Witchhunt on child porn - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Gideon · #91 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007

A few years ago there was an incident where a swedish father was arrested in the US when he played with and hugged his naked daughter. Culture clash apparently, childen are often naked here if it's warm enough.

pramjockey · #92 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007

Source?

Gideon · #93 (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

No, I couldn't find one. He was later released anyway, I don't think they charged him with anything.

iamwhatiseem · #94 (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

This should spark interest:

Sex Offenders banned from connecting to the internet:
EWING, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey enacted legislation on Thursday banning some convicted sex offenders from using the Internet.

In signing the restrictions into law, Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey, who is filling in while Gov. Jon S. Corzine is vacationing, noted that sexual predators were as likely to lurk at a computer keyboard as in a park or playground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/ny...on&oref=slogin

EricOKC · #95 (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

This should spark interest:

Sex Offenders banned from connecting to the internet:
EWING, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey enacted legislation on Thursday banning some convicted sex offenders from using the Internet.

In signing the restrictions into law, Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey, who is filling in while Gov. Jon S. Corzine is vacationing, noted that sexual predators were as likely to lurk at a computer keyboard as in a park or playground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/ny...on&oref=slogin

I don't see this surviving a court challenge. No different than saying a sex offender cannot go to the library. To say it is a violation of first amendment freedoms is an understatement.

AjaxPress · #96 (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

This is why we can't have conservatives trying to legislate morality.

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between al-Qaeda and these "compassionate conservatives".

Quote:

When he was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act.

Slon · #97 (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

"Why?"

Are you serious??

Well, I think the better question would be, who exactly is being harmed when someone looks at a nude photo of a 15-year-old, as opposed to a nude photo of an 18-year-old.

Quote:

Well, then perhaps you should be posting this in the International Politics forum...

What if those photos are of naked seven year old girls, and they were taken by a 50 year old man with a camera in one hand and his dick in another?

I'd say at least one person would be getting pleasure from the exchange, with no harm being done to anyone else, assuming there isn't more to that story than what you wrote there. Does holding your dick and being 50 harm people?

Quote:

Sorry, but I always considered you someone I could disagree with at times, but that you were always pretty level-headed.

This thread has altered my impression of you...

Slon · #98 (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

It always holds true. Sexual relationships that involve an immature person are devastating to the psychological development of the victim. The only grey area here is the boundary (the age of consent). That is culturally defined and as such can be argued to and fro. But the essence of the case doesn't change.

And given that "maturity" is defined by an arbitrarily-set number, I'd say it would follow that the entire thing is a gray area.

Quote:

You should differentiate more clearly between these different issues. If you trump them all together, it will appear that the least reprehensible is used as a rationale for the most reprehensible. Whether Wilhelm puts up pictures of his kids on a website or not, for whatever reasons, is his business and his business alone. That is miles away from what the pedo-party or the Martijn vereniging has in mind, which is complete acceptance of sexual relationships between minors and adults.

Slon · #99 (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

This i cannot agree with for ANY reason.

Think about it - if its "for the children", is there ANY freedom you could even think about retaining?

I guaranfuckingtee you I can come up with ways to violate every single one of the Bill of Rights to prevent a crime against children - and justify the continuing, ongoing violation of it from now until slightly after the glaciation of Hell.

That is a very dangerous position to support my friend - VERY dangerous indeed.

That's why I am usually frustrated with discussion like these. It's almost as if people strive to take on a ridiculous, illogical and emotion-filled argument (see: post #2).

Slon · #**100** (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

That is an unfortunate lack of insight on your part.

Well, to be fair, what harm is being done?

Quote:

It must be illegal for no other reason than if one is perverted enough to whack off while looking at a child's photo - there is a thin line that would stop him from taking it to the next step.

Yeah, if someone jerks off to the Hostel, obviously they are going to go and find some teens or 20-something-year-olds to torture. Let's ban movies like that.

Slon · #**101** (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

One could say there is no way to legislate behavior.
However when the crime is against children when the victims have zero chance to stop the crime once started - then attempts to stop the crime before it happens, in my opinion is worth whatever "loss of freedom" that comes with it.

I believe crimes against children are special, and therefore stricter laws and penalties are acceptable.

What do you mean by "against children?" If someone downloads child porn using Kazaa, who exactly is being harmed? Also, as someone already mentioned, it's absurd that you think we should give up any and all rights if giving up such a right helps fight child porn.

Slon · #**102** (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

This is why we can't have conservatives trying to legislate morality.

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between al-Qaeda and these "compassionate conservatives".

Wasn't there also a guy who got imprisoned because he posted underage pictures of himself? I don't remember where I read that, though.

Slon · #**103** (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

erik you might be placing to much emphasis on the letter of the law, rather than how strict the law is in practice.
For instance taking a photo of a nude child is illegal, however it has been a long standing tradition for a lot of folks to take a photo of their nude infant laying on their belly - technically it is illegal, however no one is ever going to be prosecuted for it.
If however someone takes that photo and places it on a sicko site where the intent of the photo is to create sexual arousal in an adult - then it will be prosecuted.
Laws are regularly enforced/unenforced depending on intent.

Great idea! Let's make everything illegal so that we are at the mercy of law enforcement agencies and their decisions regarding what should or should not be punished.

Slon · #**104** (**permalink**) 12-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

And we're trying to figure out how you do...

Rationally, apparently. What about you?

Steve · #**105** (**permalink**) 12-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

That's why I am usually frustrated with discussion like these. It's almost as if people strive to take on a ridiculous, illogical and emotion-filled argument (see: post #2).

Child abuse and child pornography are emotionally charged issue.

That you're arguing in favor of child pornography says a lot about you...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode