Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[JFrankA]

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

OOOohhh! Chocolate pudding I hope!!!

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

A fair statement. I will. But as I said, it would just be my opinion.

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.

Did I say "no laws"? I don't recall saying "no laws"......

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?

Untrue in the case of America. The laws in America quite clear protect people's rights and freedoms. The only limit imposed is that one individual's rights and freedoms do not interfere with another individual's.

The idea is that if you write the laws with the above in mind, protection comes naturally from it.

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.

And you just showed that I was right. You have don't even have a rudimentary of understanding. Sorry, SW. You've just gotten a "Fail" at the class of "The First Amendment 101 by JFrankA". Do the research yourself if you don't believe me.

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

If I understand you correctly, if you mean speech to incite a crowd or a person to do something is allowed. Always. That's because the law is based on "Innocent until proven guilty". A group of people can march down a street, chanting "Kill this race because they are horrible" (or some such nonsense) and as long as it's kept peaceful, i.e, they don't interfere with the rights of others on the street, it's perfectly legal.

So what, exactly, is your objection to the banning of VCP?

Now my wording may have been confusing, that's why I've reposted it. My apologies if it was.

You claim (wrongly) above that VCP is the only exception to freedom of speech,

Okay, Mr. I-know-American-law-better-that-you, what else is the exception to free speech here in America? Tell me. Please.

so it can't possibly be the "thin end of the wedge" argument.

But it is. You are not the first person who believes that freedom of speech is not as important as "baby-sitting protection".

If you actually read that article I've posted, you'll see that part of this is tactic to get all porn eventually banned. As I've said, there are people in America fighting to ban ALL PORN, including "marshmallow porn", because they believe that any porn, not just VCP, any and all porn, DOES EXACTLY WHAT YOU THINK VCP DOES. And wants all porn banned because they think the same way you do: that protection from something that may make someone who may be a molester be convinced to maybe do it.

I'm sorry, SW, it IS a wedge. It's been used before in the US, and, I may sadly say, sometimes successfully.

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.

Wrong. Your definition does nothing to protect the innocent because it defaults to a subjective view. And no portion of innocent is an "insignificantly tiny proportion". The US laws are built to protect the innocent, not root out the guilty.

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.

How? Your definition allows anyone to with authority to judge every right to put a person in jail for writing an age-play fantasy for his wife that has fallen into the hands of someone else.

Your definition does nothing. It leave it up to the subjective opinion of a higher authority.

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?

*sigh* I've said it before. I depends. That scene could be part of a story to make the viewer upset so that she/he feels vindicated when the hero saves the child, it could be made as an artistic way so that the viewer can decide whether it is arousing or not, it could be meant as even comedy.

The point is you do not know until you've seen it. And, I've noticed, that despite your defense of your definition is capable of easily fixing criminalizing other media, you refuse to see it in the case of VCP. Your attitude, as well as your definition, has already made any artist who even comes close to VCP with no intention of arousal condemned as guilty.

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

*sigh* I was explaining where my opinions come from and why I feel what I feel.

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

I am. I did. And I stand by it.

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

So says the reigning champion of "Holding a Misguided View in this Thread".

What's not the "real law"?

Your definition. It's not the real law. It's not the definition that the US goes by, I don't know about other countries.

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.

Well, if you try to understand what I am saying and read the article I've posted before, you'll see the relevance.

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlt...2dltr0019.html

But I'm going to assume that you won't. Funny thing is I DO see the relevance of your position and definition and feelings. I understand and feel that the relevance is important and correct to you because of where you grew up. I am saying it's wrong for how the laws work in America, but I see and understand how some people don't understand why keeping VCP as something protected by free speech is important.

I understand your position, SW. Without question. I'm trying to make you understand mine. You may not agree with it, fine. You don't live here, you don't have to follow our philosophy. Just try to understand it, please. That's what I've been trying to explain to you.

I agree.

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

I'm sorry, please explain the difference because I don't see it. If it's based on your opinion how can it NOT be your opinion? What, specifically, in your definition is NOT your opinion?

I ask because definitions that used in laws are debate among lots of people and often times rewritten to try to remove opinion from the definition. The US government has been wrestling with a definition of "porn" (not just VCP) since the 1950's and they still are unsure that their definition is correct.

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

You've just said you based it from your opinion, therefore it's developed from your opinion. That's the problem. When I do my definition, I'm going to do it the same way. Then we'll be arguing who's definition is correct and that's not going to get us anywhere. It'll be the same thing we are doing now.

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

Fine. I'm stupid. I admit that. Again, please explain the difference between being based on your opinion but not your opinion because I don't see it. If it's based on your opinion how can it NOT be your opinion? What, specifically, in your definition is NOT your opinion?

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

Now YOU are getting what freedom of speech is!! Good! ETA: Let's see if you understand the limits, (not agree, mind you, simply understand) as to where I am basing it from.

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.

"Gone unchallenged" in your own imagination. I am challenging your replies right now. That's what this post is.

As to post# 2365, I think MontagK505 can fend for himself and is doing a good job.

Your defense seems to resort to ad homs and cries of "I remain unchallenged" quite a lot.

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?

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.

Okay. Fine. I'll concede that. But in doing so, that means your definition is no longer a definition but a law for judges to base their judgments. Therefore I stand by what I said in an earlier post: you definition still leaves it open to the subjective view of someone else, a higher authority. It doesn't define it specifically.

