| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
yuna49
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 3804
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:28 pm
|
 |
|
| Hannish Lightning wrote: | | What if Handley had life-like computer generated images of naked children doing sexual acts? The images looks like real children and you can't tell if they are fake. Since there were no victims should he be punished for having those pictures? |
Comments like this suggest that law enforcement should focus on the people in possession of these images. I'd suggest that the real focus should be on the actual molesters, the people who take the photographs or videos of real children engaged in real sexual acts. Of course, it's a lot more difficult to find these people, so law enforcement agencies focus on the Handleys of the world. Especially when postal inspectors conveniently drop cases like these in the prosecutors' laps, and they can wave them in front of their constitutents' faces.
| CMB wrote: | | The point is do you or anyone else know what it was he got in trouble for? If it is really some minor or is it something more serious. I think it's hard to judge with out all the facts. |
Did you make any effort to inform yourself about the facts in this case before making this comment? (For a quick overview, I recommend this.) The prosecution couldn't make a child-porn case because the material didn't include real children and was thus not actionable under Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft. So they turned to a law banning the interstate traffic of "obscene" materials. The irony here is that it's apparently okay to possess "obscene" materials but not obtain them across state lines. And, of course, the definition of "obscene" depends on "community standards" so what's "obscene" in Kansas might not be "obscene" in New York.
Last edited by yuna49 on Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
egoist
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 7762
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:32 pm
|
|
|
| CCSYueh wrote: | | Better burn your copies of Alice in Wonderland, kiddies. |
Mm, yeah. Someday the kiddies will be walking on the streets like Arab women. Only eyes visible. Look into their eyes and a zoo cage will be waiting for you, where you'll be naked and have the kid whose eyes were looked upon by the criminal poke you with a very sharp wooden stick.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Hannish Lightning
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 376
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:33 pm
|
|
|
|
So it's okay to have kiddie porn just as long as it's isn't real? That's sick, would you trust a person who is really into loli porn and CGI kiddie porn to look after your children even if there was only a 1% chance he'd act upon his fantasies? Would you take that chance?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Megiddo
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 8360
Location: IL
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:34 pm
|
|
|
| Hannish Lightning wrote: | | So it's okay to have kiddie porn just as long as it's isn't real? |
Just like it's okay to shoot and kill someone as long as it isn't real.
Thought crime is not crime.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
egoist
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 7762
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:36 pm
|
|
|
| Hannish Lightning wrote: | | So it's okay to have kiddie porn just as long as it's isn't real? That's sick, would you trust a person who is really into loli porn and CGI kiddie porn to look after your children even if there was only a 1% chance he'd act upon his fantasies? Would you take that chance? |
Yes. No. No. You see, as a parent, it's your duty to find someone responsible to look after your brats, and if you're smart enough you'd get a doped and drunk female teenager to look after them, which by the way is much safer and less disgusting; according to you mister.
4 pages to go, then the prophecy shall be fulfilled.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Hannish Lightning
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 376
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:44 pm
|
|
|
| Megiddo wrote: |
| Hannish Lightning wrote: | | So it's okay to have kiddie porn just as long as it's isn't real? |
Just like it's okay to shoot and kill someone as long as it isn't real.
Thought crime is not crime. |
Liking violence is socially accepted as it doesn't make you a craze psychopath, but the only person who's going to be into that loli crap are pedos because only a pedo would be sexually attracted to drawings of little girls. And if even if no one was harmed it's not to say that loli porn can't be a gateway into real CP. Pedophilia is a mental disorder and allowing them to look at loli porn isn't going to help.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
yuna49
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 3804
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:48 pm
|
|
|
| Hannish Lightning wrote: | | And if even if no one was harmed it's not to say that loli porn can't be a gateway into real CP. Pedophilia is a mental disorder and allowing them to look at loli porn isn't going to help. |
I know you won't accept this, but there is little evidence in support of your premise. Then there's the broader argument enunciated by the Supreme Court itself in Free Speech Coalition, "The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Megiddo
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 8360
Location: IL
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:52 pm
|
|
|
| Hannish Lightning wrote: |
| Megiddo wrote: |
| Hannish Lightning wrote: | | So it's okay to have kiddie porn just as long as it's isn't real? |
Just like it's okay to shoot and kill someone as long as it isn't real.
Thought crime is not crime. |
Liking violence is socially accepted as it doesn't make you a craze psychopath |
Reading loli doujinshi isn't going to make you a "craze psychopath" either.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
egoist
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 7762
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:58 pm
|
|
|
| Hannish Lightning wrote: | | Pedophilia is a mental disorder and allowing them to look at loli porn isn't going to help. |
No matter how you look at it, going to jail is a punishment, not any sort of help. So, make it clear whether you're talking about help or punishment, and in case you actually mean help, then you're in the wrong place, because it's quite clear that the state wants to punish the man, not help.
Last edited by egoist on Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Hannish Lightning
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 376
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:59 pm
|
|
|
|
It does make you a pedo.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
egoist
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 7762
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:01 pm
|
|
|
| Hannish Lightning wrote: | | It does make you a pedo. |
How dare you show more ignorance than I could ever do. There's a fine line between a horse and an ignorant person, and I'm pretty sure we know which of the two you are. And I, my friend, am sincerely surprised by a horse who knows how to type.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Megiddo
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 8360
Location: IL
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:05 pm
|
|
|
| Hannish Lightning wrote: | | It does make you a pedo. |
Then give proof, scientific research that proves this.
Otherwise stop trolling.
Do note that in 2000 Japan had a total of 1.78 reported rapes per 100,000 inhabitants. USA had in the same year 32.05 reported rapes per 100,000 inhabitants. source
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Hannish Lightning
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 376
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:15 pm
|
|
|
|
Who else, but a pedo would be into loli porn?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
hissatsu01
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 963
Location: NYC
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:03 pm
|
|
|
| Hannish Lightning wrote: | | Who else, but a pedo would be into loli porn? |
Quite the one track mind you have there. It's irrelevant who would like it. You can think about whatever you'd like, be it theft, murder, rape, genocide, and anything else. As long as you do not act on those thoughts, the law has no business getting involved. How is pedophilia so far worse than all those other things that an exception must be made for it? "Well, he was looking at pervy drawings, so he's probably going to molest some kids. Better put him in jail, just in case." Our legal system should not be involved in arresting and prosecuting people because you think they might commit a crime. If you can't see the danger that line of thinking represents to a free society, then you're incapable of thinking rationally on this topic. You would prefer we police thoughts, just to be safe.
It's interesting that as child abuse rates have declined drastically in the past few decades, the hysteria over sexual predators has reached a fever pitch. Won't someone please think of the children?
We have people now labeled as sex predators for life over offenses as such as public urination, indecent exposure, teenagers sending nude photos of themselves to each other by phone/internet, teenagers having consensual sex with one another, and now for looking at perverted drawings. It's completely ridiculous, doesn't help any children, and only serves to ruin lives and throw away money. All for the children.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Hannish Lightning
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 376
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:08 pm
|
|
|
|
You're right, I can't see the danger of not letting people look at drawings of naked children.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
