| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2007 04:09:35 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Controversial Postings |
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.
But apparently such a film would be entirely legal if it didn't
involve sex wouldn't it? Have you seen faces of death? Faces of
death is a perfectly legal film which can be found in many video
stores which shows films of people dying for real. Getting mauled by
bears, and eaten by crocodiles; jumping out of windows, etc. What's
more is they show films of people getting abused and beaten on
national television - with good reason. Take the Rodney King or
Reginal Denny beating. Apparently films and pictures of child abuse
are not 'obscene' unless they involve sexual abuse.
It's quite clear that restrictions on receiving, possessing, and
buying child pornography are an exercise in prior restraint. The
courts have long ruled that a newspaper can not be prohibited from
publishing things beforehand, and can only be pursued after the fact.
Certainly prohibiting people from receiving, possessing or buying a
newspaper violates this important principle of freedom of the press.
However, this doesn't mean that children may just become porn stars.
It's possibly a difficult decision, because just as some children want
to be in Little League, or in fashion shows, or take piano lessons, it
is quite possible that some children would consensually want to be in
porn with other children of their own age (sex between minors and
adults could still be illegal). These minor's own parents may
themselves be porn stars for instance, and could encourage them to
enter the business. However, if you think about it, on the other hand
some children's parents strongly pressure and even force them to take
piano lessons, be in Little League, or be in fashion shows. And if a
child is forced to be in a pornographic film and have sex, then that
is no different from rape. Adult pornographers and prostitutes choose
their occupation. Child pornographers and prostitutes may consent or
be forced. And if they are forced to have sex then that is the same
as rape. However some might want to be in porn and have sex, and
consent, it's possible.
Finally, to borrow from Shakespeare, "nothing's obscene but thinking
makes it so." A beautiful sunset could be made obscene, or a
disgusting image could be made beautiful. It is ultimately your or
someone else's own qualitative subjective judgment and perception
projected onto an image. The image in and of itself is neutral.
Laws against buying, possessing and receiving child pornography must
be errors of legislation, and result in miscarriages of justice.
Giving someone 200 years without parole sentence in Arizona for mere
possession of child pornography, meanwhile rapist murderers get out of
prison in 10-15 years to kill again. It seems the government is the
one committing the crime in this case. Judges, juries and
prosecutors, and have a responsibility to nulify unconstitutional and
unjust laws.
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
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
09 Jun 2007 05:33:16 PM |
|
|
Forced pornography with sex is like forced child prostitution - even
though in this case it would only be with other children of the same
age - for legal adult pornography with sex is hardly different from
prostitution in the first place. And forced child prostitution, even
with children of the same age, is rape.
The different types of child pornography:
Pictures of kids who just happened to be naked.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to be naked. - kids shouldn't
be pressured.
Pictures of kids who just happened to be having sex.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to have sex. - Could be just
the same as rape.
Pictures of kids having sex with adults or being abused. - Always
rape, except if you believe that kids can sometimes consent to sex
with adults.
It's possible that mere pictures of kids naked could be legally sold,
just like pictures of kids in clothes are sold. However, if that's
legal then next we will have kids naked in sexual positions, or
simulated sex with other children - not actual sex, but close. Is
that rape or like it? Kids forced to take off their clothes and
perform sexual poses... it's not good to impose this on children.
Again, on the other hand, some kids might very well want to be in
porn, and consent, just like some kids want to be in Little League.
It's possible.
So if we decide that kids can't consent to selling intercourse photos,
then selling them is a copyright violation. However if one's argument
is freedom of the press, then anyone would have a right to sell these
photos and be subject only to a civil lawsuit. In recent years it has
been the law that it is illegal to sell copyrighted bootleg Hollywood
motion pictures or bootleg music. We see here the clash of two
principles, of copyright security and freedom of the press. One might
argue that products such as Hollywood motion pictures and bootleg
music which are widely available for sale should enjoy greater
copyright protection. On the other hand, maybe such infringement and
sales should only be subject to civil lawsuits, for I see little
reason to create more and more non violent crimes, which in this case
do not factually steal from the victim, but merely hurts business
profits. In any case, the penalties for sale of child pornography far
outweigh the crime, and are definitely disproportionate compared to
the penalties for other crimes, and so constitute cruel and unusual
punishment. The photos and films are often evidence of a crime which
could be used to convict people who actually commit the heinous acts
of child sexual assault and rape of non-consenting children.