And truthfully, it's not your fault. Porn isn't like murder. Murder is easy to define. Porn is subjective to the person seeing it. All media is.

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

That, I understand and it's fair. I don't mind if you don't concur, that's part of what a debate is.

I just wanted you to understand my position.

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.

As to your first point, I do think of it objectively. That's why I defend the right for it to be under free speech. Because first and foremost VCP, like any media, is subjective to the viewer watching it. But I see more harm in blocking innocent expression because then one is punishing the innocent, and yes, it leaves the door open for people to wrongly accuse other people of more horrible crimes. It also opens the door to let other forms of expression to be stopped.

I get your point: you feel that VCP should be banned because it may make a potential or actual child molester aroused enough to lose control of her or his judgment enough and so that she or he may molest an innocent child and the chance of that happening is worth more than keeping it free for people who are not potential or actual child molesters from using it as an expression.

And if I may hazard a guess, you do not see how VCP can be used for anything other than inspire to arouse sexual feelings, but that should be left up to a judge.

I just disagree and I don't need to create a definition to say why.

1) I believe that a potential/actual child molester will molest a child no matter what the media is. Anything can trigger a person to be aroused. Anything. It doesn't have to be porn. So if you are banning VCP in fear of it inspiring someone to molest a child, you might as well go all the way and ban things like underwear ads or, as some people in America believe ALL porn. If the reason to ban is to prevent someone from harming someone else, where does the line get drawn?

2) I believe that VCP could actually prevent some cases of a potential/actual child molester from doing so. How, she/he sees the VCP, masturbates, done. The urge to molest is gone for a while, and that person continuously uses VCP to satisfy her or his urges, no one ever get molested.

3) As an example, if consenting adults who like to age play writes a story for each other, creates a scene on Poser for each other, age plays in an adults-only virtual environment and is accidentally over heard by someone else, or maybe even age plays in their own house and is accidentally over heard by someone else, they are now labeled as potential child molesters and can be arrested and prosecuted when no one was harmed and there was no real threat to any real child in the first place.

4) If an artist wants to use VCP as a way of inciting anger in the viewer, or have the view question their own morality, ethics and sexuality, or even make a comedic joke, then that artist can be arrested and prosecuted for being a potential child molester even though no one was harmed and there was no real threat to any real child in the first place.

I'm sorry, SW. I understand where you are coming from but I see "cost effectiveness" of blocking VCP as doing more harm than good.

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

So "never question your superiors" is that what you are saying? Never challenge the law? Never challenge authority? Sorry, I don't work like that.

...now I'm not saying "break the law". I'm saying that one challenges the law legally. We can do that in America.

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.

...depending on the judge's subjective view. You've defined nothing.

Neat dodge.

A compliment coming from the master. (I know, an ad hom. I am allowed one, right? )

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.

Specify what part of your definition is not your opinion, please.

Of course. So what?

Because we are debating the reasons behind the law, not your definition. You want it to be about definitions. This debate is more than that.

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.

It's not an urban myth because your definition falls back on why there is no workable definition: because it boils down to subjective opinion of the viewer. You claim that your definition does that itself, in fact, ALL definitions of VCP will HAVE to fall on the subjective opinion of the viewer.

That's why the US government has be re-defining it for decades.

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

I'm sorry, this entire post says you don't.

 

[JFrankA]

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

Hey, per your definition, if the judges think that their judgments are sensible, there's no debating is there?

 

[JFrankA]

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

Oh. Sorry, I didn't know the holiday. Forgive my ignorance and please accept my good wishes to you for a continued good holiday!

 

[JFrankA]

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

Gumboot, I, for one, wish more people had your "lack of reading comprehension" that you do...

 

[Southwind17]

A fair statement. I will. But as I said, it would just be my opinion.

No comment.

Did I say "no laws"? I don't recall saying "no laws"......

No comment.

Untrue in the case of America. The laws in America quite clear protect people's rights and freedoms. The only limit imposed is that one individual's rights and freedoms do not interfere with another individual's.

No comment.

The idea is that if you write the laws with the above in mind, protection comes naturally from it.

No comment.

And you just showed that I was right. You have don't even have a rudimentary of understanding. Sorry, SW. You've just gotten a "Fail" at the class of "The First Amendment 101 by JFrankA". Do the research yourself if you don't believe me.

No comment.

If I understand you correctly, if you mean speech to incite a crowd or a person to do something is allowed. Always. That's because the law is based on "Innocent until proven guilty". A group of people can march down a street, chanting "Kill this race because they are horrible" (or some such nonsense) and as long as it's kept peaceful, i.e, they don't interfere with the rights of others on the street, it's perfectly legal.

No comment.

Okay, Mr. I-know-American-law-better-that-you, what else is the exception to free speech here in America? Tell me. Please.

I see. You're American, I'm not, so you're qualified to comment on American law, I'm not. Perhaps we should consult a seasoned convict for absolutely definitive expert advice?! But in answer to your question (I have covered this in a previous post btw):
obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, "fighting words," and sedition. I suggest you educate yourself on the First Amendment that you hold so dearly by starting here, maybe.

