Forum - View topicNEWS: Virginia Man Found Guilty of Downloading Child Porn
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NightHedgehog
 Posts: 38 |
|
|||||
I don't see how the lot of you can accept child pornography and pedophilia. Have you been ever raped as a child or had a friend who was? I have (the friend part). Though they're just getting thier picture taken naked sometimes, it does leave some psychological scars, especially when they're older and they realize what it was for. And alot of the time, child pornography is dealing with the penetration of children. How can you accept that? These are innocent children who did nothing wrong to the world, and you're saying it's okay for adults to even imagine having sex with them? By saying you're okay with child pornography is no different from saying you're okay with raping or being a peeping tom to an adult. It's sexual abuse, and nothing else. |
||||||
|
||||||
Azumangaman
 Posts: 256 Location: Canada |
|
|||||
|
NightHedgehog is right. You are rather insane (like that stupid lady on ER last night) to think that there is nothing wrong with child pornography.
*The Lady on ER said nothing to do with porn. She was just insane. |
||||||
|
||||||
angel_lover
 Posts: 645 Location: UK |
|
|||||
Was it in this thread or another one that I spoke about the danger of the concept of thoughtcrime? Well, I was sitting there reading your post while the banner ad was showing me some kid's butt with a tiny triangle of cloth stretched across it, and it seemed to me like we're ready for another Orwellian concept, this time doublethink.
No, it's Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
||||||
|
||||||
Gamelore
 Posts: 76 |
|
|||||
|
People who have harmed nobody should not be going to jail. They should be going after the people who cause the abuse. Someone who is a pedophile, who does nothing, I have no problem with. They are sickos. There are lots of sickos. But locking them up makes my stomach turn because, as has been mentioned on the thread, some freedom is lost needlessly.
Some people like to view porn. Others like to view those videos of tourists having their heads sawed off. And this guy liked looking at explicit pictures of child porn. All of it makes me sick. But viewing it is not hurting anyone. Whether it creates a potential for harm is another story (and I don't agree that it does). People are supposed to be punished after they do something wrong. It's the people who are filming the actual incidents who need to be punished. However, this raises even more problems, thanks to age: What if it's 2 minors? What if they were just experimenting? It happens. Where do you draw the line? The system is currently set up so that a minor age X vs an adult age X+1 is totally unbelievably illegal OMG!! But! If they are both X, then it is suddenly okay. If they are both X+1, it's suddenly okay. I don't like using age arbitrarily. However, I'm all for taking each occurance on a case-by-case basis to check for gross abuse. I just don't agree with the current age-based system on a lot of things. It makes me really mad. 
|
||||||
|
||||||
Keonyn
 Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
|||||
|
Well angel lover, if you want to promote child pornography then be my guest. The watchdog groups are formed for a reason, a lawyers findings are in no way invalid, they are well thought out and researched documents with as much validity as anything else.
The dangers can't be dismissed, and whether or not it is the result of 10% or 50% or 100% is equally invalid. The lives infected are very real by those who do perform such acts. Not to mention, much like the amateur porn industry, a large number of child pornography on the web is done forcibly or coerced and without consent. By promoting the industry you only promote the further occurence of such acts. It is an industry that thrives on deception and immorality and the abuse of adolescents that know no better, it's not just the people who watch it but the people that create it. Give them a larger market and the problem only gets bigger, seems the problem is big enough as it is. I think it's pretty obvious who the people are who have not had loved ones effected, glad you think their lives are less important than your right to watch child pornography. |
||||||
|
||||||
Kazuki-san
 Posts: 2251 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||
This is true, but this is where the different schools of thought regarding this subject come into play. Of course, there are several sides, but there are two that are the most extreme. The first will tell you that watching such things will desensitize you to the act in general, trigger urges in those who have them, and are generally fairly directly responsible for the actions of those who go out and commit such crimes. They take the preventitive stance. That it's necessary for the material to be illegal, because it incites real people to go out and commit real crimes. The other extreme would say that taking the material away is what causes an increase in real world crimes. To them, the porn (virtual or real) actually provides a release of sorts for those who tend to be disposed to that sort of behavior. Both sides argue that they are right. Both will cite countless studies and throw out numerous "experts" who will "prove" that whichever side is the correct one. This is the reason I don't take the comments that angel_lover provided from experts as anything but hogwash. The truth is nobody can say for sure why those people act the way they do. Nobody can say for sure if taking away/leaving the type of porn these people watch will increase/decrease the chances of them committing a sex crime. And nobody can say for sure what "type" of person is most likely to commit or not commit such a crime. But, as is (almost) always the case, everyone has to fall on one side of the fence on this issue. |