To summarize, I have identified three strong Constitutional arguments
affecting the current legal status of child pornography:
The 9th Amendment which protects your unalienable freedom to see and
hear.
The 1st Amendment. Which protects freedom of the press.
The 8th Amendment. Which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment -
this should include disproportionate sentences. In 1983, in the case
of Solem v. Helm, the Supreme Court ruled that a sentence of life
imprisonment for issuing a fraudulent check in the amount of $100
constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Also I would note that pedophilia is not any more of a mental disorder
than homosexuality, it is a perhaps tragic sexual orientation, and
that just because someone is a pedophile or much less looks at a
picture, does not mean that they will molest, rape, or force
themselves on a child.
For instance, I've seen gay porn once or twice and I am not gay, and
I've seen tons of heterosexual porn and not raped or sexually
assaulted any women, nor would I care to. I have never seen child
porn, and would note that the current imbecilic laws make it a felony
for Supreme Court Justices, Congressmens, and Senators, to review it,
and come to any conclusion about it as voters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard C." |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
10 Jun 2007 11:13:37 AM |
|
|
<gooddad@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1181428396.880964.325390@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The different types of child pornography:
Pictures of kids who just happened to be naked.
=======================
That is NOT child pornography under any current definitions
(in the US - except maybe Arkansas ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cyndiann" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
09 Jun 2007 06:06:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Forced pornography with sex is like forced child prostitution - even
though in this case it would only be with other children of the same
age - for legal adult pornography with sex is hardly different from
prostitution in the first place. And forced child prostitution, even
with children of the same age, is rape.
The different types of child pornography:
Pictures of kids who just happened to be naked.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to be naked. - kids shouldn't
be pressured.
These two are not child pornography.
Pictures of kids who just happened to be having sex.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to have sex. - Could be just
the same as rape.
Pictures of kids having sex with adults or being abused. - Always
rape, except if you believe that kids can sometimes consent to sex
with adults.
It's possible that mere pictures of kids naked could be legally sold,
just like pictures of kids in clothes are sold.
They are legally sold. Pictures of nude children are in nudist
publications all the time.
However, if that's
legal then next we will have kids naked in sexual positions, or
simulated sex with other children - not actual sex, but close.
That's not true. Presently the law allows underage nudity but not kids
in obvious sexual positions.
Is
that rape or like it? Kids forced to take off their clothes and
perform sexual poses... it's not good to impose this on children.
Again, on the other hand, some kids might very well want to be in
porn, and consent, just like some kids want to be in Little League.
It's possible.
So if we decide that kids can't consent to selling intercourse photos,
then selling them is a copyright violation. However if one's argument
is freedom of the press, then anyone would have a right to sell these
photos and be subject only to a civil lawsuit. In recent years it has
been the law that it is illegal to sell copyrighted bootleg Hollywood
motion pictures or bootleg music. We see here the clash of two
principles, of copyright security and freedom of the press. One might
argue that products such as Hollywood motion pictures and bootleg
music which are widely available for sale should enjoy greater
copyright protection. On the other hand, maybe such infringement and
sales should only be subject to civil lawsuits, for I see little
reason to create more and more non violent crimes, which in this case
do not factually steal from the victim, but merely hurts business
profits. In any case, the penalties for sale of child pornography far
outweigh the crime, and are definitely disproportionate compared to
the penalties for other crimes, and so constitute cruel and unusual
punishment. The photos and films are often evidence of a crime which
could be used to convict people who actually commit the heinous acts
of child sexual assault and rape of non-consenting children.
To summarize, I have identified three strong Constitutional arguments
affecting the current legal status of child pornography:
The 9th Amendment which protects your unalienable freedom to see and
hear.
The 1st Amendment. Which protects freedom of the press.
The 8th Amendment. Which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment -
this should include disproportionate sentences. In 1983, in the case
of Solem v. Helm, the Supreme Court ruled that a sentence of life
imprisonment for issuing a fraudulent check in the amount of $100
constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Also I would note that pedophilia is not any more of a mental disorder
than homosexuality, it is a perhaps tragic sexual orientation, and
that just because someone is a pedophile or much less looks at a
picture, does not mean that they will molest, rape, or force
themselves on a child.