But it is. You are not the first person who believes that freedom of speech is not as important as "baby-sitting protection".
If you actually read that article I've posted, you'll see that part of this is tactic to get all porn eventually banned. As I've said, there are people in America fighting to ban ALL PORN, including "marshmallow porn", because they believe that any porn, not just VCP, any and all porn, DOES EXACTLY WHAT YOU THINK VCP DOES. And wants all porn banned because they think the same way you do: that protection from something that may make someone who may be a molester be convinced to maybe do it.
I'm sorry, SW, it IS a wedge. It's been used before in the US, and, I may sadly say, sometimes successfully.

So your argument is essentially founded in cynicism and fear. What a wonderfully brave and sensible approach to take when it comes to children's wellbeing. Do you adopt this approach for other aspects of your life:
I'd best not have a beer - it will inevitably lead to my getting drunk; I'd best not drive a car - I will inevitably not be able to stop accelerating and crashing, etc.

Your definition does nothing to protect the innocent because it defaults to a subjective view.

Case precedence is entirely objective.

How? Your definition allows anyone to with authority to judge every right to put a person in jail for writing an age-play fantasy for his wife that has fallen into the hands of someone else.

Are you certain that ticks all the boxes?!

Your definition does nothing. It leave it up to the subjective opinion of a higher authority.

Case precedence.

That scene could be part of a story to make the viewer upset so that she/he feels vindicated when the hero saves the child, it could be made as an artistic way so that the viewer can decide whether it is arousing or not, it could be meant as even comedy.
The point is you do not know until you've seen it. And, I've noticed, that despite your defense of your definition is capable of easily fixing criminalizing other media, you refuse to see it in the case of VCP. Your attitude, as well as your definition, has already made any artist who even comes close to VCP with no intention of arousal condemned as guilty.

Case precedence.

I was explaining where my opinions come from and why I feel what I feel.

Yes, in a very patronising and condescending manner.

I am. I did. And I stand by it.

So what is it then: fact or humble opinion? Please make up your mind, mean what you say and say what you mean. If you're incapable of that then I suggest you shut the proverbial up to stop embarrassing yourself any further.

Your definition. It's not the real law. It's not the definition that the US goes by, I don't know about other countries.

No comment.

Well, if you try to understand what I am saying and read the article I've posted before, you'll see the relevance.
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlt...2dltr0019.html
But I'm going to assume that you won't. Funny thing is I DO see the relevance of your position and definition and feelings. I understand and feel that the relevance is important and correct to you because of where you grew up. I am saying it's wrong for how the laws work in America, but I see and understand how some people don't understand why keeping VCP as something protected by free speech is important.
I understand your position, SW. Without question. I'm trying to make you understand mine. You may not agree with it, fine. You don't live here, you don't have to follow our philosophy. Just try to understand it, please. That's what I've been trying to explain to you.

The "real" law (by which I believe you mean the actual law) is not key to the debate. What is key is what the actual law could and should be.

I'm sorry, please explain the difference because I don't see it. If it's based on your opinion how can it NOT be your opinion? What, specifically, in your definition is NOT your opinion?
I ask because definitions that used in laws are debate among lots of people and often times rewritten to try to remove opinion from the definition. The US government has been wrestling with a definition of "porn" (not just VCP) since the 1950's and they still are unsure that their definition is correct.

Example: In my opinion it's warm in Spain right now but cold in England. In your opinion it's only mild in Spain, not warm, and cool in England, not cold. Fine. What are the definitions of "warm", "cold", "mild" and "cool"? Well hey, let's take a look here, here, here and here shall we. Voila - two opinions, same definitions. Get it?

Let's see if you understand the limits, (not agree, mind you, simply understand) as to where I am basing it from.

"Gone unchallenged" in your own imagination. I am challenging your replies right now. That's what this post is.

And you're floundering.

As to post# 2365, I think MontagK505 can fend for himself and is doing a good job.

He's floundering almost as badly as you are (you're the master!).

Okay. Fine. I'll concede that. But in doing so, that means your definition is no longer a definition but a law for judges to base their judgments.

It's a definition of child porn set within a legal context. Clearly, if we're to have laws governing child porn then we need to define "child porn" just like iw we're to have laws governing murder then we need to define "murder". BTW - what is the legal definition of murder, out of interest? From Wikipedia:

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

Well what do you know! "Intent"; "aforethought"; "state of mind". We can't possibly have laws that require judges and juries to be mind readers, can we? That go to intent, aforethought and state of mind? Oh no - that could be subjective. No - we must rescind the law governing murder immediately. In fact, every law that goes to intent and is subjective. Rescind them all I say - they can't possibly work without convicting all the innocents too!

You can read the entire article here if you could be bothered.

Therefore I stand by what I said in an earlier post: you definition still leaves it open to the subjective view of someone else, a higher authority. It doesn't define it specifically.

Oops!

And truthfully, it's not your fault. Porn isn't like murder. Murder is easy to define. Porn is subjective to the person seeing it. All media is.

Double oops!

I get your point: you feel that VCP should be banned because it may make a potential or actual child molester aroused enough to lose control of her or his judgment enough and so that she or he may molest an innocent child and the chance of that happening is worth more than keeping it free for people who are not potential or actual child molesters from using it as an expression.

Kerching!

And if I may hazard a guess, you do not see how VCP can be used for anything other than inspire to arouse sexual feelings, but that should be left up to a judge.

"Hazard a guess"? I've lost count of how many times I've actually stated so.

I just disagree and I don't need to create a definition to say why.

OK - so an alternative definition will not be forthcoming. That's cool.

1) I believe that a potential/actual child molester will molest a child no matter what the media is. Anything can trigger a person to be aroused. Anything. It doesn't have to be porn. So if you are banning VCP in fear of it inspiring someone to molest a child, you might as well go all the way and ban things like underwear ads or, as some people in America believe ALL porn. If the reason to ban is to prevent someone from harming someone else, where does the line get drawn?

And again - the absolutist all or nothing view. "We don't have the means to do x, y and z, each of which is a contributory factor, so, although we have the means to do x, what would be the point?"

2) I believe that VCP could actually prevent some cases of a potential/actual child molester from doing so. How, she/he sees the VCP, masturbates, done. The urge to molest is gone for a while, and that person continuously uses VCP to satisfy her or his urges, no one ever get molested.

I actually agree that this seems plausible. It is my opinion, however, that the potential upside from it will be marginal compared to the potential downside of the inevitable legitimizing message that legalizing VCP would send out.

3) As an example, if consenting adults who like to age play writes a story for each other, creates a scene on Poser for each other, age plays in an adults-only virtual environment and is accidentally over heard by someone else, or maybe even age plays in their own house and is accidentally over heard by someone else, they are now labeled as potential child molesters and can be arrested and prosecuted when no one was harmed and there was no real threat to any real child in the first place. [emphasis added]

I'm not sure that the emboldened part is correct. Possession of VCP per se is the crime - no motive is implied. Like gun laws in the UK. Possession itself is the crime. Whilst there might be a logical inference that somebody in possession of a gun is planning on killing somebody, to conclude so is pure speculation and clearly wrong in many cases. Possession could be just for self-defense purposes or not even that. Regardless, I believe your fantasising couple they would be protected under my definition.

4) If an artist wants to use VCP as a way of inciting anger in the viewer, or have the view question their own morality, ethics and sexuality, or even make a comedic joke, then that artist can be arrested and prosecuted for being a potential child molester even though no one was harmed and there was no real threat to any real child in the first place. [emphasis added]

Again, I think you're misunderstanding the application of the law. And again, if they approach the matter in a proper way I believe such artists would be protected under my definition, although they are clearly on dodgy ground, for sure. This might well be case of an almost insignificant compromise. Almost all laws dictate some degree of compromise on some people's part.

I'm sorry, SW. I understand where you are coming from but I see "cost effectiveness" of blocking VCP as doing more harm than good.

That's fine, but your justification is weak at best. Mine's by no means compelling to everybody, clearly(!), but yours leaks like a sieve.

So "never question your superiors" is that what you are saying? Never challenge the law? Never challenge authority? Sorry, I don't work like that.

Not at all. But we can't go challenging every judicial ruling, which is exactly why the principle of case precedence was introduced.

...now I'm not saying "break the law". I'm saying that one challenges the law legally. We can do that in America.

Fine, but it can't be up for challenge on a permanently open-season basis. That wouldn't make for a workable legal system.

...depending on the judge's subjective view. You've defined nothing.

Triple oops!

Specify what part of your definition is not your opinion, please.

See above.

Because we are debating the reasons behind the law, not your definition. You want it to be about definitions. This debate is more than that.

No comment.

It's not an urban myth because your definition falls back on why there is no workable definition: because it boils down to subjective opinion of the viewer. You claim that your definition does that itself, in fact, ALL definitions of VCP will HAVE to fall on the subjective opinion of the viewer.

Quadruple oops!

That's why the US government has be re-defining it for decades.

I don't believe that is the reason, actually, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. You've stated as much previously.

I'm sorry, this entire post says you don't.

No comment.

 

[Southwind17]

Hey, per your definition, if the judges think that their judgments are sensible, there's no debating is there?

If a judge is inclined not to act sensibly no definitions are going to protect anybody! Get it?

 

[Southwind17]

Gumboot, I, for one, wish more people had your "lack of reading comprehension" that you do...

You could all form a club! How about "The Semaphore Club" for a name?!

 

[RandFan]

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

Says the man who simply ignores lots and lots of stuff. I've honestly tried to respond to every point.

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

A.) Appeal to authority isn't always fallacious. C.) These are damn good authorites. D.) The authority is backed up by sound legal argument. None of which you have even attempted to address.

You're leaving - eventually?!

Absolutely. Same as you.

 

[JFrankA]

If a judge is inclined not to act sensibly no definitions are going to protect anybody! Get it?

(I'm going to start with this response then go to the previous one. The other one is going to be long. )

There you go! No definitions alone are going to be sufficient. In a court case, it all boils down to one person's subjective view of the media. It always will, sensible or not!

Let me expand on the hypothetical I started:

Let's say that a store had a display of a maniquin of a child in underwear. The person who positioned the maniquin made it so that from one angle, it looks like the maniquin was touching his gentials over his underwear. That person claims he had no intention of doing so.

But one shopper noticed with her child, happen to stand at the correct angle, saw the maniquin touching itself, and got angry because she sees, essentially VCP (a non-real child in the act of masturbation). She told the manager, the manager repremanded the worker who set up the display.

However, that's not enough for the shopper. She feels that the intent was to arouse any possible child molesters in the store. She sues the store.

Now the judge has a choice. Your definition clearly shows that at the right angle, the maniquin does look like he's touching himself, so the intent to arouse seems to be there. But by the same token, this is a store, the worker has no reason to do purposely make the maniquin look like it's masturbating, so it could be ruled as an accident, with no intent to arouse.

