On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:43:25 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
<user@example.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:19:59 -0500, 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Nah..you wouldn't..you are far too polite..
>
>>Although, in a real way, you've actually done me
>>a bit of a favor by spreading my warnings.
>
>That was my intent..
>:)
>
>It a great post that gets to the heart of the debate IMHO..
>
>
>>And I notice you have nothing to say about "legitimate" novels that would become illegal
>>under the thought police.
>
>What's to say?
>Any well thought out legislation allows genuine artistic license..
That's the problem -- there can be no artistic license in law. Either
something is illegal or it is not. Personally, I find the sections of
the Eve Dallas novels where she and her husband Roarke drop everything
to have mad, passionate sex explicitly described to be rather obscene
-- AND CERTAINLY UNNECESSARY! I often fast forward through those parts
of the audiobook. Of course, the sheer popularity of the JD Robb/Nora
Roberts books means they won't be attacked for their profanity and
explicit sexual content. But it's absolutely no different than the
porn stories that you so belabor -- except that most people find it
okay when a man and a woman fuck, no matter how explicit the
descriptions. But I certainly don't care for it interrupting a
perfectly good murder mystery!
>>>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.
>
>Indeed..but OTOH if it emboldens even one sick person to go out and
>abduct and murder a child after acting out these unspeakable acts?
And tell me, Brandon, how you would go about proving such a thing? In
the first place, anyone seeking such material is doing so because he
or she ALREADY has the desire to do such things. It isn't the
materials that CREATE the desire -- but using such materials CAN sate
such desires so that a person never need act on them. By your twisted
logic, we should ban Agatha Christie novels because they MIGHT
embolden someone to commit murder. People who do not understand the
difference between reality and fantasy, between fact and fiction are
liable to do anything -- and they will even left to their own devices.
In most cases, these people will be their own un-doing. But it is
inherently wrong to claim that a work of fiction in some way
contributes to the decision to break a law.
>>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?
>
>I do not consider such material worthless but positively harmful..
>
>IMO anyone who is sexually aroused by the idea of torturing and
>murdering little children should have no "out" to be driven to but
>should be in a maximum security asylum for the criminally insane..
Here you just contradict yourself. You've previously stated that you
do not support such measures for anyone who has never committed a
crime, no matter what they might want to do, no matter what might
arouse them -- or are you going to declare thoughts and feelings
illegal? Remember, once you go down that route, then you leave
yourself open to being arrested for the angry desire to smack someone
who irritates you -- much in the way I imagine we have inspired each
other from time to time.
You cannot have it both ways, Brandon. In the first place, you have no
idea what another person feels or desires. The person at the desk next
to you may secretly desire to cross-dress; the person who smiled at
you in the produce section may be imagining what it would be like to
peel the skin off of your head like a grape; the person who brings
your mail may be secretly keeping a diary in which he discusses his
fantasies about living poultry. But feelings and desires cannot be
crimes -- only actions can be crimes. No matter how much one might
want to do something that would break a law, they haven't done so
until they actually do something.
>>But more importantly, why should law be based on opinion?
>
>It shouldn't..and in this case isn't ..it's based on the need to
>protect children from sexual psychopaths of the worst kind..
There is absolutely no evidence that the existence of such material
causes harm to any child, much less children in general. In fact, if
we look at Japan, a country where such comic books are available at
the corner news kiosk, then why is it that Japan has one of the lowest
rates of sexual violence in the world? Could it be that they recognize
the value of giving people a legal means of expressing desires that
cannot and must not be expressed by action?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: most people want to obey
the law -- for whatever reason; give them a way to express themselves
within the law, and they'll take it in lieu of breaking the law most
of the time. And those who will not are those who are likely to offend
regardless.
>> 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?
>
>But It does cause harm..to the consumer
>
>there is a lot to be said for the old fashioned idea of tending to
>deprave and corrupt..
You're so full of bullshit. Anyone who wants to break the law is going
to. Those who have no desire to break the law may well find themselves
going through periods where their passions command them unless they
have ways of dealing with those passions appropriately.
And there is a reason why that idea of tending to deprave and corrupt
is old fashioned: it's an idea that's past its time. Our society
praises movies in which Sly Stallone kills someone approximately every
2 minutes. We worship movies and their vigilante heroes. Those are
great for TV! But show a woman's breast and all hell breaks loose! The
funny thing is, if she had been breast-feeding, all kinds of people
would have been congratulating her for sticking to her commitment to
her child and protecting her right to do so!
You don't care about depravity -- you're offended by ideas of sex that
go contrary to your very vanilla tastes. And while I would agree with
you that children must be protected from predators who would use them
and toss them away like trash, I don't have the effrontery to attack
anyone based on what they might feel or desire, no matter what those
feelings or desires are. You can only judge someone by what they
choose to do, whether they choose to allow those feelings to control
them and behave badly or whether they take responsibility for their
actions and choose to do the right thing. And that isn't always an
easy choice.
>> 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.
>
>The only access to such materials should be the reading of them in a
>padded cell under the supervision of a psychiatrist in a course of
>treatment in a secure facility..
