Much as I despise sounding like a Tabloid, the kids have to be protected as much as possible, so if some liberties have to be surrendered, as longs as it's for good reason, then so be it.

After all, what starts at looking at Cartoons *can* lead to a deeper, umm...fascination, with children...

No, I'm not with you at all MDG.
At all.
I think it's all pretty ludicrous actually.
Edit: I mean, where in all of this are the kids being harmed? Where is the harm at all, except possibly to the guy that whacks off to this stuff?

Da Boss wrote:No, I'm not with you at all MDG.
At all.
I think it's all pretty ludicrous actually.
Edit: I mean, where in all of this are the kids being harmed? Where is the harm at all, except possibly to the guy that whacks off to this stuff?

The harm is that that same guy whacking off to it may actually have a predilection for occasionally viewing children as sexual objects, which grows into full pedophilia(the inability or severely reduced ability to see anything BUT children as sexual objects), which may lead to acting upon the mental and physical impulses that pedophilia causes to a person. Of course, this could happen without the porn, but most abusers/rapists have a history with pornography before they attempt it with a living victim.

It's not a certainty, just a possibility, but that possibility is what MDG is saying children need to be protected from.

It does say some pretty disturbing things about someone if that's how they get their kicks though, they are sexualising children, they might not be real children (yet), but it's still effing wierd, and not something that the world needs. Free speech is a whole lot easier to defend in cases where the thing defended has any artistic merit, and isn't, as in this case, gratuitous and morally shady.

I understand the idea, I just don't believe it's nessicary to legislate to protect kids from it. Child abuse was happening long before there was internet cartoon pornography. It's roots and the ways to protect from it are seperate to this issue.
What this looks like to me is an abuse of existing laws to persecute someone we all find distasteful.

Da Boss wrote:No, I'm not with you at all MDG.
At all.
I think it's all pretty ludicrous actually.
Edit: I mean, where in all of this are the kids being harmed? Where is the harm at all, except possibly to the guy that whacks off to this stuff?

Wells thats the reason, there have been a few studies now that link the viewing of child porn via the internet leading to actual taking that next step. It dehumanizes your ability to see it as wrong, I mean if you are willing to jack off to that rubbish, what is the next step?

For a long time now I have been a critic of Loli porn and its ilk, and to me this kind of judgement is good news. I mean seriously with no joke intended, wtf kind of person gets his jollies from seeing Maggie in porn pics?

Freedom of speech is one thing, but this in my view is just freedom to dodge laws that are in place for a good reason, and its about time this backdoor was closed.

I'm still annoyed that they chickened out on the .xxx for the net, would have made it so much easier to track sick stuff like this down.

But regardless just because it was drawn doesn't mean no one gets hurt, if just one guy goes on to abuse children after looking at this kinda stuff (and folks looking into the issue says that happens,) then thats one guy too many.

Just my view on the matter.


edit - PC was lagging like no ones business earlier so it showed my post directly after Da Boss, obviously after coming back a few mins ago I can see how bad that lagging actually was, so I've just added the quote so it makes more sense.

Even though I don't agree with that argument, I'm willing to admit it has merits. But declaring the simpsons people so they could do it is lazy and slapdash.

I’m reminded of that old chestnut, if you aren’t willing to defend free speech you don’t agree with, you aren’t really willing to defend free speech at all.

Yeah, cartoon porn featuring underage characters is quite sick, but a lot of porn is pretty sick, unless it’s your thing. The point is that no-one was harmed is producing the porn, and no-one was harmed by this guy viewing it. While it may be indicative of a disturbed mind, you don’t go about prosecuting people for indicating they might have a disturbed mind. You prosecute people when they harm others.

This guy harmed no-one, and contorting the law to allow for a prosecution is a dangerous precedent.

sebster wrote:I’m reminded of that old chestnut, if you aren’t willing to defend free speech you don’t agree with, you aren’t really willing to defend free speech at all.

Except Free Speech isn't actually unlimited Free Speech. There are words and images that are not protected even by Free Speech, like Child Pornography, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, or books detailing how to commit murders. The line is hard to see admittedly and it is tricky, but I think we would be hard pressed to get people to ban photo's of child sex but not hand drawn versions of the same. Trying to convince people (especially parents) that someone jerking off to drawing of a kid is ok but that it isn't for a photo probably won't fly to far.

Ahtman wrote:Except Free Speech isn't actually unlimited Free Speech. There are words and images that are not protected even by Free Speech, like Child Pornography, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, or books detailing how to commit murders. The line is hard to see admittedly and it is tricky, but I think we would be hard pressed to get people to ban photo's of child sex but not hand drawn versions of the same. Trying to convince people (especially parents) that someone jerking off to drawing of a kid is ok but that it isn't for a photo probably won't fly to far.

Absolutely, there are limits to free speech, like there are limits to all rights. But I’m not sure the line is that tricky, as long as you keep to a key principle, if the speech causes direct harm to others it is fair to ban or restrict it. Yelling fire in crowded theatre causes harm to others due to the panic, therefore it should be punished.

Similarly, a photo of a child required an actual child to be abused, and so it should be illegal. Copying and disseminating that photo continues demand for similar work, and makes it more likely more children will be abused similarly, and so should also be illegal. But drawing a cartoon doesn’t harm anyone.

Of course, this could happen without the porn, but most abusers/rapists have a history with pornography before they attempt it with a living victim.

Compared against how many normal adults that have a history with porno before they don´t attempt anything at all? This, unfortunely very common, argument against porn it´s a personal peeve of me, unless we compare the percentage of abusers using porn against the total porn using population before reaching this conclusion we are guilty of falsifying the parameters to obtain the desired result porn users = abusers.

Ahtman wrote:

sebster wrote:I’m reminded of that old chestnut, if you aren’t willing to defend free speech you don’t agree with, you aren’t really willing to defend free speech at all.

Except Free Speech isn't actually unlimited Free Speech. There are words and images that are not protected even by Free Speech, like Child Pornography, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, or books detailing how to commit murders. The line is hard to see admittedly and it is tricky, but I think we would be hard pressed to get people to ban photo's of child sex but not hand drawn versions of the same. Trying to convince people (especially parents) that someone jerking off to drawing of a kid is ok but that it isn't for a photo probably won't fly to far.

I´m with sebster here, remeber the mess with the Danish cartoons? Either you support free speech, with the given limit of no direct harm as stated, or not. And if you don´t support the free speech of a KKK member to hate blacks, gays or Mickey Mouse (no matter how distateful as long as they are not acting on that hate) you can´t expect others to support yours. And in this case we are talking about drawings where no real person was harmed.

BTW if we are going to start banning distateful drawings, and other fictional characters because "In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word 'person' included fictional or imaginary characters ...," the judge said. I want the possesion of certain books that talk about child brides and incest banned too Quoram and the Old Testament anyone?

M.

PD: Yes, I´m a bigot so I want to make use of my Free Speech I HATE jedis. I wish I could send them all on a one way trip to the sun, look what they did with their dirty mind trick to my beloved Imperial Navy.

When it comes to porn, whatever floats your boat man. The more illegal it is the more valuable it becomes. The more taboo it becomes the harder it is to tell if someone has a mental problem or a fleeting fascination.

Good luck really. I don't care how many of these 'liberties' I have to give up. You made them up and gave them to me in the first place to make it seem like I have a lot of something that doesn't really exist.

Miguelsan wrote:I´m with sebster here

I am as well, but if we put it to a vote most people are not going to vote ideology, they are going to vote against what is percieved as kiddie porn.

Sebster, I agree with you in principle, but it seems your only definition of 'direct harm' is different to mine. Would you not say verbal racist abuse constitutes direct harm?

Again, in the case of the Danish cartoons they would have been a lot easier to defend if they weren't so gak.

Da Boss wrote:So D'n'D parties the country over will be pulled in for breaking and entering, theft and murder?
Will wargamers be put on trial for war crimes for using Twin Lash?
Does beating a dark eldar player count as minority discrimination?
Are scriptwriters liable for crimes that happen to characters in their shows?
Can I marry a Moomin?

Yay for slipery slope arguments! WOO!

BYE

Do the people who think this needs to be illegal also think that games like Grand Theft Auto should be illegal, due to the way they portray murder?
You can make all the same connections there.
Simpsons child porn is... disturbing, but that isn't relevant to something's legality.

Greebynog wrote:Would you not say verbal racist abuse constitutes direct harm?

I certainly wouldn't. Direct harm is material.
If you ban speech because it's decreed immoral or it makes people unhappy, free speech is worthless.

Greebynog wrote:Sebster, I agree with you in principle, but it seems your only definition of 'direct harm' is different to mine. Would you not say verbal racist abuse constitutes direct harm?

Again, in the case of the Danish cartoons they would have been a lot easier to defend if they weren't so gak.

Honestly, I think people have a right to spew their direct, racist verbal abuse. No-one has the right to walk up to a stranger and start calling him rude names, but no-one has the right to go up to a stranger and start abusing him in general. If antagonistic speech is tolerated in a certain environment, that can include racist speech.

If we start banning speech because we extend harm to include things like offence, then we open the door to things like blasphemy becoming an offence.


I agree that the Danish cartoons are a tricky one. I think there was a genuine desire to make a political point, but the method was offensive and not necessary. I wish they hadn’t drawn those cartoons, but don’t think we should ban them doing so.