Here's the point: When it comes right down to making that decision, it doesn't matter one lick what your definition is. The bottom like, either way, is that it is the subject view of the person doing judging. Period.

 

[MontagK505]

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.
<snip>

Speaking metaphorically, is it your position that everyone should be required to wear moral diapers because a small minority can't or won't be toilet trained?

Do you understand how the majority just might resent this?

 

[JFrankA]

You could all form a club! How about "The Semaphore Club" for a name?!

I'll nominate you as president!!!

 

[JFrankA]

No comment.

No comment.

No comment.

No comment.

No comment.

No comment.

You know, for someone who doesn't live in America, you sound so much like one of our politicians!!!

I see. You're American, I'm not, so you're qualified to comment on American law, I'm not. Perhaps we should consult a seasoned convict for absolutely definitive expert advice?!

*sigh* I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to patronize you. I was telling you that I simply think you don't understand America's Freedom of Speech philosophy. I was trying to say that it was understandable, but many Americans don't understand it either. I was simply trying to explain it more clearly to you. I never, ever, ever said that you are not "qualified to comment on American law", just that maybe you don't understand the philosophy. I was hoping to try to let you understand it as I do.

I honestly meant no disrespect.

But in answer to your question (I have covered this in a previous post btw):
obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, "fighting words," and sedition. I suggest you educate yourself on the First Amendment that you hold so dearly by starting here, maybe.

I'll have to read this later. I want to give it all the consideration it's due.

So your argument is essentially founded in cynicism and fear. What a wonderfully brave and sensible approach to take when it comes to children's wellbeing.

And yours is not? "Be damned to all people who might create VCP for any innocent reason. It may cause someone who would molest a child anyway whether they see the VCP or not to possibly molest a child, so it's fine if innocent people get prosecuted if the higher authority says so! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

What a wonderfully brave and sensible approach to take with it comes to the general population's well being.

Do you adopt this approach for other aspects of your life:
I'd best not have a beer - it will inevitably lead to my getting drunk; I'd best not drive a car - I will inevitably not be able to stop accelerating and crashing, etc.

Right back at ya, buddy:

Do you adopt your approach for other aspects of your life: It would be best to ban all alcohol - because then if I might sell it to someone who drinks it who might get drunk enough to so that he can't control himself and he might beat his child and put his child in the hospital.

In fact, the senario you gave me works for your approach to this problem as well......

Case precedence is entirely objective.

So why argue "definition"?

Are you certain that ticks all the boxes?!

You've answered that already. Doesn't matter what boxes I tick or didn't tick because, as you say:

Case precedence.

Case precedence.

So in the end, the definition doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the judge's subjective view.

Yes, in a very patronising and condescending manner.

Forgive me but, to be very honest, I did not at all mean to be patronising and condescending in my previous post. I made a couple of jokes, but all in all I didn't mean to be. And I apologize if I came across as such.

But I do need to point out that you've been more patronising and condescending continuously throughout this thread. So I would suggest, without any disrespect or condesendance, that you refrain from being so if you are going to take offense to others, please.

In my humble opinion, I'm sorry, if you can dish it out, you should be able to take it.

So what is it then: fact or humble opinion? Please make up your mind, mean what you say and say what you mean. If you're incapable of that then I suggest you shut the proverbial up to stop embarrassing yourself any further.

I believe that you are misunderstanding me and/or misquoting me. Let me please clear this up.

What I had stated as fact was this following sentance. I stand by it as a 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".

If I am wrong, then I apologize for stating this as a fact. But from what I've learned and known throughout my years of living here, it is a fact of what America philosphy of the law is about.

No comment.

Are you sure you really aren't an American Congressman or something in disguise???

The "real" law (by which I believe you mean the actual law) is not key to the debate. What is key is what the actual law could and should be.

It has to be the key because that's where we springboard from. That's why there's debate, because one law works in Country A but doesn't in Country B. We each learn from the other. If debating from nothing we are just running around in circles. Using the law as a key or a guide, gives us references to use.

Example: In my opinion it's warm in Spain right now but cold in England. In your opinion it's only mild in Spain, not warm, and cool in England, not cold. Fine. What are the definitions of "warm", "cold", "mild" and "cool"? Well hey, let's take a look here, here, here and here shall we. Voila - two opinions, same definitions. Get it?

But when Mom (judge) says to son (defendant), "Wear your coat!! It's cold outside!" and the son says "but Mom, I'm not cold". It still defaults to whoever has the authority doesn't it?

I don't care if the temperature is 85 F degrees outside and the sun is shining, my Mom will still be cold and wear a sweater. Now even though the temprature and weather can be defined as "warm" or even "hot", my mom would still be cold. It's still a question of subjective perception isn't it?

Sorry, you haven't proven that definitions actually mean anything when it comes to how a person's subjective view. I will agree that it may affect one's judgement, but it's not the end all-be all of someone's opinion.

Okay, I'll recap that exchange and clear up what I meant.
You said:

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

I replied

Again, The basic philosophy of America's laws is to give people their individual rights as long as those rights do not interfere with other people's individual rights. You said "you're free to do what you want or don't want (within limits)" so you got half the philosophy right. The other half is that the limit is "so long as I don't interfere with other people's individual rights".

You've got half of it, I was hoping you'd get the other half. Do I make sense now?

And you're floundering.


He's floundering almost as badly as you are (you're the master!).

No, you're the master.

Look, you have used eight "No comments" in this post alone. That's floundering to me.

