|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 188 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 125 of 188:
| 
Apr 23 16:44 UTC 2002 |
It is normal for a 12 year old to want to seem "adult" In some sense,
12 year olds really are becoming adults. Many girls at that age have
breasts and have menstruated so physically, they are near adulthood. It
doesnt seem odd to me that kids of that age want to dress sexy because
that is the age when kids really first start trying to attract their
peers in a sexual way.
|
brighn
|
|
response 126 of 188:
|
Apr 23 16:48 UTC 2002 |
I am willing to accept that as the price of having the First Amendment.
In any society, you have two choices: Let some of the guilty go free so that
the rights of the innocent are protected, or imprison some of the innocent
so that none of the guilty go free. You'll always have people fall through
the cracks, one direction or the other. (In our own society, both happen: Some
guilty go free and some innocents get imprisoned... as unfair as that is,
that's the best scenario in the real world.)
The photograph is not the injury, it is a record of the injury. The injury
may just as easily have taken place without the record of it. Photographs
should be used as evidence in the prosecution of child molestors, and the
principle purpose of child pornography laws should be to leverage those who
possess it into revealing how they acquired it, so that the producer can
eventually be located and prosecuted.
Faked photographs can be very cleverly done, and yet there's usually something
that's done wrong. Yesterday, I saw a fake photo of Leelee Sobieski naked.
At normal size, it actually looked pretty good, and if I hadn't known better,
I'd've thought it was real. Zooming out (not in), it looked really obvious
as a fake... her face was about 10% off from where it should have been. And
that's one of the best fake photos I've seen... most are much more obvious
than that.
|
brighn
|
|
response 127 of 188:
|
Apr 23 16:50 UTC 2002 |
#125> 16, or 18, as an age of consent, is an artifical thing, and peculiar
to modern society. Historically, 13 is a much more typical age of sexual
initiation.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 128 of 188:
|
Apr 23 17:13 UTC 2002 |
#124 asks: "If artificial production is legal, and indistinguishable from
real production, how do you stop the real production, where real kids are
being hurt?"
How does stopping the artificial production protect kids from being hurt?
Seems to me one has to deal with real people doing real things, and find
out about and act to prevent harm or injury. Laws against artificial
productions do nothing toward this. Laws against real harm and injury at
least make those things illegal, and then it is up to the law to find out
about it.
|
jep
|
|
response 129 of 188:
|
Apr 23 19:08 UTC 2002 |
The photographs are injurious as well as they are a massive (if
distributed) invasion of the child's privacy, but compared to the acts
which they depict, that can be a minor issue.
I don't think it's a clear issue. I think the Constitution is there to
protect all people's rights, including those of abused children. I'm
not sure this interpretation is right, that it's necessary to have
child-focused pornography (however it's produced) in order to have free
speech.
I have no strong feelings against artificially produced child
pornography, other than that I think such depictions must be
nauseatingly distasteful. It seems apparent to me that such
productions will make it a lot more difficult to convict real
criminals. I guess that's no reason to illegalize stuff that doesn't
provably harm anyone.
It's more important to me to protect and rescue abused children than to
defend articially produced child pornography. The artificial stuff may
not be "the problem", but if it makes "the problem" worse then that's a
problem too.
|
gull
|
|
response 130 of 188:
|
Apr 23 19:46 UTC 2002 |
Re #129: I just don't like the direction that takes things. You're
effectively creating a law where people have to prove they *didn't* do
something. What if the cops could give you a speeding ticket every time
you couldn't produce witnesses to prove you didn't speed while they
weren't looking?
|
jep
|
|
response 131 of 188:
|
Apr 23 20:28 UTC 2002 |
No I'm not. I'm just saying there are positive reasons to outlaw
possession of a certain type of photograph (or movie). There are
negative implications as well. I'm not denying that.
|
bru
|
|
response 132 of 188:
|
Apr 23 22:11 UTC 2002 |
The Jon Bene Ramsey reference is not to porn, but to beauty contestants.
There is a fine line in what they teach some of these girls involved in these
contests and pornography. I mean, they dress these kids (age 0 to 18) up in
very suggestive costumes and teach them to flirt with the audience. They are
basically trying to seduce the judges in many cases. Is this pornography?
No, Because they are not naked.
If they were naked, the parents, the judges, adn the audience would all be
in jail.
WE have 0 - 18 year olds involved in pornaography. They appear in published
films, they appear in pictures on the internet, they appear in various
magazines, (yes playboy is pornography, just very well done!) adn there are
sex clubs out there where you can supposedly get hold of young children, swap
wives, and hire hookers. Many of these involve underaged children, but we
turn a blind eye to it if it isn't overt. Come on, we have all bought
playboy, (just for the articles) and we deny it has any effect on the young
children. But how many of you as 9 or 10 year olds stole your fathers copy.
we all made jokes about sex even though we KNEW nothing about it. I knew a
9 year old who kept bragging about how many girls he had laid, and that was
30 years ago. But we do nothing because we don't know what to do, or we don't
believe it, or it isn't our business, or we see nothing wrong with it.
And kids keep getting molested.
|
mdw
|
|
response 133 of 188:
|
Apr 23 22:35 UTC 2002 |
Being naked, and pornography, are two very different things. Being
naked is a fairly well defined objective standard, which means nothing
in and of itself, except perhaps a slightly greater ability to dissipate
heat. Cultural attitudes towards nakedness have varied widely, but in
warmer climates, nakedness has often been generally accepted as a fine
way to beat the heat. Even here, in more temperate climates, we have
plenty of nudists who believe, in varying degrees, that nakedness is an
acceptable social outlet and lifestyle.