I've recently found this to be true. I was amazed. Most people who
molest children are not pedophiles.
cyndiann
http://www.mynudelife.com
For instance, I've seen gay porn once or twice and I am not gay, and
I've seen tons of heterosexual porn and not raped or sexually
assaulted any women, nor would I care to. I have never seen child
porn, and would note that the current imbecilic laws make it a felony
for Supreme Court Justices, Congressmens, and Senators, to review it,
and come to any conclusion about it as voters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zee" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
09 Jun 2007 07:25:54 PM |
|
|
On Jun 9, 6:06 pm, cyndiann <cyndia...@earthlink.net> wrote:
good...@rock.com wrote:
Forced pornography with sex is like forced child prostitution - even
though in this case it would only be with other children of the same
age - for legal adult pornography with sex is hardly different from
prostitution in the first place. And forced child prostitution, even
with children of the same age, is rape.
The different types of child pornography:
Pictures of kids who just happened to be naked.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to be naked. - kids shouldn't
be pressured.
These two are not child pornography.
Pictures of kids who just happened to be having sex.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to have sex. - Could be just
the same as rape.
Pictures of kids having sex with adults or being abused. - Always
rape, except if you believe that kids can sometimes consent to sex
with adults.
It's possible that mere pictures of kids naked could be legally sold,
just like pictures of kids in clothes are sold.
They are legally sold. Pictures of nude children are in nudist
publications all the time.
However, if that's
legal then next we will have kids naked in sexual positions, or
simulated sex with other children - not actual sex, but close.
That's not true. Presently the law allows underage nudity but not kids
in obvious sexual positions.
Is
that rape or like it? Kids forced to take off their clothes and
perform sexual poses... it's not good to impose this on children.
Again, on the other hand, some kids might very well want to be in
porn, and consent, just like some kids want to be in Little League.
It's possible.
So if we decide that kids can't consent to selling intercourse photos,
then selling them is a copyright violation. However if one's argument
is freedom of the press, then anyone would have a right to sell these
photos and be subject only to a civil lawsuit. In recent years it has
been the law that it is illegal to sell copyrighted bootleg Hollywood
motion pictures or bootleg music. We see here the clash of two
principles, of copyright security and freedom of the press. One might
argue that products such as Hollywood motion pictures and bootleg
music which are widely available for sale should enjoy greater
copyright protection. On the other hand, maybe such infringement and
sales should only be subject to civil lawsuits, for I see little
reason to create more and more non violent crimes, which in this case
do not factually steal from the victim, but merely hurts business
profits. In any case, the penalties for sale of child pornography far
outweigh the crime, and are definitely disproportionate compared to
the penalties for other crimes, and so constitute cruel and unusual
punishment. The photos and films are often evidence of a crime which
could be used to convict people who actually commit the heinous acts
of child sexual assault and rape of non-consenting children.
To summarize, I have identified three strong Constitutional arguments
affecting the current legal status of child pornography:
The 9th Amendment which protects your unalienable freedom to see and
hear.
The 1st Amendment. Which protects freedom of the press.
The 8th Amendment. Which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment -
this should include disproportionate sentences. In 1983, in the case
of Solem v. Helm, the Supreme Court ruled that a sentence of life
imprisonment for issuing a fraudulent check in the amount of $100
constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Also I would note that pedophilia is not any more of a mental disorder
than homosexuality, it is a perhaps tragic sexual orientation, and
that just because someone is a pedophile or much less looks at a
picture, does not mean that they will molest, rape, or force
themselves on a child.
I've recently found this to be true. I was amazed. Most people who
molest children are not pedophiles.
cyndiannhttp://www.mynudelife.com
For instance, I've seen gay porn once or twice and I am not gay, and
I've seen tons of heterosexual porn and not raped or sexually
assaulted any women, nor would I care to. I have never seen child
porn, and would note that the current imbecilic laws make it a felony
for Supreme Court Justices, Congressmens, and Senators, to review it,
and come to any conclusion about it as voters.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
OK i agree...but i am wondering that in this great country with all
the new wealth that someone in the rockefellar foundation would be
concerned about the issue of child sex to do an acceptable study to
unravel this confounded era of child porn and child sex with children
as well as adults....it only continues to get worse by day and the
penalties get harsher....it would be a study might find that sex is as
important as eating with in reason depending on each childs
profile...and this could mean that child sex would be deregulated
before social nudity became legal....what a deal...jz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stuffed Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
11 Jun 2007 12:00:08 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:06:26 GMT, cyndiann <cyndiann9@earthlink.net>
wrote:
....