It’s more complicated again because the Muslim reaction was so over the top. It’s hard to say ‘well they do have a point’ when people were being killed in protest marches. Yes, they had a point, but it was minor compared to their reaction.

With the danish cartoons there was so much idiocy from both sides my brain nearly melted just hearing about it. I fully accept your point on abusive language, I think I'm in just about the same camp, I actually lobbied for the BNP (nasty racist twatbags) to speak at my student union as every other candidate, including far-left ones, were on the grounds of free speech. Personal direct abuse is another matter.

@HBMC: On one side you have a slippery slope argument that cartoon porn leads to real porn/abuses, and on the other that banning this leads to the banning of other less wierd stuff...great fun!

Banning pictures of kiddie pr0n will just make them use Etch-a-scetch drawings.

*Shake*

"Where's your evidence now copper? Muahahahahahahaha!"

Greebynog wrote:With the danish cartoons there was so much idiocy from both sides my brain nearly melted just hearing about it. I fully accept your point on abusive language, I think I'm in just about the same camp, I actually lobbied for the BNP (nasty racist twatbags) to speak at my student union as every other candidate, including far-left ones, were on the grounds of free speech. Personal direct abuse is another matter.

@HBMC: On one side you have a slippery slope argument that cartoon porn leads to real porn/abuses, and on the other that banning this leads to the banning of other less wierd stuff...great fun!

The trouble is, there is a definite slippery slope evidenced in child sexual abuse cases. The persons performing the abuse, almost universally, began with looking at the pictures first, and the sought out harder and harder stuff. The de-sensitisation is the problem. HBMC correctly point out that pornography causes the viewer to see things purely as sexual objects, and so on. And if you are disturbed enough to fancy children (and I'm not talking Lolita's here...I'm talking as young as a *newborn*) then access to this sort of thing is not a good thing.

Free Speech is one thing, but the protection of innocents has to take precedence, surely?

Platuan4th wrote:

Da Boss wrote:No, I'm not with you at all MDG.
At all.
I think it's all pretty ludicrous actually.
Edit: I mean, where in all of this are the kids being harmed? Where is the harm at all, except possibly to the guy that whacks off to this stuff?

The harm is that that same guy whacking off to it may actually have a predilection for occasionally viewing children as sexual objects, which grows into full pedophilia(the inability or severely reduced ability to see anything BUT children as sexual objects), which may lead to acting upon the mental and physical impulses that pedophilia causes to a person. Of course, this could happen without the porn, but most abusers/rapists have a history with pornography before they attempt it with a living victim.

It's not a certainty, just a possibility, but that possibility is what MDG is saying children need to be protected from.

Exterminate him and be done with it to protect society. He's going to be a predator if he isn't already. They basically have a 100% recidivism rate if caught.

I know he's Australian but that seems a bit harsh...... ohh.. I see.

Some people have sick minds they cant change that, if they ignore those dirty thoughts and carry on with there lifes there's nothing wrong, but if they act on these dirty thoughts and starting watching child porn or hentai which contains children in it, then they should be charged and hopefully get help, because its a mental health problem IMO, and its about time the government should start doing something about it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Greebynog wrote:With the danish cartoons there was so much idiocy from both sides my brain nearly melted just hearing about it. I fully accept your point on abusive language, I think I'm in just about the same camp, I actually lobbied for the BNP (nasty racist twatbags) to speak at my student union as every other candidate, including far-left ones, were on the grounds of free speech. Personal direct abuse is another matter.

@HBMC: On one side you have a slippery slope argument that cartoon porn leads to real porn/abuses, and on the other that banning this leads to the banning of other less wierd stuff...great fun!

The trouble is, there is a definite slippery slope evidenced in child sexual abuse cases. The persons performing the abuse, almost universally, began with looking at the pictures first, and the sought out harder and harder stuff. The de-sensitisation is the problem. HBMC correctly point out that pornography causes the viewer to see things purely as sexual objects, and so on. And if you are disturbed enough to fancy children (and I'm not talking Lolita's here...I'm talking as young as a *newborn*) then access to this sort of thing is not a good thing.

Free Speech is one thing, but the protection of innocents has to take precedence, surely?

I fully agree, I was just playing devil's advocate a little. From my first post I think it's clear I think this stuff has no place in modern civilised society, and that whatever law (no matter how inane) that stops it's dissemination is a good thing.

Ask anyone in victim services-these guys don't get "help." They don't change, can't change, never change.

Xav wrote:Some people have sick minds they cant change that, if they ignore those dirty thoughts and carry on with there lifes there's nothing wrong, but if they act on these dirty thoughts and starting watching child porn or hentai which contains children in it, then they should be charged and hopefully get help, because its a mental health problem IMO, and its about time the government should start doing something about it.

Being charged with a crime and getting help are on two complete opposite ends of the spectrum.

Frazzled wrote:Exterminate him and be done with it to protect society. He's going to be a predator if he isn't already. They basically have a 100% recidivism rate if caught.

This is one of those things people keep saying that isn't true. Studies done show recidivism is no higher than other crimes of equal magnitude (and much lower than crimes of lesser seriousness). In fact, if I remember correctly it's about 13 or 14%, which is a lot lower than 100%.

More encouragingly, there are multiple factors that strongly influence the chance of re-offence, including re-acceptance by friends and family, acceptance into a community and attendance at support groups.



EDIT- a couple of 1s were fairly imporant.

I just think its right to ban this, images can lead to thoughts, thoughts can lead to thinking of small children as sexual objects, leading to mentally scarred children and more death.

Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

Frazzled wrote:Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

That's right. We should rely on anecdote and hearsay, and none of that controlled study nonsense. Who needs research and learning to help decision making when we've already decided what reality should be?

Meh. Pick a proper study then it might be relevant. Right now you're just blowing smoke.

I'm stating my opinion and could care less what yours is on this point. Unless you're a parent your view is at best irrelevant to me.

Did anybody stop to think that perhaps legislature regarding the issue, as opposed to hamfistedly declaring imaginary people to count as real people when trying them for crimes, might be the better route?

Frazzled wrote:Meh. Pick a proper study then it might be relevant. Right now you're just blowing smoke.

I'm stating my opinion and could care less what yours is on this point. Unless you're a parent your view is at best irrelevant to me.

I'm just some guy on the internet, my opinion shouldn't matter to you, just as yours doesn't matter to me. What should matter is sound argument based on evidence.

This study, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf, found a 2% re-offence rate for sex crimes against children. However, systematic errors in the study find that rate is likely understated by 1 or 2%, so the rate is more like 3 or 4%.

This study, http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/REU/pdf/Criminal_Justice_Review.pdf, found a 12% re-offence rate for sex crimes against children.



One thing I did notice is that most of the research done was from New Jersey. I'm not sure why Jersey, but I'm not taking any kid of mine there until I've figured it out.

I don't know how free speech laws work abroad, but I know that in the US any content based restriction on expression is held to Track One, Strict Scrutiny review by the courts.

Content based restrictions are things like: "No nudity" or "No political literature" or "No radical islamic philosophy." This is distinguished from other restrictions, such as Place, time, and manner: "No rallies at 3am", "No parades down main street during rush hour". The basic idea is that government shouldn't ban a message it doesn't like, but there it control (to a very tightly watched extent) some of the ways the message is expressed. So while the government might ban massive political rallies in residential neighborhoods at midnight, it cannot ban political leaflets distributed to homes (although one city, I think San Diego, actually tried).

Strict Scrutiny is a type of constituional balancing test, where the government is held to a very high threshold. The government must show a Compelling State interest, the law must be narrowly tailored to deal with that interest, and it must be no more restrictive than possible. For fun, compare that to the normal standard of Rational Basis: Government must show a legitimate governmental interest, and the act must be rationally related to it in some way.

In a very big case here in the US Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, in which a very similar set of facts were set up. A law banned any works in which it appeared to be child porn, not actual children, either through young looking models or computer generated images. The court struck it down because it was overbroad. Child pornography is ok to ban because it has a harmful effect on children, but fake kiddie porn doesn't hurt children. The court stated that just because something can be used for a bad end does not mean it can be banned out right. This was a 6-3 decision, with only Reinquist and Scalia dissenting entirely.

There's an old joke that the US has the best free speech laws in the world, but the most actual restrictions at the street level. I don't know if it's true, but in the US it takes far more than "it might make people become more violent" to ban content.

I must admit to being very disturbed by the precedent set by this case. Ive seen some of these Simpsons images during my surfing. I cant say I was arroused by them, but I did laugh and it wouldn’t have occurred to me that I was breaking any law by seeing them. It most certainly does not make me a 'predator' and I'll take a very strong issue with anyone who claims otherwise.

If he has these in addition to actual 'cp' then fair enough. But if seeing these alone is enough to have one branded as a perv in Aus then I can say, with authority, that Aus law is an arse and overly paranoid. I know this because I've seen the images and I know I am no danger to children.

As to the possibility that they 'may' lead to harder stuff, the state has no business prosecting people for a crime they 'may' commit. If you cannot see how dangerous a precident this sets then I honestly pity you.

Frazzled wrote:Unless you're a parent your view is at best irrelevant to me.

