Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!.POSTED!pullnews.sonic-news.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
From: 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Warnings!
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:19:59 -0500
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
Lines: 304
Message-ID: <vvm4l49l45rhsu1eubts628gjga8a7ls6h@4ax.com>
References: <sis1l4ttmfp85dhj16eai4mvooviavhhm9@4ax.com> <k173l49adgf7a12v4j2cg5jol2o3m69n7k@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4a8b1cff.news.astraweb.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: DXC=7PLU3d3:a;I0UO2<>T]L;AL?0kYOcDh@J0akKEP56>eE[AAHPS3CBdAe=9QL6i4ObM64\hUVn`m6Am\T;jnYaMaC
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:4319
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1117
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.2 (see http://www.nntpcache.com/)
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:03:18 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
<user@example.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:52:17 -0500, 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I hate to use this forum to step up on my soap box, but there is a
>>real problem happening right now, and we need to be aware of it.
>>
>>We in the Western World -- or those who fall under it's sovereignty --
>>have long cherished the idea that we represent certain human rights,
>>specifically to this particular issue, the right to freedom of speech
>>or expression. But we must now abandon this idea because of recent
>>court and legislative decisions. I do not know how long these laws
>>have been in effect in Canada, but written fiction and drawings or art
>>that depict children involved in sexual activity is illegal child
>>pornography despite the fact that they do not involve the activity of
>>actual children. The US has actually had a precedent set in court that
>>states that, by definition, illegal child pornography must involve
>>actual children, meaning that only pictures or videos showing actual
>>children can be considered illegal child pornography. Written accounts
>>of actual children engaged in sexual activity is something of a gray
>>area, but might be used as evidence against one if one is accused of
>>molesting children. That definition has now been called into question
>>by a Federal Appeals court that upheld a decision in a Virginia court.
>>
>>First of all, the defendant in the case had actual illegal child
>>pornography in his possession, but the court decided to include in
>>that category drawings that depicted children in sexual activity. One
>>of the three judges dissented, and the lawyer will appeal, even
>>petitioning the Supreme Court if necessary.
>>
>>Meanwhile in Australia, a judge has convicted a man of possessing
>>illegal child pornography because he had a drawing of characters from
>>the cartoon show The Simpsons involved in sexual activity. Of course,
>>we are talking about a drawing, not a photograph. And of course, we
>>are talking about children who are totally fictional characters -- and
>>cartoon characters at that; the court could not even claim that the
>>drawing depicted actual child actors portraying the characters. But
>>the judge basically said something that semantically turns out to be,
>>"Just because they aren't real doesn't mean they aren't real."
>>
>>And, let us not forget Great Britain. In jolly ol', the law has
>>decided that adult actors portraying minors in movies or whatnot that
>>depict sexual situations is illegal child pornography. Despite the
>>fact that the actor is actually an adult and is only pretending to
>>have sex or sexual activities, it's illegal child pornography. FTR,
>>they don't convict the actor, but the movie people behind the film.
>>Imagine what they think about written fiction or drawings!
>>
>>And, back in the states, courts are now attacking written fiction
>>under obscenity laws. It's not illegal to possess or create something
>>that is considered obscene, but it is illegal to distribute such. The
>>courts have a long-standing precedent that states that obscene works
>>do not have the protection of freedom of speech; however, the
>>definition of obscene is totally based on opinion. In other words,
>>there actually is NO definition of obscene. So we are stuck at the
>>mercy of idiots who proclaim, "I may not be able to tell you what it
>>means, but I know it when I see it!" So how do we determine what is
>>obscene or not? If even 1 person thinks it isn't obscene, then is it
>>really obscene? According to the law, the idea that "most average
>>people would agree" that it is obscene means that it is obscene.
>>Funny, I thought that the US Constitution guaranteed that everyone had
>>the right to enjoy their own opinion -- but this idea in the court
>>systems denies this right.
>>
>>But let's take a look at the bigger picture. Under these laws and
>>decisions we must now remove some popular works from the book shelves.