Pornography is very much more a subjective standard, making it almost
impossible to define in objective standards. Material that many people
call pornography generally doesn't just involve nakedness, but more
often involves the use of clothing as costume -- one of many stage props
used to convey or suggest an act or situation. This means pornography
and art are at the very least kissing cousins. People's views on this
have shifted with time. At one point, any stage work was considered
indecent at best, and actors and actresses were generally regarded as
little better than prostitutes. Cultural mores have shifted
significantly since those puritanical days, and so we have a recent
president who acted with a monkey on his shoulder.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 134 of 188:
|
Apr 23 23:04 UTC 2002 |
I'm still trying to figure out how Bruce is conflating 9-year-olds peeking
at their dad's Playboy with child molestation. Did I miss something?
|
oval
|
|
response 135 of 188:
|
Apr 23 23:57 UTC 2002 |
I'm still trying to figure out since when was Playboy well done ..
when i was somwhere between 8 and 10 my friend and i found her parents' sex
book - i think it was 'the joy of sex'? anyway, i remember reading about a
man who'd go into public bathrooms and pass a note scribbled on toilet paper
under to the next stall asking if he'd like a blowjob. i also found parents'
playboy mags as a kid. i feel that none of this affected me negatively.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 136 of 188:
|
Apr 24 00:00 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 137 of 188:
|
Apr 24 03:33 UTC 2002 |
The relationship between boys and their *mothers* in Japan can be bizzarre.
|
bru
|
|
response 138 of 188:
|
Apr 24 04:00 UTC 2002 |
Okay, If jon Bene Ramsey had been doing what she did on stage while NAKED,
it would be considered pornographic by most people. SAme with most other
Beauty contestants. They are theretrying to sell their bodies to the judges
and the audience for a trophy.
|
russ
|
|
response 139 of 188:
|
Apr 24 05:28 UTC 2002 |
Re #124: If you can produce stuff without using any actors, it
starts becoming silly to use actors when this has large costs.
Going to prison for felony child abuse has got to be counted as
a large (prohibitive) cost. Thus, CGI porn featuring "minors"
is going to replace the same using real kids.
How do you tell the difference? If the CGI stuff is legal there
is no longer any reason to conceal its origins (other than trying
to evade harassment from bluenoses like Ashcroft, that is). One
way to be *certain* of the difference is if you generate it
yourself, using "frames" and "skins" a la Unreal Tournament.
Re #129: Only unpopular speech needs protection, John. If you
don't offend anybody, nobody's going to try to suppress you
(except maybe for being nauseatingly bland ;-).
|
russ
|
|
response 140 of 188:
|
Apr 24 13:04 UTC 2002 |
Re #138: I don't see how clothing or lack thereof creates a
black/white line in the effect *on the child*. Small children
often doff their clothes, but they aren't trying to tittilate
someone. Training a child to be precociously sexual, regardless
of whether they're doing this clad or otherwise, would appear to
have related (if not identical) effects.
|
brighn
|
|
response 141 of 188:
|
Apr 24 16:55 UTC 2002 |
By the way, I find the constant references to "Child Pornography" and "Child
Molestation" to be missing one HUGE point that Kennedy makes in his decision
on the CPPA: The CPPA applies to 17 year olds as much as to 6 year olds. While
I find kiddie porn involving 6 year olds highly distasteful, a 17 year old
is not a child, and most states agree with that assessment. By the confession
of insiders, a significant number of porn stars are 16 and 17, and are doing
things which are legal to do in their state, but not legal to be
photographed... when the Government cites the staggering number of kiddie porn
materials that are available, they tend to include that, and that makes up
a huge chunk of the kiddie porn industry.
Also, the CPPA refers to "simulated" as well as actual acts, and includes
masturbation as a banned activity... which means that a movie like "Bad News
Bears" would qualify if one of the brats rubs his jockstrap while commenting
on a female teammate.
The SC did not say that child pornography was a necessary evil to protect the
First Amendment. It said that the CPPA was too far-reaching by labelling even
"American Beauty" and Zeferelli's "Romeo and Juliet" as potential kiddie porn.
|
grexalot
|
|
response 142 of 188:
|
Apr 24 17:00 UTC 2002 |
Olivia Hussey had super class tits.
|
morwen
|
|
response 143 of 188:
|
Apr 25 00:49 UTC 2002 |
What does *that* have to do with the current conversation?
|
russ
|
|
response 144 of 188:
|
Apr 25 03:17 UTC 2002 |
Re #143: It means you need a twit filter. Don't waste your attention.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 145 of 188:
|
Apr 25 07:58 UTC 2002 |
maybe. But Olivia Hussey did have marvelous mammaries. Full, round..
but then, hers weren't bared. I believe we saw Romeo's penis,
however. The actor that played him was of age, wasn't he?
|
brighn
|
|
response 146 of 188:
|
Apr 25 14:18 UTC 2002 |
My recollection is seeing Romeo's ass and Juliet's breasts, but it's been a
long time. (Julie, I believe the reference is that Olivia Hussey played Juliet
in a movie version which included a nude scene, and since Romeo and Juliet
would have been young-ish teens -- 14 or 15, that neighborhood -- the movie
version is frequently held up as an example of why the CPPA is too
far-reaching. And Grexalot apparently likes Olivia Hussey's breasts.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 147 of 188:
|
Apr 25 14:49 UTC 2002 |
Juliet's mother says, referring to Juliet's age, "She's not fourteen". (Act
I, Scene 3, line 12.), and goes on to say that she'll be 14 in "a fortnight
and odd days". She also says she was Juliet's age when she bore her.
|
brighn
|
|
response 148 of 188:
|
Apr 25 15:00 UTC 2002 |
Well, I guess that means Juliet's 13.
=}
|
morwen
|
|
response 149 of 188:
|
Apr 25 15:08 UTC 2002 |
resp:146 Thank you for the information, Paul.
|