Not every person without children is able to better discuss the subject than you, but it is arrogant to suggest that there is no one who is not a parent that can do so. In the same way that attending college doesn't necessarily educate a person simply having children doesn't make you a responsible parent.

Out of curiosity how many children must a person have before becoming qualified to speak about such matters? Do adoptions count?

CorporateLogo wrote:Not every person without children is able to better discuss the subject than you, but it is arrogant to suggest that there is no one who is not a parent that can do so. In the same way that attending college doesn't necessarily educate a person simply having children doesn't make you a responsible parent.

Out of curiosity how many children must a person have before becoming qualified to speak about such matters? Do adoptions count?

And at what point does the wisdom arrive? Conception? Birth? First birthday?

Xav wrote:I just think its right to ban this, images can lead to thoughts, thoughts can lead to thinking of small children as sexual objects, leading to mentally scarred children and more death.

Obviously children need to be protected, but that line of reasoning you're using there is an awfully dangerous one.

Frazzled wrote:Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

Seriously, Frazz? I mean, I know that you don't particularly care to learn anything which you don't already know, but how can you reasonably allow a comment like this to pass by your internal BS detector?

Miguelsan wrote:Compared against how many normal adults that have a history with porno before they don´t attempt anything at all? This, unfortunely very common, argument against porn it´s a personal peeve of me, unless we compare the percentage of abusers using porn against the total porn using population before reaching this conclusion we are guilty of falsifying the parameters to obtain the desired result porn users = abusers.

I'm not making an argument against porn at all(except perhaps kiddie porn). I have many friends who are into porn(and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it occasionally), including my aforementioned addict friend. I'm not trying to make any connection for porn = evil. I am, however, making the connection that a history of KIDDIE porn(not ALL porn, as you misquoted) is evident in most cases of child abusers/rapists(again, just child rapists, not ALL rapists). It is indeed possible for people to make the jump from whacking it to kiddie porn to pedophile to child abuser/rapist when there is a predilection beforehand. Just as it is possible for someone to make the leap from watching porn to a full, healthy relationship. The kiddie porn is a historical step, NOT a cause/excuse/reason.

Again, not saying porn watcher = abuser/rapist/sexual offender, I am saying that abuser/rapist/sexual offender tends to also be a porn addict.

Platuan4th wrote:
I'm not making an argument against porn at all(except perhaps kiddie porn). I have many friends who are into porn(and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it occasionally), including my aforementioned addict friend. I'm not trying to make any connection for porn = evil. I am, however, making the connection that a history of KIDDIE porn(not ALL porn, as you misquoted) is evident in most cases of child abusers/rapists(again, just child rapists, not ALL rapists). It is indeed possible for people to make the jump from whacking it to kiddie porn to pedophile to child abuser/rapist when there is a predilection beforehand. Just as it is possible for someone to make the leap from watching porn to a full, healthy relationship. The kiddie porn is a historical step, NOT a cause/excuse/reason.

Again, not saying porn watcher = abuser/rapist/sexual offender, I am saying that abuser/rapist/sexual offender tends to also be a porn addict.

I see what you're saying, but in your revision, you're really not making an argument. Yes, it's likely that many of the people that will rape children will own kiddie porn, much the same way people who shoot other people probably have anger issues. To argue that kiddie porn leads to child rape ignores the possibility that the same root cause leads to both. Correlation does not equal causation. If you're not saying that you think there's any causation, it would be helpful if you were a bit more specific. It's a common little trick to point out two facts and hope people connect the dots, which is possibly why some people were knocking you're earlier comments.

Frazzled wrote:Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

It's important to not conflate being psychologically cured and commiting further crimes. Pedophilia or Ephebophilia are pathologies that can't be cured, but there are ways to reduce the chances of further offenses. In a way it's similar to alcoholism: you never stop being addicted, you can only stop drinking.

Walter Sobchak: When he moved to Hollywood he had to go door to door to tell everyone he was a pederast.
Donny: What's a... pederast, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: Shut the feth up, Donny.

Hmm... Thats a hard one.
Well i have an interesting question to all those willing to ban evrithing they dont like.
Lets start with normal porn, it is usualy used bi nomal lawobiding people as a way to rlieve sexual pressure when the real thing is not available/has a headache, its legal (in a way) and gives adults more opportunities to reduce stress.

Kiddi porn is illegal for the obvius reason that unlike normal porn kids are fored to do it and thus abused. Carton however can't be abused since thy're not alive.

But much as most "normal" men who view porn rarely go on to be rapists, it is likely that the same percentage of pedophyles are afraid to brake the law in a simmilar manner and stick with porn alone.
So if you take away their wayto releve tension what is to stop them from going bonkers and well attack a kid...

PS: Id hate to be in that judje's shoes, because that case sounds like it can give you the worst kind of migrane – hence the weird ruling.

Frazzled wrote:Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

It's fairly obvious why they would be statistically insignificant over time, and not at all reflective of the capacity for a pedophile to deny his predatory impulses. In broad strokes, the treatment of existing pedophiles does nothing to ameliorate the conditions which served to create them in the first place. So, even if most pedophiles do not lapse into remittance once caught, it follows that we should see no significant change in the overall amount of the behavior.

HoverBoy wrote:Hmm... Thats a hard one.
Well i have an interesting question to all those willing to ban evrithing they dont like.
Lets start with normal porn, it is usualy used bi nomal lawobiding people as a way to rlieve sexual pressure when the real thing is not available/has a headache, its legal (in a way) and gives adults more opportunities to reduce stress.

Kiddi porn is illegal for the obvius reason that unlike normal porn kids are fored to do it and thus abused. Carton however can't be abused since thy're not alive.

But much as most "normal" men who view porn rarely go on to be rapists, it is likely that the same percentage of pedophyles are afraid to brake the law in a simmilar manner and stick with porn alone.
So if you take away their wayto releve tension what is to stop them from going bonkers and well attack a kid...

PS: Id hate to be in that judje's shoes, because that case sounds like it can give you the worst kind of migrane – hence the weird ruling.

Woah, woah, woah. Most 'normal' porn is nothing to do with rape, it's consentual sex between two (or three, or four...) people, and thus the fantasies involved are about legal, consentual, non-abusive sexual activity. AOK. I believe porn that fetishises rape is illegal, I'm not so up on my porn laws, but in any respect should be. So, people who watch porn not becoming rapists has nothing to do with those who watch child porn becoming paedophiles. If you watch and masturbate to child porn, hate to break it to ya, you *are* a paedophile.

EDIT: Just read that back, it's aimed at a metaphorical person, not calling any of the users here paedos. Just wanted to be clear.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

It's fairly obvious why they would be statistically insignificant over time, and not at all reflective of the capacity for a pedophile to deny his predatory impulses. In broad strokes, the treatment of existing pedophiles does nothing to ameliorate the conditions which served to create them in the first place. So, even if most pedophiles do not lapse into remittance once caught, it follows that we should see no significant change in the overall amount of the behavior.

Sure we will. If they are room temperature the recidivism rate is 0. Thus the rates drop.

Greebynog wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:Hmm... Thats a hard one.
Well i have an interesting question to all those willing to ban evrithing they dont like.
Lets start with normal porn, it is usualy used bi nomal lawobiding people as a way to rlieve sexual pressure when the real thing is not available/has a headache, its legal (in a way) and gives adults more opportunities to reduce stress.

Kiddi porn is illegal for the obvius reason that unlike normal porn kids are fored to do it and thus abused. Carton however can't be abused since thy're not alive.

But much as most "normal" men who view porn rarely go on to be rapists, it is likely that the same percentage of pedophyles are afraid to brake the law in a simmilar manner and stick with porn alone.
So if you take away their wayto releve tension what is to stop them from going bonkers and well attack a kid...

PS: Id hate to be in that judje's shoes, because that case sounds like it can give you the worst kind of migrane – hence the weird ruling.

Woah, woah, woah. Most 'normal' porn is nothing to do with rape, it's consentual sex between two (or three, or four...) people, and thus the fantasies involved are about legal, consentual, non-abusive sexual activity. AOK. I believe porn that fetishises rape is illegal, I'm not so up on my porn laws, but in any respect should be. So, people who watch porn not becoming rapists has nothing to do with those who watch child porn becoming paedophiles. If you watch and masturbate to child porn, hate to break it to ya, you *are* a paedophile.

EDIT: Just read that back, it's aimed at a metaphorical person, not calling any of the users here paedos. Just wanted to be clear.

Yet people keep pushing forward the idea that the availability of porn has caused the increase of sex-related crimes without taking into account the increase in Earths population.

HoverBoy wrote:
Yet people keep pushing forward the idea that the availability of porn has caused the increase of sex-related crimes without taking into account the increase in Earths population.

Sorry, what? I've never heard that one before. Aren't crime stats worked out per capita anyway?

When it suits the media that it´s posting the news.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/12/Getting_Away_With_Murder.ART_ART_12-12-08_A1_7GC79M7.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

As you can see in this example, the per capita number is not mentioned at all.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:When it suits the media that it´s posting the news.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/12/Getting_Away_With_Murder.ART_ART_12-12-08_A1_7GC79M7.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

As you can see in this example, the per capita number is not mentioned at all.

M.

That article is amazing, it couldn't be any more scaremongering if the picture was of the bogeyman and had a headline that just read 'DEATH FOR ALL'.

Miguelsan wrote:When it suits the media that it´s posting the news.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/12/Getting_Away_With_Murder.ART_ART_12-12-08_A1_7GC79M7.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

As you can see in this example, the per capita number is not mentioned at all.

M.

That's hilarious. So, the percentage of homicides "solved" went from 91% in 1963 to only 61% in 2007. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the huge advances in criminal procedure and other due process rights in that time. Miranda was only in the late 60's, police regularly "physically interogated" suspects until the 70's, various evidentiary rules were closed off, and oh yeah, defendents could finally demand an attorney if they couldn't pay for one. Advances in forensics make it easier to eliminate people as suspects, making it harder to railroad people. I wouldn't be suprised if most of that drop were divided between "no longer being able to convict the wrong guy" and "oops, the right guy got away on a technicality."

Actually I could see that being the case. Statistically it would be interesting to get more of an apples to apples comparison though expecially incertain categories. I'd bet crimes that are family oriented would have a higher solution rate-where evidence would be more available.

Also it would be interesting to separate out the "drug related crimes" from non-drug related. If you exclude druggies/gangsters killing druggies/gangsters, I wonder what the solution rate would be.

As a preventative it should be legal to: 1) wear a suit of armor of your choice from the following selection(European, Japanese, or Road Warrior post Apocalypse); and: 2) be able to carry a stick with a nail in it at all times.

Frazzled wrote:
Sure we will. If they are room temperature the recidivism rate is 0. Thus the rates drop.

If the recidivism rate is only between 5-10% how will killing offenders cause the rates to drop? Clearly the vast majority of pedophiles stop after they are caught the first time. And we all know that harsher punishments rarely reduce the actual extent of any given offense, so what is being accomplished here?

1. I don't believe your statistics in the least.

2. Even accepting your numbers you answered your own question. Thats 5% to 10% that won't be doing it again.

3. 1 is too many.

Why not kill everyone on earth? Definitely no paedophiles then. In fact, it'll wipe out all crime in one fell swoop!

Don't be daft. Just wack the pedophiles.
Are you defending pedophiles?

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=34661&zcc=1229108741831

Not for sensitive viewers. Be warned. If it asks you to join zango or summat just click cancel and you can watch it anyway.

EDIT: I should say, it's nothing dodgy it's a British satire of tabloid over-reaction to paedophillia.

What is it Greebynog?

Frazzled wrote:Don't be daft. Just wack the pedophiles.
Are you defending pedophiles?

Hahaha, brilliant, that's a great argument. Watch the programme in my last post.

It's a programme called brasseye by the brilliant Chris Morris, caused a huge hooha in the UK when it was shown. Very sharp, and extremely funny.

You can't overact to pedophilia.

Frazzled wrote:You can't overact to pedophilia.

Of course you can, you're doing it right now. Ignoring cold hard facts about recidivism, ignoring the strong predictive models about who is most like to re-offend, and wanting to kill anyone accused of paedophilia is probably a sign that you're not very interested in solving the problem, but that you're much more interested in looking strong on crime and being the hard man.

On the other hand, studying the extensive data on the topic and building process is probably a sign you're really interested in maintaining civil liberties and protecting children (which are not at all exclusive goals, quite the opposite).

Frazzled wrote:1. I don't believe your statistics in the least.

Well, they aren't my statistics, I'm just generalizing from the reports Sebster linked to. Why don't you believe them?

Frazzled wrote:
2. Even accepting your numbers you answered your own question. Thats 5% to 10% that won't be doing it again.

Can we then begin cutting the hands off thieves, so that they won't do it again?

Frazzled wrote:
3. 1 is too many.

I agree, but the state sanctioned killing of pedophiles will not reduce their overall number. Indeed, I suspect the increased stigma attached will serve to create more. After all, pedophilia is inevitably about powerlessness in the face of the larger world.

Frazzled wrote:You can't overact to pedophilia.

Well, I'm sure you mean overreact. Although I'm sure Al Pacino could hilariously overact to pedophilia.

Look, I'm sure this militant "I'd kill anybody that thinks about touching a kid, because I'm a big tough guy with kids and I love them so much and I'm glad that lynch mobbing is acceptable when in the context of talking about how much I love kids" type attitude isn't forced, so I have to assume you really do feel this way.

That's fine, and it's you're opinion, but it's a really terrifying opinion. Absolutism in almost any social policy leads to bad things. Are you distinguishing between actual sex crimes and people that merely have desires to commit sex crimes? What about people that haven't and are more likely to?

I say this with all due respect, but you're position is based solely on emotion and fear, and not in any based on facts, precedent, justice, law, or anything else. Child abuse is a horrible thing, particularly sex crimes. Nobody here is going to defend what they do as right. I do know that in general, I'm more scared of the alarmist, sweeping actions like you propose than I am of the things they aim to defend against. Zero tolerance, one strike and your out, "better safe then sorry": these policies make people feel better because they can see the suffering of the perps, and that might be psychically satisfying but they don't work as well as you'd think, and they hurt people that aren't guilty of anything.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. I don't believe your statistics in the least.

Well, they aren't my statistics, I'm just generalizing from the reports Sebster linked to. Why don't you believe them?

Frazzled wrote:
2. Even accepting your numbers you answered your own question. Thats 5% to 10% that won't be doing it again.

Can we then being cutting the hands off thieves, so that they won't do it again?

Frazzled wrote:
3. 1 is too many.

I agree, but the state sanctioned killing of pedophiles will not reduce their overall number.

Hey, remember. If you don't like what a person is saying, you can always use the patented "Frazzled Defense": simply pick a trait that you have, and ignore arguments from anybody lacking that trait. Apparently that's now a viable tactic.

You act like any of this matters. It doesn't. You're not going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince you, and even if I did its irrelevant. This is a message board.

My response does, however, solve the problem of recidivism. You just don't have the will to accept it. Survey parents. They'll agree with me much more than disagree.

Frazzled wrote:
You act like any of this matters. It doesn't. You're not going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince you, and even if I did its irrelevant. This is a message board.

My response does, however, solve the problem of recidivism. You just don't have the will to accept it. Survey parents. They'll agree with me much more than disagree.

And if you polled Hutus, most would agree that killing Tutsis was a good idea. I'm not impressed.

Of course, saying you have a solution but we don't have the will to accept it is about as close to godwins law as we can get.

Frazzled wrote:
You act like any of this matters. It doesn't. You're not going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince you, and even if I did its irrelevant. This is a message board.

I don't care to convince you, I only care to point out the absurdity of your position.

Frazzled wrote:
My response does, however, solve the problem of recidivism. You just don't have the will to accept it. Survey parents. They'll agree with me much more than disagree.

First of all, I doubt that your solution solves any such problem. Even executing all people found guilty of pedophilia will still allow for those who are not found guilty to continue abusing children. Unless your advocating execution on suspicion alone. In which case I gotta say that you should change your name to Torquemada.

And since when did the assent of parents make something a reasonable policy? Indeed, assuming that the defining characteristic of a parent is his/her emotional attachment to their child one would suspect that they are less inclined to rational choice with respect to children.

Here's a quote I liked about the lobotomy craze from the 30-40s:

...prefrontal lobotomy ...has recently been having a certain vogue, probably not unconnected with the fact that it makes the custodial care of many patients easier. Let me remark in passing that killing them makes their custodial care still easier.

I think it's applicable here.

Frazzled: I think you're really wrong about the rates of recommitting crimes. I'm pretty sure the rates are variable.
And seriously, the way they've done it is stupid. Making fictional characters legally people is slowed.

Also, pedophilia sure means love of feet?

Da Boss wrote:Did you hear about this? A dude in australia got charged with child pornography for images of simpsons characters because the judge ruled they were "people".

If you're talking about the arrests I'm thinking of, that isn't all he had. This may be unrelated though.

So D'n'D parties the country over will be pulled in for breaking and entering, theft and murder?

... However I've done plenty of illegal things in my own home - more than I thought in that case. I can add D&D to the list.

Will wargamers be put on trial for war crimes for using Twin Lash?

Only when used against minors or without consent (I think only tyranid and ork armies contain 'people', who, fluff-wise, would be under the age of 16).

Does beating a dark eldar player count as minority discrimination?

Apparently not in Australia!

Are scriptwriters liable for crimes that happen to characters in their shows?

I've always hated crime shows anyway.

Can I marry a Moomin?

No. I Australia you have the following choices when getting married:
A) A Woman
B) ... Oh yeah.

Frazzled wrote:You can't overact to pedophilia.

Frazz your from the states right? I don't think people charged with public urination should instantly become sex offenders. And if a someone under 18 sees you doing it, your now a sex offender and a pedophile in the eyes of the law. I think that is kind of overreacting to pedophilia. A lot of politicians who try to get extreme laws like this removed are attacked as being the friends of convicted sex offenders and pedophiles.

And I am defending pedophiles here, just a little.

You want a knee jerk reaction?. In Japan, after a series of highly televised cases the goverment has decided to create a special police unit to combat sexual crimes against children and toughen laws involving minors.

A measured response, isn´t it?, not so as the police gets to decide what is a suspicious behavior around children and the little fact that they reserve the right to monitor you as long as they want even if you did not break any law.