I've recently found this to be true. I was amazed. Most people who
molest children are not pedophiles.
Do you have a reference?
Not sure what definition is being used. For example, pedophile
sometimes means attraction to children before puberty, whether the
person is an offender or not. There are other names for attraction to
children at and after puberty.
At other times a pedophile is anyone who has committed what is
considered a religious or criminal offense (including simple
possession of pornography) involving anyone under the age of consent.
This is a horrible definition because it changes by jurisdiction and
religion, but it is most commonly what people mean.
Other times the word pedophile is used to means someone who has
committed a criminal offense involving physical sexual contact.
The USDOJ seems not to use the term in official statistics. Half the
reported offenders in the USA against pre-pubescent children are
themselves children 14 or under or slightly older. They may be
considered pedophiles by some and not by others:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf
(see also: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/saycrle.htm)
For an review of common offender classifications see :
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/litreview.pdf page 24
.
|
|
|
| User: "cyndiann" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
11 Jun 2007 02:29:09 AM |
|
|
Stuffed Tiger wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:06:26 GMT, cyndiann <cyndiann9@earthlink.net>
wrote:
...
I've recently found this to be true. I was amazed. Most people who
molest children are not pedophiles.
Do you have a reference?
http://pedophileophobia.com/what_is_a_pedophile.htm
Not sure what definition is being used. For example, pedophile
sometimes means attraction to children before puberty, whether the
person is an offender or not. There are other names for attraction to
children at and after puberty.
That would be ephebophilia.
At other times a pedophile is anyone who has committed what is
considered a religious or criminal offense (including simple
possession of pornography) involving anyone under the age of consent.
This is a horrible definition because it changes by jurisdiction and
religion, but it is most commonly what people mean.
I agree. It's not a good definition.
cyndiann
Other times the word pedophile is used to means someone who has
committed a criminal offense involving physical sexual contact.
The USDOJ seems not to use the term in official statistics. Half the
reported offenders in the USA against pre-pubescent children are
themselves children 14 or under or slightly older. They may be
considered pedophiles by some and not by others:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf
(see also: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/saycrle.htm)
For an review of common offender classifications see :
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/litreview.pdf page 24
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuffed Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
12 Jun 2007 01:47:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:29:09 GMT, cyndiann <cyndiann9@earthlink.net>
wrote:
http://pedophileophobia.com/what_is_a_pedophile.htm
Thanks for the reference.
I followed the author's references for the statement, "... Most
studies find that only a small portion of convicted sex offenders
against minors are actually preferentially attracted to children or
adolescents. (25) ..."
What I found was that this could be true, but that the references
talked mainly about many problems with the research, all of it. For
example, convicted sex offenders routinely lie to put themselves in
the best light. When tested using penile arousal testing equipment,
the results showed many offenders against minors were also attracted
to adult porn, but those tests don't at all exclude a preference for
children or adolescents in actual social interactions.
My conclusion is that the author's suggestion could well be true, but
that there was nothing all that convincing to back it up.
Regardless of the research validity, the one thing that is clear is
that nearly all of the sex offenses against minors are crimes of
opportunity. My conclusion is that, as with all crime, the most
important thing a person or parent can do to prevent it is to:
DENY PRIVACY
and teach the children to do the same. We need to stick together.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
19 Jun 2007 05:23:19 PM |
|
|
On Jun 11, 5:58 am, "Morton Davis" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
<good...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1181428890.789258.244730@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Forced pornography with sex is like forced child prostitution - even
though in this case it would only be with other children of the same
age - for legal adult pornography with sex is hardly different from
prostitution in the first place. And forced child prostitution, even
with children of the same age, is rape.
The different types of child pornography:
Pictures of kids who just happened to be naked.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to be naked. - kids shouldn't
be pressured.
Pictures of kids who just happened to be having sex.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to have sex. - Could be just
the same as rape.
Pictures of kids having sex with adults or being abused. - Always
rape, except if you believe that kids can sometimes consent to sex
with adults.
It's possible that mere pictures of kids naked could be legally sold,
just like pictures of kids in clothes are sold. However, if that's
legal then next we will have kids naked in sexual positions, or
simulated sex with other children - not actual sex, but close. Is
that rape or like it? Kids forced to take off their clothes and
perform sexual poses... it's not good to impose this on children.
Again, on the other hand, some kids might very well want to be in
porn, and consent, just like some kids want to be in Little League.