And, I'm sorry to say this, I don't mean to be mean, just calling it as I see it: you've used a lot of ad homs to people who don't agree with you, bullying people who ask for clarification of your postings, claims that your views have far superior morals than anyone who disagrees with you, using threats of ignore on people, skipped over questions and points that challenge your ideas, and made instant and incorrect misjudgments on people. I see that as floundering too.

Now I'm sure you're going to critisize me. Please do. I'll say again that I meant no anger or insult to you, it's just what comes across. I am trying, since you've taken me off ignore, to be kinder and not treating you with disrespect. I say the above with respect to you, and if you feel I've been unfair or disrespectful, please say so. I'll promise to keep trying to improve.

It's a definition of child porn set within a legal context. Clearly, if we're to have laws governing child porn then we need to define "child porn" just like iw we're to have laws governing murder then we need to define "murder". BTW - what is the legal definition of murder, out of interest? From Wikipedia:

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).​

Well what do you know! "Intent"; "aforethought"; "state of mind". We can't possibly have laws that require judges and juries to be mind readers, can we? That go to intent, aforethought and state of mind? Oh no - that could be subjective. No - we must rescind the law governing murder immediately. In fact, every law that goes to intent and is subjective. Rescind them all I say - they can't possibly work without convicting all the innocents too!

You can read the entire article here if you could be bothered.

But murder can be defined as one simple thing: The act of one person killing another. There we go.

Here's the hard part: one person is dead, another is accused of killing that person. Prove it. You know, even with forensic evidence, witnesses, testomonies, court trails, etc, etc, it still (in America anyway) comes down to the subjective decision of twelve people whether someone is guilty or not?

With porn, it's even less clear. Murder is concrete - one person dead, knife in his chest - there it is. The question isn't "is the guy murdered" but "did the guy murder that other guy".


"Intent to arouse" is not concrete. That part, in your definition is subjective. The creator of the media might make the dirtiest, raunchiest virtual child porn ever and claim that it's not intended to arouse, but to have the viewer react as negitively and cause empathy to the virtural child in the media.

That's what the creator says and means it, but, according to your definition, that creator should be put on trail. Then what desicides the creator's intent? In this case, the creator's intent is irrelavent. The definition of VCP is irrelavent. The only relavance at this point is the subjective view of the judge. The judge now makes a decision as to what the creator had in mind. Instead of "here's the evidence, does the evidence prove, beyond a shadow of doubt that he murdered that guy", it is "here's the media, in my subjective view, what was the intent of this media?" The instead of determining if the evidence is enough to prove guilt, the judge becomes a mind reader.

Oops!

Double oops!

Glad to know you see the flaw with your definition.

Kerching!

See? And you told me I didn't comprehend your posts!

"Hazard a guess"? I've lost count of how many times I've actually stated so.

Honestly, I wanted to make sure I did not misquote you, misunderstand you or claim anything you did not say. That's all. I am glad that I do understand your position.

OK - so an alternative definition will not be forthcoming. That's cool.

Actually there's quite a few. I"m presently researching what the US government's definition of VCP is as a base definition.

1) I believe that a potential/actual child molester will molest a child no matter what the media is. Anything can trigger a person to be aroused. Anything. It doesn't have to be porn. So if you are banning VCP in fear of it inspiring someone to molest a child, you might as well go all the way and ban things like underwear ads or, as some people in America believe ALL porn. If the reason to ban is to prevent someone from harming someone else, where does the line get drawn?

And again - the absolutist all or nothing view. "We don't have the means to do x, y and z, each of which is a contributory factor, so, although we have the means to do x, what would be the point?"

However, it is NOT "what's the point?", it is "Where does it end?" Because if we do x, then people will say "Hey, if VCP (x) is banned for the reason that a potential/actual child molestor MAY become so crazy with lust she/he MAY actually go and molest a child, wouldn't "marshmallow porn" do the same thing? So let's not only ban x, y and z, but let's go back and ban the other letters of the alphabet. Think of the children!"

This is not imagination or fear or paranoia. This idea is happening right now as we speak in America. There are people who want to ban ALL PORN, even "marshmallow porn, for exactly the same reason why you think VCP should be banned.

2) I believe that VCP could actually prevent some cases of a potential/actual child molester from doing so. How, she/he sees the VCP, masturbates, done. The urge to molest is gone for a while, and that person continuously uses VCP to satisfy her or his urges, no one ever get molested.

I actually agree that this seems plausible. It is my opinion, however, that the potential upside from it will be marginal compared to the potential downside of the inevitable legitimizing message that legalizing VCP would send out.

I'm glad you understand this view. But I do differ with you when it comes to your assessment. I think it would help more people from NOT doing actual child molestation than convincing them to do it. But this, admittingly is an opinion. Fair enough.

potential child molesters[/b] and can be arrested and prosecuted when no one was harmed and there was no real threat to any real child in the first place. [emphasis added]

I'm not sure that the emboldened part is correct. Possession of VCP per se is the crime - no motive is implied. Like gun laws in the UK. Possession itself is the crime. Whilst there might be a logical inference that somebody in possession of a gun is planning on killing somebody, to conclude so is pure speculation and clearly wrong in many cases. Possession could be just for self-defense purposes or not even that.

I see your point. That's fair. For discussion's sake (because you're right - since it is against the law those people would be arrested), may I change the bolded part from "potential child molesters" to "sex offenders". That's how it's done in the US.