Talk about overeaction.

M.

Okay, my last post wasn't too serious... I've now actually found the news story. There were a lot of child-pornography related arrests reported yesterday, but this is seperate.

Just to clarify for original poster/topic, in Australia _viewing_ child pornography is a seperate charge to, say, creating the media, or engaging in sexual activity with something you're not supposed to. If it was Homer and Marge doing the business, it would have been fine. I mean, you'd have to be a bit of a deviant to actually pen in the details, but it is alluded to often on the show.

You can't expect to get away with creating media that clearly portrays minors being taken advantage of sexually, no matter if they're 'cartoons'. But even so, deliberately viewing it is another charge they'll slap on you in court. There's no question as to whether or not the media in question is pornography involving children. His defense was utterly idiotic, although I agree with the judge's decision not to jail the man.

The gaming examples will never be applicable because they do not concern child abuse legislation, and you don't have to shoot a guy in the head, record it, and then play it back for that to occur in a video game sequence. The vast majority of child pornography involves someone doing something illegal with/to a child, THEN distributing it. That's more than one offense. Unfortunately people probably will try to use this as an excuse to try to ban gaming AGAIN. It's a good thing they're misguided idiots.

Okay Arctik, I'm not quite sure I follow you with the last paragraph.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:The gaming examples will never be applicable because they do not concern child abuse legislation,

Does this need to be said?

and you don't have to shoot a guy in the head, record it, and then play it back for that to occur in a video game sequence.

You don't need to molest children to draw someone molesting children.

The vast majority of child pornography involves someone doing something illegal with/to a child, THEN distributing it. That's more than one offense.

This isn't about the vast majority, this is about a case where nothing illegal with a child was done.

Unfortunately people probably will try to use this as an excuse to try to ban gaming AGAIN. It's a good thing they're misguided idiots.

People will use any inane reason they can come up with. I think there was a Law and Order episode where people went on murdering sprees because of Grand Theft Auto. It was hilariously terrible. Anything to get ratings up, no doubt.

My brother told me about this and I was just freaked out that people actually download stuff like this, I mean that is just sick,why are they making a big fuss over this, I mean there are bigger things than this. Just go to Japan any time and you find all this anime/ hentai with young girls on it and no one in Japan is doing anything to stop it.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Sure we will. If they are room temperature the recidivism rate is 0. Thus the rates drop.

If the recidivism rate is only between 5-10% how will killing offenders cause the rates to drop? Clearly the vast majority of pedophiles stop after they are caught the first time. And we all know that harsher punishments rarely reduce the actual extent of any given offense, so what is being accomplished here?

I'm sorry if this comes across as just being nitpicky, but something you mentioned made me think...

You said that the vast majority stop after they are *caught* the first time.....

Just because you aren't caught, doesn't mean you haven't done anything. I've driven without a seat belt after being told off by Police for the same thing. Could this count toward 'clear up rates'. I don't know.

The main thing with Paedophilia is the often used term of 'ring'. Bust one, and you tend to bust them all. When they come out, they have no 'ring' to supply them with what they are after, making offending that much harder. Yet this cannot be claimed to be them cured. It could be likened to taking an Alcoholic out of a pub, and never exposing them to booze again. Sure, some might get on the wagon, but until the temptation is there, you will never know.

I am a big fan of the Brass Eye Paedophile special, because rather than poke fun at the horrendous crimes, it poked fun at the tabloid handling of such stories, which spurs public over reaction in their incessant quest for higher and higher sales at the expense of truth and a balanced report. But I'm with Frazzeled on this one. This is the sort of crime which takes years to prove. I mean, look at the news reports on the BBC. The Kiddyfiddlers don't just do it the once then get nobbled by the law, they operate quite successfully for *years* without being caught. Thankfully, it only takes a single victim to be brave enough to come forward, but that sort of abuse isn't something most people will happily confess to having suffered. Either imprison them permanently, lop their nads off, or kill them outright, but to say they are ever 'cured' is quite a leap in logic.

Sadly the lopping the nads off isn't as effective as you might think, there is documentation that when Pedo's have suffered chemical castration they have become more obsessive and disturbingly more violent towards potential victims.

I think a major point folks are missing here is Paedophillia is dangerous because its a sexual choice or preference. Its like asking a Gay man, or a fetish fan that they have to stop in their activity, I assume most of us here do not believe being Homosexual is a mental problem and can be cured. It is the same with Paedophillia once they have associated that children are sexual objects they are incurable, as stated by several Psychologists looking into the matter. Yes they can hold off, know its wrong, maybe even live a life away from kids, but there is no evidence that they can be cured, just turned from their fascination.

Thus they are always a threat to children as you never know when they are going to 'fall off the wagon' which is a harsh way of putting it, but it sadly the truth.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'm sorry if this comes across as just being nitpicky, but something you mentioned made me think...

You said that the vast majority stop after they are *caught* the first time.....

Just because you aren't caught, doesn't mean you haven't done anything. I've driven without a seat belt after being told off by Police for the same thing. Could this count toward 'clear up rates'. I don't know.

So your advocating conviction based upon suspicion? Should George Lucas go to jail because he hinted at the idea that Vader killed a bunch of children in Episode 3?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The main thing with Paedophilia is the often used term of 'ring'. Bust one, and you tend to bust them all. When they come out, they have no 'ring' to supply them with what they are after, making offending that much harder. Yet this cannot be claimed to be them cured. It could be likened to taking an Alcoholic out of a pub, and never exposing them to booze again. Sure, some might get on the wagon, but until the temptation is there, you will never know.

No, you don't. Indeed I could make the same point about you, and anyone else, with respect to pedophilia, rape, murder, theft, or any other crime. You never 'know' until you've been in a situation where the decision has to be made.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I am a big fan of the Brass Eye Paedophile special, because rather than poke fun at the horrendous crimes, it poked fun at the tabloid handling of such stories, which spurs public over reaction in their incessant quest for higher and higher sales at the expense of truth and a balanced report. But I'm with Frazzeled on this one. This is the sort of crime which takes years to prove. I mean, look at the news reports on the BBC. The Kiddyfiddlers don't just do it the once then get nobbled by the law, they operate quite successfully for *years* without being caught. Thankfully, it only takes a single victim to be brave enough to come forward, but that sort of abuse isn't something most people will happily confess to having suffered. Either imprison them permanently, lop their nads off, or kill them outright, but to say they are ever 'cured' is quite a leap in logic.

So engage in a cathartic response in order to make you feel as though pedophilia is somehow more objectionable? Sorry, but punishment has nothing to do with prevention. It just makes some people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

So Dogma's argument is less jail time for child molesters?

Frazzled wrote:So Dogma's argument is less jail time for child molesters?

Point out to me where I've actually said that. Please. Try. I'd love to see your feeble attempt at logical association.

My argument is that preventing child molestation can not be effectively done via simple punishment. I've clearly stated that at least 3 times. Either you have chosen to ignore that line of reasoning, or you're just trying to puff up your chest in order to be the good little Texan on the internet. Of course, there are other possibilities as well, but sometimes its only through a mirror of absurdity that people recognize themselves.

Frazzled wrote:You act like any of this matters. It doesn't. You're not going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince you, and even if I did its irrelevant. This is a message board.

My response does, however, solve the problem of recidivism. You just don't have the will to accept it. Survey parents. They'll agree with me much more than disagree.

That's right, this is a message board, it doesn't really do anything but let people share ideas and opinions. Thing is, the ideas and opinions that matter and get repeated are the ones that people back up with decent argument and reference to facts.

You haven't even tried to support anything you've said. You made a big claim about 100% recidivism, I disputed it, you asked for proof and I provided it. Then you decided reality didn't matter, because other people out there are under the same misapprehension as you.

But it comes down to one thing, substantiate your argument or concede. Otherwise you're just some guy who likes making claims about stuff he doesn't know anything about.

Frazzled wrote:
You act like any of this matters. It doesn't. You're not going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince you, and even if I did its irrelevant. This is a message board.

My response does, however, solve the problem of recidivism. You just don't have the will to accept it. Survey parents. They'll agree with me much more than disagree.

Wait, if we have the death penalty for pedophiles, then won't they just kill the kid when they are done? If they face the same punishment then wouldn't they kill the kid to leave one less witness? Since they get the death penalty no matter what once they have molested a kid, it would be in their best interest to do away with the child so that they could never report them or testify in court.

Edit: Also, I live in Georgia (USA) we still have people on our state's sex offender list who were arrested for consensual homosexual sex. So yes, you can overreact.

In the case of the Australian man with simpson porn, I would say that, while distasteful, it is not a crime. However, being unfamiliar with Aussie law, I could be wrong. Can anyone tell me if there are any laws on the books that explicitly make hentai/cartoon of minors illegal?

Frazzled wrote:
Exterminate him and be done with it to protect society. He's going to be a predator if he isn't already. They basically have a 100% recidivism rate if caught.