It's possible.
Traci Lords. She was 15 when she sowed up with a fake ID and started doing
porn. Before she was 16 she was writing/rewriting sceens she would be in
often adding more sexual content. By 17 she was directing a few scenes. At
18 the word got out somehow that she had been 15 when she started. The IRS
came down on her. Opportunistic LEOs and DAs came down on the porn industry.
They tried to prosecute some of the people involved in her films, including
some of the men she's ethusiastically had sex with on film for child
molestation and statutory rape. Nothing came of it. Her porn films became
illegal to own, but few people care and her films are in wide distribution
underground. She went on to make three times as many "legit" films and
television as she ever made porn.
Recently the local news did a bit on local kids at risk. The followed a
father who was looking for his teenage son who had run away. He found his 13
year old daughter down on the local stroll. She had her hair done up and was
wearing cut off bib overalls and a tube top, It was obvious what she was
doing. She was making money having sex. Now I ask you: If she's already
voluntarily having sex for money, why can't she voluntarily have sex on
film/tape?
In many countries 12 is the age of consent. In others, if the girl has pubic
hair, they don't consider her a child.
Anyway, this is a stupid thing. We have science prodigies, music prodigies -
why can't there be sex prodigies? If some 13 year old girl in a string
bikini said you could have some, could you resist> How many men do you
think she'd have to ffer herself to before sex gets it?
By your post you imply that you would have sex with a 13 year old who
offered you sex. Anyone could say the same. They could say, that
like you, while not a sex predator, they would have sex with any 13
year old who offered themselves to them. Then how, are you, or any
man who makes such a statement, any less guilty than the tens of men
who were caught in the Chris Hansen, Dateline show with Perverted
Justice; "To Catch A Predator?" These men were seduced by adults
posing as teenagers, and tricked into coming over to a teenager's
house for "sex." For many of them, their lives were ruined. They
were sentenced to as many as 6 years in prison, 20 years probation,
and lifetime sex offender and felony status. They did not rape
anyone, they did not molest any children. They allegedly intended to
have statutory rape with a willing teenager. In my humble opinion,
the crime of statutory rape should not be equated with the forcible
rape of an unwilling teenager, nor should it be equated with child
molestation. While it may be something, which we wish to deter, - for
why need adults have sex with teenagers? - It is not a felonious
crime, or even a sex "crime" and people who commit it should not be
categorized as sex offenders. In my opinion, the crime of statutory
rape, should at most be merely a misdemeanor with a sentence of no
more than probation for a first offense. And yet these men did not
even commit statutory rape. It is alleged that they had intent to.
And, some of them were likely coerced into pleading guilty out of fear
of harsher sentences should they yet plead innocent. They were
characterized as child molesters, and thus equated with child
killers. And yet, they did not violate anyone. And so they were
penalized under two dubious principles that I have a problem with -
one, that an act of sex with a _willing_ underage minor is a horrible
felony for which someone's life should be destroyed, and two, that it
can be proven that someone had intent to commit a crime, when a crime
was never committed. Such a dubious assertion makes an individual
guilty before proven innocent. For one, it is almost certain that
some of the men did not have intent to have statutory rape, - but how
can we know which ones? Two, both circumstances and intents change.
People have both good and bad intentions, and fleeting bad intentions
may be outweighed by good intentions. If we are to jail people for
the mere _possibility_ they may do something sinful, then we would be
forced to jail the entire whole of all mankind.
When this country was founded, it was founded upon a principle that it
is better to let 10 guilty go free than for one innocent to be
imprisoned. It was founded on a principle that the government should
do no evil. I think it is obvious that with such increased
restrictions on statutory rapists, narcotics, firearms, and other such
non-violent offenses, that the government of America has strayed too
far from this principle and is doing too much evil today.
Prison and jail should be only for those who (forcibly) violate
other's person's or properties. And perhaps a teenager's testimony
that they were a willing participant in an act of sex, should yet be a
defense against a charge of statutory rape. Yet even adults make
sexual decisions which they later regret. So if the teenager regrets
sex should it then be statutory rape? Or perhaps it should just be
easier to prove rape - that there need be much less burden of proof,
if the victim is underage, and the perpetrator is an adult.
Therefore, if the teenager is perfectly happy with their decision,
then the sex act would in no way be a crime. And if they were not
happy with their decision, and yet not forced, they must admit that
they were in some way intimidated or coerced or pressured because the
other person was an adult. This could, if perfected, perhaps apply to
sex with minors of any age.