>>Stephen King's awesome work, It, depicts a scene in which 6 or 7
>>children who are about 10-13 years-old have sex with each other: it
>>has to go. Nora Roberts writing as JD Robb in her Eve Dallas books
>>repeatedly depicts the rape experienced by a child no more than
>>7-years-old: they have to go, about 27 books shot to hell, and I don't
>>even know about her romance novels! Laurel K Hamilton, in one of her
>>Anita Blake novels graphically depicts the sexual molestation of a 13
>>or 14-year-old boy while his little sister is physically abused; it
>>also depicts sex involving vampires who are stuck at ages less than
>>14: they have to go. Brave New World depicts young school-age children
>>(prepubescent) being encouraged to explore each other sexually: it has
>>to go.
>>
>>I could go on, but the implication is clear. Western Civilization has
>>declared war on the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the
>>new era of book-burning has begun. Thought police are coming.
Had I wanted this message x-posted to hell and back again, I would
have done so myself. Although, in a real way, you've actually done me
a bit of a favor by spreading my warnings. And I notice you have
nothing to say about "legitimate" novels that would become illegal
under the thought police.
>There is no artistic merit in child pornography produced to arouse
>pedophiles sexually at the thought of abducting..torturing..raping and
>murdering toddlers..
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is only an opinion, not a
fact. Personally, if even 1 person can use such material to satisfy
desires that might otherwise drive him or her out to victimize a
child, then it's value is beyond price.
Tell me, Brandon, what is better: having people whack off in privacy
while reading material you consider to be worthless or having them out
on the streets picking up children to victimize?
But more importantly, why should law be based on opinion? Murder
causes harm and infringes upon the rights of others. Libel and
slander, by definition, causes harm and infringes upon the rights of
others. Why should something that causes no harm to actual persons and
does not infringe upon the rights of any others be illegal even if
99.9% of the people believe that it is worthless and obscene? I can go
back in time and point out periods where slavery was approved of and
encouraged -- did that make it right just because a majority of people
believed that it was right? Or just because a government sanctioned
it?
For something to be illegal, it ought to either cause some actual
person harm or somehow infringe upon the rights of others. Written
fiction and drawings do neither. For that matter, even slander and
libel laws have provisions for parody and satire. If you want to make
laws that make it only available to those who are old enough and
clearly want such materials -- that's fine. I don't argue that such
things are appropriate for everyone, just that no one has the right to
prevent my access to such.
>It's in aid of harmonization with the Optional Protocol to the
>Convention on the Rights of the Child...
>
>
>How is child pornography defined by the international organisations ?
>
>
>http://www.childfocus-net-alert.be/uk/UK_childpornography_sub03.htm
>
>In the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the
>Rights of the Child concerning the sale of children, the prostitution
>of children and pornography displaying children, pornography
>displaying children is defined as follows :
>
>"Any representation, by any means whatsoever, of a child indulging in
>explicit sexual activities, real or simulated, or any representation
>of the sex organs of a child, for mainly sexual purposes."
>
>The Interpol Group of specialists in crimes against children has
>adopted the following definition :
>
>"Pornography displaying children is the result of the sexual
>exploitation or the sexual abuse of a child. It can be defined as
>follows: any form of representation or utilisation of the sexual
>exploitation of a child, including printed matter or audio material,
>of which the main theme is the sexual behaviour or the sex organs of a
>child."
So, tell me, Brandon, how is a fictional story or drawing the result
of exploitation or sexual abuse of a child?
>The definition of ECPAT (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking in
>Children) is very similar to that of Interpol :
>
>"Pornography : visual representation of a child indulging in explicit
>sexual activities, real or simulated, or obscene exposure of sex
>organs aimed at providing sexual pleasure to the user; it includes the
>production, distribution and/or use of this type of material.
>
>Pornography: the use of any sound recording instrument using a child's
>voice, real or simulated, aimed at providing sexual pleasure to the
>user; it includes the production, distribution and/or use of this type
>of material ."
