assure you it's only validated if you are, indeed, one such depraved person.
Also, may I say how can you equate a drawing an image of a sexual situation involving school aged children with killing and maiming a real, living endangered animal?
I didn't "equate" them. I used the elephants' tusks example as an analogy to try to get you to see a point. I'm sorry it failed (that's not an apology, BTW!).
One is just a drawing - a thought - where no living person (or animal) actually experiences what is depicted in order to produce the image. The other is actually doing something to something living.
That's the point, JFrankA, and where you're going woefully wrong here. A drawing is
not just a thought - it's a
drawing, potentially available for viewing by more than just the artist! See the fundamental difference?