Is sex with a teenager currently legal if their parents consent? A
gray area is ultimately unacceptable. This is likewise the same case
as with child porn. Is it legal to have naked pictures of your
children? Are all pictures of other's naked children legal? If all
pictures of naked children - for instance nudist minors, in general
are legal - as some have asserted, perhaps incorrectly, and without
enforced Constitutional protections, it may depend upon one's
jurisdiction; yet supposedly sexual naked pictures are not legal, what
is a sexual picture? Is it dependent upon what the intent of the
photographer was? Is it dependent upon what the intent of the viewer
or possessor of the photography is? And yet how is one to know the
intent of the photographer? And likewise, as discussed above, how can
anyone possibly know the intent of the possessor? These cryptic laws
can not possibly be a firm foundation for the establishment of liberty
and justice for all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zee" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
19 Jun 2007 07:00:44 PM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 5:23 pm, wrote:
On Jun 11, 5:58 am, "Morton Davis" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1181428890.789258.244730@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Forced pornography with sex is like forced child prostitution - even
though in this case it would only be with other children of the same
age - for legal adult pornography with sex is hardly different from
prostitution in the first place. And forced child prostitution, even
with children of the same age, is rape.
The different types of child pornography:
Pictures of kids who just happened to be naked.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to be naked. - kids shouldn't
be pressured.
Pictures of kids who just happened to be having sex.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to have sex. - Could be just
the same as rape.
Pictures of kids having sex with adults or being abused. - Always
rape, except if you believe that kids can sometimes consent to sex
with adults.
It's possible that mere pictures of kids naked could be legally sold,
just like pictures of kids in clothes are sold. However, if that's
legal then next we will have kids naked in sexual positions, or
simulated sex with other children - not actual sex, but close. Is
that rape or like it? Kids forced to take off their clothes and
perform sexual poses... it's not good to impose this on children.
Again, on the other hand, some kids might very well want to be in
porn, and consent, just like some kids want to be in Little League.
It's possible.
Traci Lords. She was 15 when she sowed up with a fake ID and started doing
porn. Before she was 16 she was writing/rewriting sceens she would be in
often adding more sexual content. By 17 she was directing a few scenes. At
18 the word got out somehow that she had been 15 when she started. The IRS
came down on her. Opportunistic LEOs and DAs came down on the porn industry.
They tried to prosecute some of the people involved in her films, including
some of the men she's ethusiastically had sex with on film for child
molestation and statutory rape. Nothing came of it. Her porn films became
illegal to own, but few people care and her films are in wide distribution
underground. She went on to make three times as many "legit" films and
television as she ever made porn.
Recently the local news did a bit on local kids at risk. The followed a
father who was looking for his teenage son who had run away. He found his 13
year old daughter down on the local stroll. She had her hair done up and was
wearing cut off bib overalls and a tube top, It was obvious what she was
doing. She was making money having sex. Now I ask you: If she's already
voluntarily having sex for money, why can't she voluntarily have sex on
film/tape?
In many countries 12 is the age of consent. In others, if the girl has pubic
hair, they don't consider her a child.
Anyway, this is a stupid thing. We have science prodigies, music prodigies -
why can't there be sex prodigies? If some 13 year old girl in a string
bikini said you could have some, could you resist> How many men do you
think she'd have to ffer herself to before sex gets it?
By your post you imply that you would have sex with a 13 year old who
offered you sex. Anyone could say the same. They could say, that
like you, while not a sex predator, they would have sex with any 13
year old who offered themselves to them. Then how, are you, or any
man who makes such a statement, any less guilty than the tens of men
who were caught in the Chris Hansen, Dateline show with Perverted
Justice; "To Catch A Predator?" These men were seduced by adults
posing as teenagers, and tricked into coming over to a teenager's
house for "sex." For many of them, their lives were ruined. They
were sentenced to as many as 6 years in prison, 20 years probation,
and lifetime sex offender and felony status. They did not rape
anyone, they did not molest any children. They allegedly intended to
have statutory rape with a willing teenager. In my humble opinion,
the crime of statutory rape should not be equated with the forcible
rape of an unwilling teenager, nor should it be equated with child
molestation. While it may be something, which we wish to deter, - for
why need adults have sex with teenagers? - It is not a felonious
crime, or even a sex "crime" and people who commit it should not be
categorized as sex offenders. In my opinion, the crime of statutory
rape, should at most be merely a misdemeanor with a sentence of no
more than probation for a first offense. And yet these men did not
even commit statutory rape. It is alleged that they had intent to.