What I really find disturbing Frazz is that you advocated the death penalty for this man because he's going to be a predator if he isn't already. So not only are you advocating death for all Pedophilles (which I don't necessarily disagree with as a gut reaction), but anyone who has ever watched child porn or anyone who has ever seen a cartoon or other interpretation of a child meant to derive sexual pleasure. The constitution protects people from cruel and unusual punishments, even if this isn't a free speech issue (which is what I believe it is). I find it disheartening that a fellow American would be willing to ignore article 1 and article 8 of the Bill of Rights in favor of a knee-jerk reaction to a guy (maybe) getting his jollies from watching cartoon kid porn. I'll leave the whole punishing someone to prevent a crime not yet committed thing alone and assume you were tired and/or drunk.

I think the guy is creepy. I can certainly understand a level of revulsion at his behavior, especially if you are a parent. But I think this is clearly a free speech issue - especially since, from what I can see, no one has been able to prove that anyone was harmed or that any law was broken other than this silliness that "cartoons are people." As much as I hate to paraphrase an unfortunate phrase, "you're either for free speech, or you're against it."

If you could provide some evidence that the recidivism rate is 100% or some high number, I think it might help your case.

If he made the video he committed the act. Its sick. He's sick. For the good of society exterminate him.

-This is not free speech. By making it he's committed the crime.
-Only 100% method of insuring no recividism. One recidivist is too many. Statistics are meaningless on that basis.
-Shows that society will not tolerate this, at all.
-Saves the parents the trouble of doing him in themselves.

But don't worry. I'm equal opportunity. I'm all for the execution of rapists and murderers too. But I'm more liberal on the opic then many-I still have an open mind about used car salesmen and lawyers...

Now you can go back to self righteously attacking me. Thats fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you're not trying to convince me. Enjoy yourselves.

Frazzled wrote:If he made the video he committed the act. Its sick. He's sick. For the good of society exterminate him.

If he threaten the life of another being he's a sadist. Its sick. He's sick... sounds pretty absurd doesn't it?

Frazzled wrote:
-This is not free speech. By making it he's committed the crime.

There is no crime against illustration.

Frazzled wrote:
-Only 100% method of insuring no recividism. One recidivist is too many.

Of course, that doesn't do anything about the actual issue of pedophilia, but lets not that get in the way of catharsis.

Frazzled wrote:
-Shows that society will not tolerate this, at all.

I think that's already pretty clear.

Frazzled wrote:
-Saves the parents the trouble of doing him in themselves.

Which is, of course, not at all what the justice system is about.

Frazzled wrote:
Now you can go back to self righteously attacking me. Thats fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you're not trying to convince me.

Then why bother posting at all? Because it makes you feel better? Why does it do that if you don't feel this matters?

Regardless, no one is attacking you, just your perspective on this issue.

Edit: deleted by FRAZZLED for not being an appropriate response to another poster.

Frazzled wrote:Now you can go back to self righteously attacking me. Thats fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you're not trying to convince me. Enjoy yourselves.

What happens is someone presents an argument, then the other side presents a counter argument. Both sides explain their point in detail, and provide evidence for any contentious claims. While it's not often that someone comes around to another person's POV entirely, in any decent discussion both sides will normally gain a better understanding of the other side, and likely modify their own position a little. It's a good way to develop a sophisticated view on a topic.

What you're arguing for is for people to jump on to the board, post their already formed opinion and never bother to think about anything anyone else is saying. It's about the fastest route to ignorance I can think of.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Now you can go back to self righteously attacking me. Thats fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you're not trying to convince me. Enjoy yourselves.

What happens is someone presents an argument, then the other side presents a counter argument. Both sides explain their point in detail, and provide evidence for any contentious claims. While it's not often that someone comes around to another person's POV entirely, in any decent discussion both sides will normally gain a better understanding of the other side, and likely modify their own position a little. It's a good way to develop a sophisticated view on a topic.

What you're arguing for is for people to jump on to the board, post their already formed opinion and never bother to think about anything anyone else is saying. It's about the fastest route to ignorance I can think of.

Yes, because arguing on the intranets, on a message board about toy soldiers in a section debating the merits of DC vs. Marvel Comics, is the path to true enlightenment...

There's nothing in the Off Topic Section that states this has to be a debate. We can poist our opinions and are free to argue or not about them.
Actually this thread probably should have been immediatley deleted, along with a bunch of others, but since I posted I'm not going to MOD it as that would be less than ethical. Just because its Off Topic does not mean everything should be allowed.

Frazzled wrote:

Yes, because arguing on the intranets, on a message board about toy soldiers in a section debating the merits of DC vs. Marvel Comics, is the path to true enlightenment...

There's nothing in the Off Topic Section that states this has to be a debate. We can poist our opinions and are free to argue or not about them.
Actually this thread probably should have been immediatley deleted, along with a bunch of others, but since I posted I'm not going to MOD it as that would be less than ethical. Just because its Off Topic does not mean everything should be allowed.

I don't think anyone's saying anything particularly contentious or offensuve, no-one's supporting paedophillia (that's the British spelling btw), we're just debating attitudes to punishment. Like you said, in the sam board as this there's a thing about comics and another about sending each other snacks. That's what I like about the OT board, stimulating serious debate and frivolity side by side, it works, and I've certainly gained a lot of knowledge on certain topics, and been smacked down for unsubstantiated and gut-based opinions before, and I feel I've learned from that.

It is a little frustrating when someone refuses to substantiate their position fully, that's all, no-one's attacking you personally. Obviously, this is a topic that sparks off the emotional side in anyone, and strikes up a primeaval sense of paternity and disgust in all, but I'm glad that laws aren't based on those gut reactions, it is humanity's greatest gift to be able to rise above such base instincts and use rationale and logic when dealing with society's ills. I'd be interested to find out at what stage you believe the execution should be applied, what level of crime are you thinking? The guys who drew this? The guys who watched it? Or not at all in this case?

It is a little frustrating when someone refuses to substantiate their position fully, that's all, no-one's attacking you personally. Obviously, this is a topic that sparks off the emotional side in anyone, and strikes up a primeaval sense of paternity and disgust in all, but I'm glad that laws aren't based on those gut reactions, it is humanity's greatest gift to be able to rise above such base instincts and use rationale and logic when dealing with society's ills. I'd be interested to find out at what stage you believe the execution should be applied, what level of crime are you thinking? The guys who drew this? The guys who watched it? Or not at all in this case?

I’ve stated my opinion. There are just others as equally ignorant as myself on the topic trying to debate it. Unless Dogma and Sebster are closet prosecutors/police/criminal psychiatrists they have no more standing then I to debate this topic. We can all cite studies from the intranets which are supposed to mean something.


But to your direct point.
-If you are convicted of making, selling, or purveying child pornography then it should be electrode time for you.
Why:
1) Cures recidivism 100%.
2) Demonstrates this is the greatest crime that can be done in society.
3) On a personal level, I have no problem in society exacting vengeance for certain crimes. Or put another way, criminals must atone for what they have done. There are certain crimes such that that atonement may only be obtained through execution.

This is fundamentally different to me then arguing politics, economics etc. The fact people are defending this is some manner on free speech grounds is repugnant to me.
I’m leaving the thread now. I’ve had to edit myself already. You can go back to feeling enlightened and slamming the thoughts of the troglodyte troll, until you’re a father anyway. Then your views on a whole many things will change.

Frazzled wrote: We can all cite studies from the intranets which are supposed to mean something.

I'd like it if you could please, it might help, even if you think it means jack. I don't think you're a troglodyte, I'm just trying to gain an understanding of a view that goes against my own. I don't think you less of a person for holding it.

Frazzled wrote:Yes, because arguing on the intranets, on a message board about toy soldiers in a section debating the merits of DC vs. Marvel Comics, is the path to true enlightenment...

To true enlightenment? Probably not. But it is the quickest way to a more informed opinion.

There's nothing in the Off Topic Section that states this has to be a debate. We can poist our opinions and are free to argue or not about them.

Yes, we can post our opinions, no-one is talking about your right to post your opinion. But do you, as an individual, have an obligation to yourself to make sure your opinion relates to reality?

Here's a question... if Jonny made a claim, and Davo disputes that claim and provides references showing that claim as false, and then Jonny replies 'I can post what I want, it's my opinion and you can't change it'... what would be your opinion of Jonny?

Actually this thread probably should have been immediatley deleted, along with a bunch of others, but since I posted I'm not going to MOD it as that would be less than ethical. Just because its Off Topic does not mean everything should be allowed.

If that's the policy the owners of the forum want to enforce, fair enough. It's a little odd to me, because this thread is just about a legal decision the best legal approach to paedophilia, it hardly seems all that shocking to me, but I don't own this place...

When I posted the thread I was being very tongue in cheek and not serious. I was poking fun at the slapdash way that the law had been enforced in this case. To my mind, if you want to do something like that, at least make it less open to abuse. The examples I posted were only supposed to provide amusement.
The discussion itself has been interesting as usual. Like a lot of discussions on politics here, it has had many differing ideologies clashing and arguing. I think that's one of the best parts of the OT board.
The arguments one way or another are pretty interesting. Sorry that you felt it wasn't appropriate for the board Fraz. You know I have absolutely nothing personal against you or anyone else here.

Da Boss wrote:When I posted the thread I was being very tongue in cheek and not serious.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Okay Arctik, I'm not quite sure I follow you with the last paragraph.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:The gaming examples will never be applicable because they do not concern child abuse legislation,

Does this need to be said?

and you don't have to shoot a guy in the head, record it, and then play it back for that to occur in a video game sequence.

You don't need to molest children to draw someone molesting children.

The vast majority of child pornography involves someone doing something illegal with/to a child, THEN distributing it. That's more than one offense.

This isn't about the vast majority, this is about a case where nothing illegal with a child was done.

Unfortunately people probably will try to use this as an excuse to try to ban gaming AGAIN. It's a good thing they're misguided idiots.

People will use any inane reason they can come up with. I think there was a Law and Order episode where people went on murdering sprees because of Grand Theft Auto. It was hilariously terrible. Anything to get ratings up, no doubt.

All I was saying is that the child abuse legislation is in place for a very good reason. No such laws have been put into effect regarding violent video games, because there's no good proof that it makes violent out of people, but you don't have to go far to get 'paedophile' out of this one.
Even if he just thought it was funny or something, he was fortunate not to be jailed. Like it or not, that's the law here. You just can't draw children having sex in Australia. You might have to be a bit misguided to actually draw it, yeah... but not being the author and still deliberately owning it is even worse.

The only reason they were defined as 'people' is because the guy tried to use it in his defense. But they weren't defined as 'people' per se - an image of a person on a screen isn't an actual, breathing person, and everyone knows that. What it was respresenting is obvious enough, and that's why he went down. Acts of sexual nature involving children < 16. Consent has nothing to do with that age category. The law isn't about abusing children directly, he was fined for possession.

Law and Order is a mockery of justice, and everyone knows it (except perhaps for the creators... but people who watch and take it seriously are just as bad as child molesters).

A little lesson on Free Speech:
Free Speech is protected in certain countries. PROTECTED. Just like in America people are 'protected' by guns. But protection isn't immunity. If you're going to use either in a way that is obviously illegal, don't be surprised when you're arrested.

double post... quoted instead of edited...

To quote Transformers:

"Prepare for termination."

3 - 2 - 1 ....

Transformers? That cartoon has a LITTLE BOY in it! They put him inside that MACHINE!

You're going to to jail, son.

(Dare to be stupid, dare to be stupid...)

Frazzled wrote:
I’ve stated my opinion. There are just others as equally ignorant as myself on the topic trying to debate it. Unless Dogma and Sebster are closet prosecutors/police/criminal psychiatrists they have no more standing then I to debate this topic.

So a person's position is now somehow indicative of their capacity to reason with respect to a given topic? Come on Fraz, that's just preposterous and you know it.

Frazzled wrote:
We can all cite studies from the intranets which are supposed to mean something.

"Yeah, but those are just words." -Michael Scott

Frazzled wrote:
3) On a personal level, I have no problem in society exacting vengeance for certain crimes. Or put another way, criminals must atone for what they have done. There are certain crimes such that that atonement may only be obtained through execution.

Society is not supposed to exact vengeance at all. The law is supposed to be above such human pettiness.

Frazzled wrote:
This is fundamentally different to me then arguing politics, economics etc. The fact people are defending this is some manner on free speech grounds is repugnant to me.

Who here has defended pedophilia? Not one person. The entire matter has been about whether or not the creation of pornography that does not directly impact anyone can be treated as pedophilia.

Frazzled wrote:
I’m leaving the thread now. I’ve had to edit myself already. You can go back to feeling enlightened and slamming the thoughts of the troglodyte troll, until you’re a father anyway. Then your views on a whole many things will change.

Maybe it will, though I surely hope not. I'd like to think I can rise above my gut reaction. Either way, you accused me of self-righteousness earlier, which I find shocking considering that the maintenance of an emotional opinion without any regard for actual evidence is about as close to self-righteousness as one can get.

I posted in this thread not to defend pedophiles (as already pointed I don´t think anyone is doing that) but to defend the idea of free speech, and how quite often (distateful or not) free speech is threatened by laws put in place by our goverments in response to media hyped crimes. The first thing these laws will do usually is to attack common sense and being laws put up in a haste they´ll have big loopholes that either will make them unconstitutional in some cases or will need of additional legislation to fix, e.g. statutory laws in the US

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

and how some of them had to be fixed:

wikipedia wrote:Often, teenage couples engage in consensual sexual conduct as part of an intimate relationship. This may start to occur before either participant has reached the age of consent, or after one has but the other has not. In such cases, the older of the two participants is technically guilty of statutory rape. Most jurisdictions, as previously stated, consider the act itself to be prima facie evidence of guilt, as any consent between partners, even if freely given, does not meet the standard of law as it is given by a minor. The accused in these cases normally has no defense.

This has often been considered unjust, leading to the passage of so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which serve to reduce or eliminate the penalty of the crime in cases where the couple's age difference is minor and the sexual contact is only considered rape because of the lack of legally-recognized consent. Such laws vary, but can include:

Providing an affirmative defense to statutory rape based on the small difference in the participants' ages, or on evidence of a pre-existing sexual relationship between actor and victim that did not constitute statutory rape.
Reducing the severity of the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor, which prevents loss of civil rights and reduces available penalties
Reducing the penalty in such cases to a fine, probation, and/or community service
Eliminating the requirement that the convicted participant register as a sex offender, or reducing the duration of such registry from life to 1, 5 or 10 years. [ ]

An example is Texas Penal Code, Section 22.011(e). It provides an affirmative defense to a charge of sexual assault if all of the following apply:

the actor was fewer than 3 years older than the victim at the time of the offense,
the victim was older than 14 years of age at the time of the offense,
the actor was not at the time registered or required to register for life as a sex offender,
the conduct did not constitute incest, and
neither actor nor victim would commit bigamy by marrying the other (in other words, neither was married to a third person).

So everybody will have to ask himself is he or she wants laws to protect our rights or laws enacted in a kneejerk response to satiate the yellow press need for blood and further the political careers of certain type of law officials more interested in getting revenge through a tough sentence than Justice.

Do I want sexual predators running around? Of course no, but neither I want the police raiding my home because I have so called child porn in the way of the traditional "look this is a naked bathing 1 year old you." And if a judge decided that a cartoon is child porn another could decide that inocent family photos are too.

M.

If someone was having sex with the 'bathing one-year-old child', then you might have cause for concern.

If someone had doctored the images so that it looked like a couple of bathing one-year-olds were 'doing business', then you might have cause for concern.

If you had your so-called 'family photo' is a box of crusty towels... I don't need to go on, surely?

What you've just demonstrated is knee-jerk paranoia. The media in question was not 'a cartoon'. It was an appropriation of a cartoon in the form of child pornography. There is no question as to whether or not the Australian man broke an Australian law - if you're not breaking any in your country, you'll be fine too.

Here's a good example of the unfair situation you're talking about:
When police seize a stash of drugs, the person's 'intent to supply' is pretty much up to authority. Most authorities base this on how much of the controlled substance there is. For example, if you're busted with a marijuana plant in Australia, you're pretty much guilty of 'intent to supply' - your potential for wrongdoing is unlimited, in their eyes.
Authorities don't seem to understand how much some people will smoke. I've known many a dude who'd easily blow eighty bucks of weed out of his pipe every bloody day of the week. To a first-time smoker, this would seem utterly impossible.
Now that you've been pinned as a drug dealer, they'll make an estimate of the 'street value' of said controlled substance. This is also grossly overinflated - whenever you hear the 'street value' of a drug bust on the news, pretty much cut it in half right off the bat. This is knee-jerk at its finest.

...please note that marijuana is completely in my past nowadays.

Now look at it this way. The paedophile probably doesn't need to have a photo to get off. He can do it all in his head, which is a lot scarier than the one-in-a-billion chance you'll be wrongfully accused of 'mistreating' a family photo. Laws bend just as easily as rights in a courtroom, so basically, if you want to end up in jail...

Be An Idiot.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
What you've just demonstrated is knee-jerk paranoia. The media in question was not 'a cartoon'. It was an appropriation of a cartoon in the form of child pornography. There is no question as to whether or not the Australian man broke an Australian law - if you're not breaking any in your country, you'll be fine too.

What if a 17 year old boy had a picture of a 15 year old, bikini-clad ex-girlfriend in a vaguely suggestive pose? Is that child pornography? If not, does it become pornography if he keeps the picture until he is 25? 35? Longer? How do you pare sentimentality away from sexuality without taking into consideration the victimization of the subject in the image itself?

Regardless, the point isn't that the inclusion of any illustrated imagery in the definition of pornography is a dangerous precedent. I know of many pieces of art that feature the blatant sexualization of children that I would never consider pornography as the child in the image was not a direct party to that sexuality. Are those pieces now pornographic?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Now look at it this way. The paedophile probably doesn't need to have a photo to get off. He can do it all in his head, which is a lot scarier than the one-in-a-billion chance you'll be wrongfully accused of 'mistreating' a family photo. Laws bend just as easily as rights in a courtroom, so basically, if you want to end up in jail...

Be An Idiot.

Anyone can do anything in their mind, and they should be able to. Its when those fantasies are written into the real world that trouble begins to arise. I imagine that everyone who has posted on this message board has had some form of criminal thought at some point in time, is that scary?

A picture of a fifteen year old bikini-clad girl isn't any sort of porn I've heard of. What sort of example is that? I've seen parents who dress toddlers in frigging bikinis. It's weird, but it's not porn.