>The Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe stipulates that
>:
>"Child pornography' covers all pornography visually representing: a
>minor indulging in sexually explicit behaviour; a person who appears
>to be a minor indulging in sexually explicit behaviour; realistic
>images representing a minor indulging in sexually explicit behaviour."
Oh, yeah -- that's real sexual abuse -- "a person who appears to be a
minor!"
>The framework decision on combating the sexual exploitation of
>children and child pornography by the Council of the European Union :
>
>depicts or represents:
>1. a real child involved or engaged in sexually explicit conduct,
>including lascivious exhibition of the genitals or the pubic area of a
>child; or
>2. a real person appearing to be a child involved or engaged in the
>conduct mentioned in 1; or
>3. realistic images of non- existent child involved or engaged in the
>conduct mentioned in 1."
>
>
>COMMENTS ON THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP
>Note by the Secretary-General
>
>http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/9ece253f9315fb3480256704004f0bbd?Opendocument
>
>"Child pornography means the commercialization, trading or
>dissemination or the production or possession for these purposes of
>any materials that constitute a representation of a child engaged in
>or depicted as engaged in sexual activity or any representation of the
>body of a child, the dominant characteristic of which is sexual
>depiction."
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>The US has not signed up for human rights for children so some forms
>of child pornography are still not criminalized as of yet..and the
>definition only covers visual depictions.
>
>However the producers of this sick child pornography can and are being
>arrested and prosecuted..
>
>Utimately the hope is that via Interpol there will be no jurisdiction
>where the producers of this filth can hide..nor any medium whatsoever
>whereby by they can cater to the sick needs of child molesters..or
>encourage the rape ..torture and murder of children..
>
>https://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/1073/1/asubiaro_om_1.pdf
>
>
>3.2.1 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
>on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
>
>As mentioned in the previous chapter, the CRC is the main instrument
>that sets out the rights of the child. However, the CRC does not
>this lacuna in the CRC, in 1993, the UN Commission on Human Rights
>called for a working group to prepare a draft optional
>protocol.
>
>The purpose of the protocol was to make sexual exploitation of
>children an offence subject to universal jurisdiction.71 In effect,
>this would have resulted in all states regardless of the
>location of the offence or the nationality of the offender having
>jurisdiction to try the offence.
>
>In 2000, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the
>Child on the Sale of children,Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
>(Optional Protocol) was adopted as an additional Protocol to the CRC.
>
>According to the Optional Protocol, child pornography is defined as
>or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the
>
>
>south Africa has a similar definition ..
>
>https://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/1073/1/asubiaro_om_1.pdf
>
>However, on 27 October 2004, due to the increase in the availability
>of child pornography on the Internet in South Africa, Parliament
>passed an amendment to the 1999 FPA.117 The 2003
>amendment seeks to achieve the following objectives:
>
>
>provide for an obligation to report offences involving child
>pornography; and to increase penalties for offences involving child
>
>
>In line with the new amendment, child pornography is now defined as
>simulated, or who is depicted or described
>
>(i) engaged in sexual conduct;
>
>(ii) participating in, or assisting another person to participate in,
>sexual conduct; or
>
>(iii) showing or describing the body, or parts of the body, of such a
>person in a manner or in circumstances which, within context, amounts
>to sexual exploitation , or in such a manner that it is capable of
>
>The FPAB 2003 is a complete overhaul of the 1999 FPA and can be
>regarded as a response to the growing increase of arrests of child
>pornographers in South Africa and the relaxed sentences
>provided for in 1999 FPA.120 In response to this, the FPAB has
>increased sentence on conviction from five to ten years.121
>Furthermore, child pornography has been recognised as one of the ways
>in which a child can be sexually exploited.
>
>Additionally, the acts of producing, distributing and possession will
>henceforth be counted as separate counts.
>
> Thereby creating a situation whereby a convict can be sentenced to 30
>years imprisonment
>--
What a crock of shit. Harm a child -- you should be put in a cage.
Look at a drawing, read a story, write a story, draw something -- that
harms NO ONE.
-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
(without showing your email addy)
unless you ask me not to.
|
|