And, some of them were likely coerced into pleading guilty out of fear
of harsher sentences should they yet plead innocent. They were
characterized as child molesters, and thus equated with child
killers. And yet, they did not violate anyone. And so they were
penalized under two dubious principles that I have a problem with -
one, that an act of sex with a _willing_ underage minor is a horrible
felony for which someone's life should be destroyed, and two, that it
can be proven that someone had intent to commit a crime, when a crime
was never committed. Such a dubious assertion makes an individual
guilty before proven innocent. For one, it is almost certain that
some of the men did not have intent to have statutory rape, - but how
can we know which ones? Two, both circumstances and intents change.
People have both good and bad intentions, and fleeting bad intentions
may be outweighed by good intentions. If we are to jail people for
the mere _possibility_ they may do something sinful, then we would be
forced to jail the entire whole of all mankind.
When this country was founded, it was founded upon a principle that it
is better to let 10 guilty go free than for one innocent to be
imprisoned. It was founded on a principle that the government should
do no evil. I think it is obvious that with such increased
restrictions on statutory rapists, narcotics, firearms, and other such
non-violent offenses, that the government of America has strayed too
far from this principle and is doing too much evil today.
Prison and jail should be only for those who (forcibly) violate
other's person's or properties. And perhaps a teenager's testimony
that they were a willing participant in an act of sex, should yet be a
defense against a charge of statutory rape. Yet even adults make
sexual decisions which they later regret. So if the teenager regrets
sex should it then be statutory rape? Or perhaps it should just be
easier to prove rape - that there need be much less burden of proof,
if the victim is underage, and the perpetrator is an adult.
Therefore, if the teenager is perfectly happy with their decision,
then the sex act would in no way be a crime. And if they were not
happy with their decision, and yet not forced, they must admit that
they were in some way intimidated or coerced or pressured because the
other person was an adult. This could, if perfected, perhaps apply to
sex with minors of any age.
Is sex with a teenager currently legal if their parents consent? A
gray area is ultimately unacceptable. This is likewise the same case
as with child porn. Is it legal to have naked pictures of your
children? Are all pictures of other's naked children legal? If all
pictures of naked children - for instance nudist minors, in general
are legal - as some have asserted, perhaps incorrectly, and without
enforced Constitutional protections, it may depend upon one's
jurisdiction; yet supposedly sexual naked pictures are not legal, what
is a sexual picture? Is it dependent upon what the intent of the
photographer was? Is it dependent upon what the intent of the viewer
or possessor of the photography is? And yet how is one to know the
intent of the photographer? And likewise, as discussed above, how can
anyone possibly know the intent of the possessor? These cryptic laws
can not possibly be a firm foundation for the establishment of liberty
and justice for all.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
well gee....you really said it all....the news has reported lately
that ..phoenix prosecutors have refused to indict the ones that were
arrested on that show....and it will probably be the end of that
sting....i do not believe in stings where children are being exploited
by adults and capitalism.....i would have pursued such ventures by
admitting that my going to the kids house was to finally see what the
deal was....and upon entering i would say...i expected all you
perverts to be here....he he ha ha...what a bunch of perverts...you
guys fantazise about little girls being molested and wanted to play
this game...huh....this is unbelievable...cops...young female posing
as a child on t he internet...media....and police...you perverts are
really sick....jonZeee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zee" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
20 Jun 2007 03:01:31 AM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 7:00 pm, Zee <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote:
On Jun 19, 5:23 pm, wrote:
On Jun 11, 5:58 am, "Morton Davis" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1181428890.789258.244730@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Forced pornography with sex is like forced child prostitution - even
though in this case it would only be with other children of the same
age - for legal adult pornography with sex is hardly different from
prostitution in the first place. And forced child prostitution, even
with children of the same age, is rape.
The different types of child pornography:
Pictures of kids who just happened to be naked.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to be naked. - kids shouldn't
be pressured.
Pictures of kids who just happened to be having sex.
Pictures of kids who were told or forced to have sex. - Could be just
the same as rape.
Pictures of kids having sex with adults or being abused. - Always
rape, except if you believe that kids can sometimes consent to sex
with adults.