By that time, it's too late -- someone has already harmed a child. And
even you agree that someone must not be locked up for feelings but
only for actions that he has committed that break the law and cause
harm to others.
Take away all legal ways to meet someone's needs, and they will only
be able to resort to illegal means. Needs and desires must be dealt
with. So long as people can choose to do so legally or illegally, the
majority will choose to do so legally, and those who choose to do so
illegally were going to do so anyway.
>>>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?
>
>it isn't necessarily but it is " 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."
>
>Fletcher knew this which is why she pleaded guilty..
That does not answer the question. How does a fictional story or
drawing involving a child who only exists in the imagination of the
writer or drawer exploit a child? Your definitions states that child
pornography "is the result of the sexual exploitation or the sexual
abuse of a child" -- if there is no child involved, then how can it
possibly meet that definition?
It cannot.
>>>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 ."
While this definition does not even try to claim that a real child
must be harmed for it to be illegal -- begging the question: if no one
is harmed, if no rights are interfered with, where is the crime?
>>>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!"
>your sarcasm is misplaced..
No, my sarcasm is perfectly placed -- or are you forgetting that a
court in England indicted and convicted the makers of a certain movie
in which an adult actress portraying a minor was involved in sexual
activities -- the actress appeared for the defense providing all
information about her age and birth date and was able to prove without
a doubt that NO CHILD was involved in sexual activities.
So tell me, Brandon, how is it child abuse when there is no child
involved -- are you going to pass laws claiming that it's for someone
who "appears to be a minor" to have any kind of sex? It seems to me
that such laws would certainly violate the basic human rights of
adults who happen to look like minors. And, in fact, who decides
whether someone looks like a minor or not?
Therefore, this definition cannot be used.
>The point is that modern computer simulations can be indistinguishable
>from a real child..
Apparently you've never seen modern computer simulations or you
wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement.
>How do you reconcile your oft repeated opinion that adults having sex
>with a child is unacceptable with your view that materials portraying
>the rape and torture of children as pleasurable and desirable
>activities should be freely available..?
In the first part, a child is harmed. In the second, no child is
harmed; and I state that they should be freely available to those who
want them, not necessarily freely available to anyone. I don't
recommend them being given to children, and I'm not sure that they
should be given to minor sexual offenders where they might be seen as
manuals rather than outlets.
You don't seem to have any problem with books and movies that depict
the murder and torture of people as pleasurable and desirable
activities. Hell, we've got a Cable TV series and a series of novels
where the HERO is a serial killer! Although the first two books were
rather well written, the third went into a lot of mystic and
metaphysical explanations of the origins of sociopaths and
psychopathic serial killers -- I didn't buy it. But even that killer
recognizes that he has a choice. He knows that his desires have to be
met -- he could probably find a way to meet them without resorting to
murder, but he chooses not to. He just kills people who prey on
children and the weak but who fall through the cracks in the justice
system -- always making sure he has enough evidence to prove their
guilt before he can allow himself to act.
>>>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."
Realistic images of a non-existent child? What the hell does that
mean? If the artist is good enough to make his drawings look real
enough? And again, what's with this a "real person appearing to be a
child?" Who makes such judgments? In fact, isn't that a judgment based
on the opinion of the viewer? In fact, couldn't someone assume that
someone else was a child while a third party might well assume that it
was an adult? These days everyone in the porn industry shaves or
otherwise divests themselves of body hair. Are you suggesting we can't
have any kind of porn with flat-chested women? How about men who have
their pubic hair but have small dicks? That could certainly be
misconstrued!
>>>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.
>
>Once it is disseminated on line you have no way of knowing the effect
>it is having on the demented souls who find rape and murder of
>children sexually exciting...
But then, neither do you. My assumption can be shown to be true in at
least 1 case -- and I'm willing to bet that I can find more. But even
if it, as you say, enflames the passions of others -- it isn't the
picture or story who does the harm, it's a person. People always have
choices (with the exception of those who genuinely have impulse
control disorders). You cannot hold them responsible for what they
think or feel -- in fact, those things are none of your business. You
must hold them responsible for what they do.
Do a little research, Brandon. Look through as much as you can find
about treatment for sexual offenders -- you'll find there are really
only two keys to successful treatment. The first is teaching the
offender that their offenses harm others -- most of them do not
believe so or believe that those harms are caused by others or are
negligible. The second is teaching them responsibility for their own
actions -- and the harm that those actions can cause. If you can get
someone to recognize and understand those two points, then you have an
excellent chance of successfully getting them to stop offending.
Offering them legal ways of expressing these feelings gives them an
even better chance.
>You are gambling that it satiates rather than emboldens them or puts
>ideas in unbalanced people's heads..
>
>The risk is borne by their potential child victims however..not you..
>
No, I am not gambling at all. You claim that porn increases sexual
offenses, yet study after study has shown that this is not true. Do
not forget that Japan has one of the lowest rates of sexual violence
in the world despite the fact that they provide free access to
materials that depict such actions including sex with children. Cut
off all legal ways of meeting such needs and people will have no
choice but to commit crimes to get them met. And they must get them
met and dealt with somehow.
-- 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.
|
|