Regardless, I believe your fantasising couple they would be protected under my definition.

But then, now we're back to the subjective view of a judge.

4) If an artist wants to use VCP as a way of inciting anger in the viewer, or have the view question their own morality, ethics and sexuality, or even make a comedic joke, then that artist can be arrested and prosecuted for being a potential child molester even though no one was harmed and there was no real threat to any real child in the first place. [emphasis added]

Again, I think you're misunderstanding the application of the law. And again, if they approach the matter in a proper way I believe such artists would be protected under my definition, although they are clearly on dodgy ground, for sure. This might well be case of an almost insignificant compromise. Almost all laws dictate some degree of compromise on some people's part.

Again, let's change it to "sex offender".

But we are back to the same problem, it's up to the subjective view of someone in authority.

That's fine, but your justification is weak at best. Mine's by no means compelling to everybody, clearly(!), but yours leaks like a sieve.

Yours is leaking just as badly. Your stance has a ton of "maybe's" and "if's" and "may's" and 'possiblies".

Not at all. But we can't go challenging every judicial ruling, which is exactly why the principle of case precedence was introduced.

Fine, but it can't be up for challenge on a permanently open-season basis. That wouldn't make for a workable legal system.

Any reason why not if all those challenges is peaceful and legal? Every case IS a challege to the law....

Triple oops!


See above.


No comment.


Quadruple oops!

No? Not a Congressman? Hmm? No? Well... maybe a Mayor or something?

I don't believe that is the reason, actually, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. You've stated as much previously.

Quite right. My mistake. I should have said: "That's why the US government has be debating porno laws for decades."

No comment.

errr...former president then??? Hmmm? Anything?

 

[Whiplash]

What's the point of quoting something only to say "no comment".

Maybe just snip to the parts you are willing to comment on. Otherwise, it seems pointless. Even wasteful of forum space.

 

[JFrankA]

But in answer to your question (I have covered this in a previous post btw):
obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, "fighting words," and sedition. I suggest you educate yourself on the First Amendment that you hold so dearly by starting here, maybe.

I'll have to read this later. I want to give it all the consideration it's due.

Okay, I've read through it. I see what it says, but you do realize that it gives a summary of each item, then asks questions that challenge the statements. In fact some questions actually overturn the definitions presented.

Specifically about Obsenity (Note: NOT pornography) it's listing states:

(6) Obscenity: In Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]) the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions which would not violate the First Amendment:

(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Although much debated, this standard remains the law of the land, and elements of this language have been included in both the authorizing legislation for the National Endowment for the Arts (20 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) and the Communications Decency Act (4) prohibiting "obscenity" and "indecency" on the Internet. The Communications Decency Act was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1997. The NEA legislation was been struck down as unconstitutional by lower courts but was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. (NEA v. Finley, No. 97-371, 1998)

Question 1: One controversy over this exception to free speech is whether obscenity causes real harm sufficient to justify suppression of free speech. Does viewing obscenity make it more likely that a man will later commit rape, or other acts of violence against women, obviously real harm to another person? Does reading about war make it more likely that someone will start a war? Even if there is some evidence of such causal relationships, however tenuous or strong, is it sufficient to justify this exception to free speech? Alternatively, could the prohibition on obscenity be a reflection of moral values and societal standards which should more properly be handled in the private sector through moral education, not government censorship?

Question 2: Another problem area is determining what counts as "obscenity". In Miller, the court tried to fashion a standard which could be adapted to different communities, so that what counts as obscenity in rural Mississippi might not count as obscenity in Atlanta or New York City. Is this fair? Do the people in those areas themselves agree on community standards? What is the "community" for art that is displayed on-line on the Internet?

Question 3: Another controversy in the Miller standard is the exception for "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Who decides what counts as "serious"? If some people consider Penthouse or the National Enquirer to be serious literature, is it elitist to deny them this exception from censorship as "obscenity"? Given the controversies in contemporary art (found objects, performance art, and so forth), what counts as artistic value? Has the Court solved the problem of defining "obscenity" or only made it more complicated?

In reviewing these classic exceptions to free speech, it does seem that real harm can be caused by at least some of these instances of speech. Following J.S. Mill, we could limit our restrictions to real harm -- physical or economic harm, not psychic or hypothetical harm. If real harm is present, then we should next address the causal relationship necessary to hold someone responsible for the harm caused by the expression. This is not easy, of course, but we do have models for determining when a causal relationship is sufficiently close ("proximate") to hold someone responsible. We also have experience in determining whether to hold people responsible based on whether a reasonable person knew or should have known the consequences of their actions.

From the questions on down, it's all speculation, most likely for a class discussion, I'd imagine, considering the source is from the California State University. Those questions and supositions are doing exactly what we are trying to do. Debate the issue.

So let's take your source and apply VCP to the obsenity standard, the Miller Standard listed above.

For the sake of discussion, let's remove the fact that VCP is illegal. Again, we know possession of it is illegal, that is not in debate, the challenge is why.

Virtual Child Porn -

a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

Well, it would depend wouldn't it? In what context is the VCP in?

b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law

Which state? Tennensee is far more conservative than New York, for example, and how exactly is it offensive? Again, it would depend on what it is exactly and what circumstances that the media in question is taking place.

c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Okay, here we go. NOW it depends on the subjective view of a higher authority, (judge, jury, etc).