||||||
|
||||||
fxg97873
 Posts: 211 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||
I just went through all of angel lover's comments and I don't think he ever promotes child pornography in them...I'm pretty sure it was the opposite. His main concern seems similar to mine which is that some of these laws seems to be potential "gateway laws" that will set the precedent into harder legislature. Legislature that will eat away at our basic rights. Rights so basic that we don't even consider them as rights (Ask somebody who's escaped from a police state like North Korea and they'll tell you). The same way we don't think much about our eyesight until we lose it. The first things to go are usually the things we think we don't need or don't like, but that's how its starts. The grip is slow and gentle at first (it feels safe and reassuring) but it only gets more intense and more absolute once its starts (until its suffocating) It's important to stand up to our rights early, otherwise everything will have to crash to the very bottom before its gets reset (sometimes it doesn't). Nations and societies throughtout history have come and gone this way. One thing people have to undestand is that Freedom is great but with it comes dangers. That's the whole point, people are being free and that means that some will be free to be as*holes while others will be nice. Freedom doesn't mean total security or that something bad isn't going to happen to you or someone else. Total security only means totally absolute (totalitarian) p.s. as for people having been affected, I've been affected many times. mk2000 Last edited by fxg97873 on Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Keonyn
Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
|||||
|
I simply fail to see an industry that thrives on predatory behaviour can be anything but a bad thing and sometimes you just have to shut certain things down that are so morally disruptive that little to no good will ever come of them. Sometimes it's not about destroying your freedom or the man trying to stick it to you, sometimes it's to protect those that are unable to fight back. Now it can't be stopped, but it can be discouraged. Innocents don't always have to suffer before something gets done, I'm not one for removing ones rights either, but I strongly believe in this instance it's the right action to take.
|
||||||
|
||||||
cyrax777
 Posts: 1825 Location: the desert |
|
|||||
|
if no one was viewing child porn there woudlnt be a demand to produce it.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
Uh, and what is this supposed to mean? If there was nobody using cocaine then there'd be no demand to produce it. I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here. |
||||||
|
||||||
remember love
 Posts: 764 Location: Germany |
|
|||||
I believe it's a response to Keonyn's post where it states:
I guess his point is he's only saying that well there has to be a industry thriving on it. He really doesn't have a very clear meaning to that post but that's the only meaning thing I can think of at the moment. |
||||||
|
||||||
Momoyuki
 Posts: 15 |
|
|||||
Isn't it the other way around? |
||||||
|
||||||
TiredGamer
 Posts: 246 Location: Florida |
|
|||||
|
I just took a gander at the law and it's quite clear that most Japanese hentai is outlawed under this act. Take a gander at Section 1466A (I've only included the first part):
§ 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children Release date: 2005-08-03 (a) In General.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that— (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction. (b) Additional Offenses.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that— (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction. The remainder criminalizes transport and distribution. This would appear to be a serious threat to the continued survival of half the anime fansites on the web (and most of the porn operators), along with most of the importers and shops. I wonder who cares to argue that F3 has serious literary and artistic value before the court? So when's the FBI showing up on this thread? 
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
fxg97873
Posts: 211 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||
Yup, welcome to neo-conservative America. All the government needs now is for their surveillance technology to mature a bit, throw in a little Patriot Act and voila...Police State. I am sure fear mongering, security obsessed people will be so pleased in their suffocating governmental embrace. Unbelievable |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Kazuki-san
Posts: 2251 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||
As I've already said before, there is no black and white when it comes to laws like this. Two of the major criteria under this law are subjective in nature. I wouldn't worry about it, if I were you, until someone who has had an otherwise clean criminal slate is convicted under this law. Actually, I wouldn't worry until they were convicted, and the appeals process was dried up at the Supreme Court, assuming they would hear it. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group