Artists like Bill Henson... well, maybe he is a pervert, maybe he's not. But his exhibition in Sydney wasn't 'porn', and they closed that because of complaining parents. I disagreed with that. Inane, graphic Simpsons porn is just another thing, though.

I absolutely agree that you can do whatever you want in your head. I was just making a comparison between a sick person who would like to do certain things, and people who are wrongfully accused.

There was this old dude in my home town, really nice guy - I was a teenager at the time, but I remember a disgusting affair where an out-of-town parent started shouting at him, calling him a 'pervert', telling him to 'piss off' because he had wandered over to the local netball courts and was watching some teenaged girls playing on a sports day. That's all.

It has always saddened me that people are so paranoid on either side. A retired person can't reflect on the beauty of youth, or just watch children play... but an old woman would never have been treated that way. It's as much a survival mechanism as it is a social disease. I know it's a tough call, who's 'guilty', or whatever...

But basically, I said don't be an idiot. Don't keep your sentimental-picture-of-girlfiend between the pages of a stash of porno mags, or whatever. Who in their right mind would? That's what I mean. Neither of us live in a country where the court rules by the letter of the law, and refuses to hear reason where it is due. Texas might be a different place, but that might just be television. We all know the mass media can take a lot of blame for the 'knee-jerk' on both the authoritan and defensive sides.

Perhaps I have sounded overly defensive with my example but lately I keep reading about unfortunate judicial sentences were common sense is totally absent that I have to wonder what´s going on.

M.

Nah, that's just par for the course in an aussie court.

We have quite a few highly placed judicial types who need a good dose of reality.

Nah, that's just par for the course in an aussie court.

We have quite a few highly placed judicial types who need a good dose of reality.

In Spain a deaf and dumb single mother got punished got 45 days on jail and 1 year strangement order from the court because she hit, hit not beat to death or anything like that, his 9 year old because he threw a shoe at her instead of doing his homework.

The prosecutor appealed to get the maximun under the current law 63 days...... [faceslap]

M.

I forget where I read it, so it may be apocryphal, but in many states you can get legally married under 18. A man had naked pictures of his 17 year old wife, and got busted for child pornography possession. I suppose, even if it didn't happen, it could. I know many people aren't wild about freaky sex, but it's really hard to demonize what somebody does in bed with their spouse.

There was another case of an immigrant family (legal) from south America that had pictures of their children in the tub at age ~5. Again, reported and arrested.

Now, these cases are pretty clear cut instances of non-predators, but it's worth showing why pretty much any inflexible standard will have some chilling effects.

And none of them are relevant to the penalties FOR A CONVICTION.

Where does 'inflexible standard' come from? Were those people convicted, or just arrested?

The Australian guy had child porn, and your examples almost certainly had a good defense case.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:A picture of a fifteen year old bikini-clad girl isn't any sort of porn I've heard of. What sort of example is that? I've seen parents who dress toddlers in frigging bikinis. It's weird, but it's not porn.

But then what is pornography? What makes it distinctly itself? Bill Henson's work features explicit sexual acts, but I don't believe that its porn. Many family photos, as has been mentioned, feature nude, or otherwise revealed, children. But those hardly seem like porn either. The defining characteristic seems to be the harmful objectification/victimization of the subject matter. How does one harmfully objectify a cartoon character when it is already, inherently, an object?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Artists like Bill Henson... well, maybe he is a pervert, maybe he's not. But his exhibition in Sydney wasn't 'porn', and they closed that because of complaining parents. I disagreed with that. Inane, graphic Simpsons porn is just another thing, though.

I agree. But not to the extent that I would consider it on the same level as a photographic image of a small child being molested.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
But basically, I said don't be an idiot. Don't keep your sentimental-picture-of-girlfiend between the pages of a stash of porno mags, or whatever. Who in their right mind would? That's what I mean. Neither of us live in a country where the court rules by the letter of the law, and refuses to hear reason where it is due. Texas might be a different place, but that might just be television. We all know the mass media can take a lot of blame for the 'knee-jerk' on both the authoritan and defensive sides.

I believe that both of our nations rule by the letter of the law insofar as there is a 'letter to rule by. There is always a degree of subjectivity inherent in any judicial practice, but we should always work to minimize that where possible.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Where does 'inflexible standard' come from? Were those people convicted, or just arrested?

The Australian guy had child porn, and your examples almost certainly had a good defense case.

The inflexible standard comes from the existence of a legal definition. Something which, in the United States at least, pornography has. The trouble here is that the judge ruled to include cartoon characters in the definition by considering them as discreet legal entities in their own right.

dogma wrote:

The inflexible standard comes from the existence of a legal definition. Something which, in the United States at least, pornography has. The trouble here is that the judge ruled to include cartoon characters in the definition by considering them as discreet legal entities in their own right.

Actually, pornography has never had a simple definition. My First Amendment Professor, a former ACLU litigator, couldn't tell us exactly what was and wasn't obscenity. That's important, because obscenity isn't protected as tightly as other forms of expression.

It was the idea of inflexible standards that lead to the opening of many portals for porno in the first place. You can't ban nudity, because that includes classical art. What about sex scenes that are integral to the plot of a movie? And so on and so on. The current Miller test is delightfully vague:
1) Appeal to the prurient interest, as judged by a reasonable person of the community the work is in
2) A graphic depiction of sexual acts or excretory functions (or both!)
3) No serious artistic, literary, scientific, etc. value

Interestingly, this means that people in say, San Fransisco or NYC have greater first amendment protection for hard core smut than a person in rural Alabama.

According to my prof, the stuff covered by modern obscenity is more or less restricted to things like scat, fisting, bestiality. interestingly, child porn is in it's own area, not included in obscenity.

That's actually pretty interesting. I've always been under the impression that some of the feminist definitions held at least moderate sway. But then I'm also not so well read on law as I'd like to be.

Didn't Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) get busted for child pornography because of his collection of Victorian erotica? If I remember correctly it was because some of the images contained nude pictures of teenage girls. However the pictures were not illegal when they were taken and most of the models had died of old age before Reubens was born.

Polonius wrote:I forget where I read it, so it may be apocryphal, but in many states you can get legally married under 18. A man had naked pictures of his 17 year old wife, and got busted for child pornography possession. I suppose, even if it didn't happen, it could. I know many people aren't wild about freaky sex, but it's really hard to demonize what somebody does in bed with their spouse.

I can't say it never happened, but it wouldn't have been paedophilia, as that requires the victim to be younger than about 13 or 14, depending on the state. Above that, but below the age of consent it's statutory rape, which carries a far lesser sentence. Even then, in most places the age of consent is lower than 18.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:I forget where I read it, so it may be apocryphal, but in many states you can get legally married under 18. A man had naked pictures of his 17 year old wife, and got busted for child pornography possession. I suppose, even if it didn't happen, it could. I know many people aren't wild about freaky sex, but it's really hard to demonize what somebody does in bed with their spouse.

I can't say it never happened, but it wouldn't have been paedophilia, as that requires the victim to be younger than about 13 or 14, depending on the state. Above that, but below the age of consent it's statutory rape, which carries a far lesser sentence. Even then, in most places the age of consent is lower than 18.

That's the point of the story. Actually having sex with the woman is totally a-ok, but having the naked picture is against federal law.

And Paedophilia isn't a crime, it's a mental disorder. What you're thinking of is the imposition of strict liability on those that have sex with minors. In ohio, over 16 is totally ok, but under 16 and over 12 still allows for the affirmative defense of good faith ignorance. Let's say you pick a girl up at a bar and sleep with her, and it turns out she's 15 with a fake ID. The law allows you to use that as a defense. Under 12, however, is strict liablity, which is the legal term for "you can't wriggle out of this one, bubba." It's interesting because it's the only area outside of civil violations (housing ordinances and whatnot) that uses strict liability. In addition, keep in mind that it was only until fairly recently that rape laws could be used against one's spouse.

In case anybody is curious, the actual US Federal law regarding child porn is available here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---A000-.html

Interestingly, only having three images or less is an affirmative defense, and the punishment is 5-20 years. For comparison, the punishment for actually buying or selling children is up to 30, and the actual sexual exploitation is 25-50.

Interesting.

3) knowingly—
(A) reproduces any child pornography for distribution through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or
(B) advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains—
(i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(c) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (1), (2), (3)(A), (4), or (5) of subsection (a) that—
(1)
(A) the alleged child pornography was produced using an actual person or persons engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) each such person was an adult at the time the material was produced; or
(2) the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors.

It would seem our Australian example would indeed have been considered a child pornographer, and would not have been accorded the option of an affirmative defense.

There has been a case in the UK (it happened a couple of weeks ago) where access to Wikipedia was blocked because someone had complained to the Quango in charge of making the internet clean from kiddy porn, about the picture on the front of an album by The Scorpions, which was published in about 1982 and is available is most large record shops. The album cover has a photo of a young teenager nude on it.

Da Boss wrote:Can I marry a Moomin?

I would *totally* bang the snork-maiden....

Its a hard one i guess, as much as i despise anything pedo. How are you supposed to go about working out if the cartoon is adult, and more importantly are we breaching freedom of expression.

As for the simpsons stuff, it may of not been sexual. Im pretty sure watching homer bang marge would be funny if nothing else.