On May 26, 12:29 am, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:
On May 25, 11:29?pm, Stuffed Tiger <N...@NotAnAddress.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:16:20 -0700, Bert Clanton <eubio...@sonic.net>
wrote in part:
If age appropriate material and age appropriate behavior are the prime
consideration in labeling and scheduling, that should guide what
children are exposed to. There is no reason children should ever be
exposed to age inappropriate materials.
Who decides what's "age-inappropriate"? What evidence is there that
legal (non-violent, unforced, legally consensual) sexual material
harms any child?
The truth is that kids get quickly bored with materials too old for
them or too young for them.
But what's too old or too young varies radically from child to child.
Children need guidance in these matters.
Not really. Instead, adults have an obsessive need to censor
children.
We can probably agree on that and that the government has no place
guiding adults in what information an adult can view.
I don't really think you mean that. I doubt you'd include film of
some old perv screwing a baby then torturing the kid with a soldering
iron for fun, then using her as a pin cushion for ten-penny nails.
Here's my point. Material inappropriate for children of a given age,
is not porn. It might be appropriate for children of a later or
earlier age ...
Children of a given age have widely different maturity levels --
physical, mental, emotional. Age itself should not be the criteria.
Tiger, as currently defined by the courts, there's a big difference
between pornography and obscenity. Porn is legal, obscenity is not.
Porn is about consensual sex. I gave you an example of obscenity
above.
I too would drop the word pornography. IMO, obscenity should remain
illegal.
:-)
Jenny
Pornography is not too obscene in my opinion, although some people
contend it is. They're concerned with disgusting porn. And
admittedly, some porn is disgusting, though much porn is beautiful.
People say they want to "protect" children from seeing pornography,
which is nothing more than the natural naked human body, and the
natural act of sexual intercourse. Meanwhile, pictures of bloody and
mutilated soldiers are splashed across the front page of major
newspapers, with good cause, and no one cares very much if children
see pictures of dead bodies, ***** or disgusting things....... so long
as the genitals apparently aren't involved. There are plenty of
websites with disgusting pictures, so disgusting that I myself do not
want to see them, and yet nobody cares if children look so long as it
has nothing to do with sex.....
It's probable that no child will be so traumatized by a picture they
fleetingly see to make it a crime, or that children will persist in
viewing things they don't want to see. Certainly there are things
much more terrible out there for children than nudity and sex. Take
most R-rated movies which have virtually no limits whatsoever.......
true no children are admitted under 17 without an adult, but it's no
crime to show the film to a minor. Once again, I myself do not even
always want to see such films myself...
Soldiers returning from war, sometimes come home with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder, from the things they see, and this has nothing to do
with sex. I believe in freedom of speech, and thought, and inquiry,
and all such intellectual freedom must rest on the freedom to see and
hear. No one has any right to categorize something as being too
obscene or extreme for people's eyes or ears. A picture of a child
being molested, raped, or abused is no different from a picture of a
grown woman being molested, raped or abused. Pictures taken of you
should belong to you, and the government should protect the
copyright. Free distribution of such pictures might actually
sometimes be important and necessary to protect the abused such as in
the case of Al-Ghraib prison. In any case, weighing the positives and
negatives of both sides of the issue, viewing, obtaining, and buying
child pornography should be legal. Distributing it should be subject
to a civil lawsuit, and selling it, or even distributing it for
profit, such as advertising revenue, should be a crime of copyright
violation. Producing child porn is not actually anything to consider,
as child molestation and abuse are a crime, and the product produced
always belonging to the subject videotaped or photographed. And we
might decide that children cannot consent to selling their naked or
pornographic works. But buying a newspaper, no matter the contents
should always be legal.
.
|