So even though we HAVE this three fold definition from the US government itself, it still defaults to circumstance, context, difference in state laws (according to the state's subjective views, I might add), and finally by the subjective view and judgement of a higher authority.

Even though "obscene" items are not covered under the First Admendment, determining if something is "obscene" still somehow has to be proven. And even though the government had set up a commission specifically with the intent to prove that there is a connection between rape and porn, the results were inconclusive at best. That debate still rages on here in the States.

The interesting thing about the obscenity laws is how maliuable it is depending on who is president. During Bush's first term, there were 125 filings of obscenity charges: twice as many as Clinton's last term. Also, from what I've read, there are many people who are charged with obscenity charges that have a child porn possession or production or both charge(s) thrown in in an effort to get the defendant to back down and plea bargin or trump up the sentancing, even if the defendant can sucessfully prove that there is no child porn involved at all.

It was said before in this thread, banning VCP is only a wedge to allow some people to get rid of all porn, no matter what kind of sex the porn in question involves.

It would seem to me that no matter what porn you like - ranging from hardcore virtual child pornography to "marshmallow porn" it all becomes illegal based upon a higher authority's subjective view - no matter what the definition is.

Now I still stand by my statement that the philosophy of the American law and the right to Free Speech is to protect the individual rights of people. However, there are many many people, some of them in high political power, who completely forget that philosophy and go after what they believe is "morally" right, usually, but not always, based on their religious beliefs, usually, but no always, with cries of "think of the children".

I am a small time porn producer - seven or eight titles. I do not produce "marshmallow porn", in fact, my fetish could be considered dangerous and even mentally damaging to people who actually participate in the actual fetish. So, Southwind, if you feel that fantasy rape porn should be banned, then I would daresay that the fetish my porn portrays is something you could possibly feel that needs to be banned too. It's very possible, not paranoia, that you would not be the only one who possibly feels this way.

So I defend VCP ONLY because banning VCP is only the beginning. There is no conclusive evidence that VCP may make a potiential/actual child molester would make her/him "out of control" enough to decide to go molest a real child. Indeed, there may be a way to use VCP to have potiental/actual child molesters curtail and control their urges with the help of psychologists, but because we are so scared of "think of what might happen in that one in whatever chance", there is no way to explore that legally even though no child gets hurt in trying to do so.

And for all the reasons I've listed above, and some I haven't mentioned in this posting but in others, even though I may not like VCP, or fantasy/virtual torture, or fantasy/virtual death sex, etc, I will defend it.

 

[RandFan]

For the sake of discussion, let's remove the fact that VCP is illegal. Again, we know possession of it is illegal, that is not in debate, the challenge is why.

You've lost me. Where is VCP illegal?

 

[JFrankA]

You've lost me. Where is VCP illegal?

Sadly it was enacted in the 2003 PROTECT ACT. (Sheesh PATRIOT ACT, PROTECT ACT, lots of names to make one feel "proud and safe" -.-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

specifically:

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).

Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).

Maximum sentence of 5 years for possession, 10 years for distribution.

Authorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad.

...sheesh, that last one scares me considering I was in Germany with my girlfriend three weeks ago!

 

[RandFan]

Sadly it was enacted in the 2003 PROTECT ACT. (Sheesh PATRIOT ACT, PROTECT ACT, lots of names to make one feel "proud and safe" -.-)

I didn't know. So much for the 2002 9th circuit decision. Do you know if the 2003 act is being persued?

From your link:

The first conviction of a person found to have violated the sections of the act relating to virtual child pornography, Dwight Whorley of Virginia, was upheld in a 2-1 panel decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2008.[11]. This was in apparent contradiction to a previous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stated virtual child pornography was protected free speech.

If you don't care about the first Amendment then just keep passing laws. So much for legal precedent.

 

[JFrankA]

I didn't know. So much for the 2002 9th circuit decision. Do you know if the 2003 act is being persued?

From your link:

If you don't care about the first Amendment then just keep passing laws. So much for legal precedent.

Yup. As I said, the philosophy of America's laws is supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty" and to protect the rights of the individuals however, unfortunately, over the Bush years, we seemed to have completely forgotten those ideals in every facet of the laws in our country.

 

[Skeptic]

Yup. As I said, the philosophy of America's laws is supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty" and to protect the rights of the individuals however, unfortunately, over the Bush years, we seemed to have completely forgotten those ideals in every facet of the laws in our country.

Oh.

So the legal decision prohibiting virtual child porn was an evil anti-freedom action, and is, therefore, all Bush's fault.

Of course, the legal decision permitting virtual child porn was giving aid and comfort to evil pedophiles. It was passed in 2002, so that, too, is all Bush's fault.

Now, wait a minute. Wasn't the high point of the "child abuse epidemic" hysteria during the Clinton years? When people were thrown into jail on flimsy or no evidence? For some reason nobody blamed Clinton. Maybe because who is the president of the USA is of little or no importance when it comes to what sort of mass panics seize the country.

It is, however, beyond doubt that if the same panic happened to occur in 2004 and not 1994, every "intellectual" and "sophisticated" analysis of it would have a throwaway line or paragraph to the effect that this, too, is "due to the increasing conservatism and anti-liberality of the country, as exemplified by the election of G. W. Bush" -- that is, "it's Bush fault."

Tell me when you find something that isn't Bush's fault. THAT would be news.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is it just me, or did that post just miss the point entirely?