As much as I hate pedofiles...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Convicting would mean a dangerous precedent: who is to judge when a female is underage or not, even when (and especially when) depicted fictionally or in the form of (pornographic) art. I remember this case in Australia where porn with small-breasted women is banned simply because they'd appear child-like. Which should be laughable, but is actually quite offensive.

Who is to judge whether something is pornographic or not? Same problem. Who is to judge? Answer: a judge.

I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some questionably-underage porn being banned as "dangerous".

Why?

Why not? It's only a peculiarly broad interpretation of the "doesn't harm anyone directly" principle that leads to the other conclusion. What about photo realistic computer drawings? You want those sold by street vendors next to playboy etc? That would be a funny world, minor swear words bleeped on tv and child porn on the street. I don't get people going into contortions to protect pedophiles "right" to pornography.

We constantly use the legal system in an attempt to keep bad things out, and then argue for libertarian ideals with wild inconsistency. It's bizarre.

It should. It's *ahem* art. The man should have the freedom to draw an imaginary scene of child rape, same as drawing mohammed cartoons. It's offensive, but it is art.

No it's not art

[rvg]

No it's not art

As much as I would want to agree with you, I can't. What he drew was a product of his imagination, a very sick imagination, but nonetheless imaginary. Fictional.
If he used live *ahem* models, then yes, he's guilty. Since it was all in his head, it's art.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some questionably-underage porn being banned as "dangerous". Why not? It's only a peculiarly broad interpretation of the "doesn't harm anyone directly" principle that leads to the other conclusion. What about photo realistic computer drawings? You want those sold by street vendors next to playboy etc? That would be a funny world, minor swear words bleeped on tv and child porn on the street. I don't get people going into contortions to protect pedophiles "right" to pornography. We constantly use the legal system in an attempt to keep bad things out, and then argue for libertarian ideals with wild inconsistency. It's bizarre.

I think you underestimate the insidious nature of government Sasaki. It's not hard to create a "for the children" argument in favor of banning anything under the blue sky. What you call inconsistency is really just people taking everything on a case by case basis. I don't see anything wrong with that, in fact the more I interact with the world the more I find myself relying less on such absolutes I have created in my head.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The criminal nature of child porn is in the fact that real life children are harmed in the process. Since his products do not involve harming any real children, there is nothing criminal about what he does.

There are punitive legal measures and preventative legal measures. It's not actually wrong to swear on tv for example, we've just decided that our standards are higher than that and so we have to fine people to keep them that way.

I think you underestimate the insidious nature of government Sasaki. It's not hard to create a "for the children" argument in favor of banning anything under the blue sky. What you call inconsistency is really just people taking everything on a case by case basis. I don't see anything wrong with that, in fact the more I interact with the world the more I find myself relying less on such absolutes I have created in my head.

Nah, our government isn't insidious. Corruption is usually clumsy and amateurish. The media has an obsession with showing the government as insidious because of their watergate-mythology and the fact that their business model generally precludes just saying that the government is being honest and that in this case you could have ignored the media and just listened to the government.

I agree with people taking things on a case by case basis but then they can't invoke a broad principle and leave it at that.

Before or after I killed myself?

After.

[Greyblades]

I'm not sure about standards, but I'd walk up to whichever bastard I find who claims he created all life for his "divine" plan and bitch-slap him for making someone that could want to do something so despicable. To have a soul tainted with an uncontrolable urge to destroy a life and make them think it was what they wanted.
After that it's speculation on the afterlife.

[HoreTore]

Child Abuse Photos, or what is mistakenly called "child porn", is illegal because it is made by an illegal act, the abuse of children. Among the reasons for it is that spreading it adds insult to the victim and the demand for it creates more abuse.

If no abuse of children has taken place, there is nothing illegal going on. We do not legislate "immorality".

[spankythehippo]

This case happened in Australia a couple of years ago. But it wasn't drawings. It was actual photographs.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opin...803-115dg.html

http://www.smh.com.au/national/artis...0111-m2s5.html


By the literal definition of porn, it is any text (be it pictures, videos, novels, whatever) that arouses sexual excitement. So, by that logic, a person might be sexually aroused by Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Is that considered porn?

[ICantSpellDawg]

This case happened in Australia a couple of years ago. But it wasn't drawings. It was actual photographs.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opin...803-115dg.html

http://www.smh.com.au/national/artis...0111-m2s5.html


By the literal definition of porn, it is any text (be it pictures, videos, novels, whatever) that arouses sexual excitement. So, by that logic, a person might be sexually aroused by Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Is that considered porn?

Ha. I've got a hot site for you. Warning, it may not be appropriate for work, what with cylinders entering into greased plugs and electricity coursing through throbbing transistors. Hang on... I've gotta spurt.

[Greyblades]

Hang on... I've gotta spurt.

They have a pill for that now.

[spankythehippo]

Ha. I've got a hot site for you. Warning, it may not be appropriate for work, what with cylinders entering into greased plugs and electricity coursing through throbbing transistors. Hang on... I've gotta spurt.

Mini me is throbbing from the PC & Video game section of that site.

Better finish off with this site.

http://www.trollandtoad.com/


UNLEASH THE INNER GEEK!

[rvg]

There are punitive legal measures and preventative legal measures. It's not actually wrong to swear on tv for example, we've just decided that our standards are higher than that and so we have to fine people to keep them that way.

Yeah, but swearing on TV is not criminal behavior. If you swear on TV, FCC might fine the network, but you personally won't be liable for anything.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nah, our government isn't insidious. Corruption is usually clumsy and amateurish. The media has an obsession with showing the government as insidious because of their watergate-mythology and the fact that their business model generally precludes just saying that the government is being honest and that in this case you could have ignored the media and just listened to the government. I agree with people taking things on a case by case basis but then they can't invoke a broad principle and leave it at that.

It's not so much that government as a whole is insideous. It's that agents within it are, and they abuse the system to achieve insideous goals. To be fair to the media, while it does a terrible job, we still find ourselves invading a country under what turned out to be false pretenses some 30+ years after the Gulf of Tonkin.I see nothing wrong with invoking a principle if the underlying argument is that for this specific case, there is no circumstance that calls for overriding said principle.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah, but swearing on TV is not criminal behavior. If you swear on TV, FCC might fine the network, but you personally won't be liable for anything.

What difference does that make? We are still using legal punishments to enforce decency, without these arguments about harm and such.

It's not so much that government as a whole is insideous. It's that agents within it are, and they abuse the system to achieve insideous goals. To be fair to the media, while it does a terrible job, we still find ourselves invading a country under what turned out to be false pretenses some 30+ years after the Gulf of Tonkin.I see nothing wrong with invoking a principle if the underlying argument is that for this specific case, there is no circumstance that calls for overriding said principle.

The principle should be underlying and the argument that there is no overriding circumstance should be overlying.

But I think it's a mistake to look at it in terms of overriding circumstances in the first place. We are balancing two very important things, not finding miscellaneous exceptions to one important thing.

[rvg]

What difference does that make? We are still using legal punishments to enforce decency, without these arguments about harm and such.

There's a huge difference between administrative and criminal punishments. Besides, the FCC rules do not extend to premium networks like HBO and such. People on those networks can and do swear like sailors.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There's a huge difference between administrative and criminal punishments. Besides, the FCC rules do not extend to premium networks like HBO and such. People on those networks can and do swear like sailors.

I don't see any difference for our purposes, what is it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The principle should be underlying and the argument that there is no overriding circumstance should be overlying.

What difference does it make which order we place them?

But I think it's a mistake to look at it in terms of overriding circumstances in the first place. We are balancing two very important things, not finding miscellaneous exceptions to one important thing.

But it comes down to circumstances no matter which path you take. If you decide on a case by case basis you either begin with the facts of the situation and you work from those to reach some sort of "big statement" that essentially is your justification for how these facts should play out. Or you do it the other way around an you start with the big statement and then dictate how these facts fit into it.

When you frame it as a balancing act, you are implying that the two things which need balancing are:

A. Able to be quantified and given an exchange ratio. How many security points is this in exchange for a few less freedom points due to restricting such drawings?
B. That the two things that are being balanced are inherently opposed in each other. Namely freedom vs security. When it is not always so.

To me it seems as if your view is the more black and white one, and thus is less suitable to adequately make judgments of reality off of.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What difference does it make which order we place them?


But it comes down to circumstances no matter which path you take. If you decide on a case by case basis you either begin with the facts of the situation and you work from those to reach some sort of "big statement" that essentially is your justification for how these facts should play out. Or you do it the other way around an you start with the big statement and then dictate how these facts fit into it.

When you frame it as a balancing act, you are implying that the two things which need balancing are:

A. Able to be quantified and given an exchange ratio. How many security points is this in exchange for a few less freedom points due to restricting such drawings?
B. That the two things that are being balanced are inherently opposed in each other. Namely freedom vs security. When it is not always so.

To me it seems as if your view is the more black and white one, and thus is less suitable to adequately make judgments of reality off of.

I don't even know what we're talking about anymore...

If you are making an argument based on the circumstances then using a broad principle is just contradicting yourself. Like: "In this case the increased ability to catch criminals is not worth the privacy risks. In conclusion: it's always wrong for the government to impinge on our privacy". In my aside in that original post I was objecting to people saying the second part when they believe the first part. That aside has little to do with this thread though...

Logical, but very dangerous. This is a very-very slippery slope.

Restrictions on porn are not remotely dangerous. You guys must have a different conception of dangerous than I do...

I don't see any slippery slope either, unless you mean we are starting at the bottom and trying to go up.

Whether or not porn can affect behavior shouldn't matter. Alcohol consumption affects behavior, that doesn't mean that booze should be banned.

Alcohol affects behavior by making you drunk, which is often ok. How do child porn drawings affect behavior? Do they increase the rate at which pedophiles fantasize? Can they have specific fantasies which someone might obsess over?