It's possible that mere pictures of kids naked could be legally sold,
just like pictures of kids in clothes are sold. However, if that's
legal then next we will have kids naked in sexual positions, or
simulated sex with other children - not actual sex, but close. Is
that rape or like it? Kids forced to take off their clothes and
perform sexual poses... it's not good to impose this on children.
Again, on the other hand, some kids might very well want to be in
porn, and consent, just like some kids want to be in Little League.
It's possible.
Traci Lords. She was 15 when she sowed up with a fake ID and started doing
porn. Before she was 16 she was writing/rewriting sceens she would be in
often adding more sexual content. By 17 she was directing a few scenes. At
18 the word got out somehow that she had been 15 when she started. The IRS
came down on her. Opportunistic LEOs and DAs came down on the porn industry.
They tried to prosecute some of the people involved in her films, including
some of the men she's ethusiastically had sex with on film for child
molestation and statutory rape. Nothing came of it. Her porn films became
illegal to own, but few people care and her films are in wide distribution
underground. She went on to make three times as many "legit" films and
television as she ever made porn.
Recently the local news did a bit on local kids at risk. The followed a
father who was looking for his teenage son who had run away. He found his 13
year old daughter down on the local stroll. She had her hair done up and was
wearing cut off bib overalls and a tube top, It was obvious what she was
doing. She was making money having sex. Now I ask you: If she's already
voluntarily having sex for money, why can't she voluntarily have sex on
film/tape?
In many countries 12 is the age of consent. In others, if the girl has pubic
hair, they don't consider her a child.
Anyway, this is a stupid thing. We have science prodigies, music prodigies -
why can't there be sex prodigies? If some 13 year old girl in a string
bikini said you could have some, could you resist> How many men do you
think she'd have to ffer herself to before sex gets it?
By your post you imply that you would have sex with a 13 year old who
offered you sex. Anyone could say the same. They could say, that
like you, while not a sex predator, they would have sex with any 13
year old who offered themselves to them. Then how, are you, or any
man who makes such a statement, any less guilty than the tens of men
who were caught in the Chris Hansen, Dateline show with Perverted
Justice; "To Catch A Predator?" These men were seduced by adults
posing as teenagers, and tricked into coming over to a teenager's
house for "sex." For many of them, their lives were ruined. They
were sentenced to as many as 6 years in prison, 20 years probation,
and lifetime sex offender and felony status. They did not rape
anyone, they did not molest any children. They allegedly intended to
have statutory rape with a willing teenager. In my humble opinion,
the crime of statutory rape should not be equated with the forcible
rape of an unwilling teenager, nor should it be equated with child
molestation. While it may be something, which we wish to deter, - for
why need adults have sex with teenagers? - It is not a felonious
crime, or even a sex "crime" and people who commit it should not be
categorized as sex offenders. In my opinion, the crime of statutory
rape, should at most be merely a misdemeanor with a sentence of no
more than probation for a first offense. And yet these men did not
even commit statutory rape. It is alleged that they had intent to.
And, some of them were likely coerced into pleading guilty out of fear
of harsher sentences should they yet plead innocent. They were
characterized as child molesters, and thus equated with child
killers. And yet, they did not violate anyone. And so they were
penalized under two dubious principles that I have a problem with -
one, that an act of sex with a _willing_ underage minor is a horrible
felony for which someone's life should be destroyed, and two, that it
can be proven that someone had intent to commit a crime, when a crime
was never committed. Such a dubious assertion makes an individual
guilty before proven innocent. For one, it is almost certain that
some of the men did not have intent to have statutory rape, - but how
can we know which ones? Two, both circumstances and intents change.
People have both good and bad intentions, and fleeting bad intentions
may be outweighed by good intentions. If we are to jail people for
the mere _possibility_ they may do something sinful, then we would be
forced to jail the entire whole of all mankind.
When this country was founded, it was founded upon a principle that it
is better to let 10 guilty go free than for one innocent to be
imprisoned. It was founded on a principle that the government should
do no evil. I think it is obvious that with such increased
restrictions on statutory rapists, narcotics, firearms, and other such
non-violent offenses, that the government of America has strayed too
far from this principle and is doing too much evil today.
Prison and jail should be only for those who (forcibly) violate
other's person's or properties. And perhaps a teenager's testimony
that they were a willing participant in an act of sex, should yet be a
defense against a charge of statutory rape. Yet even adults make
sexual decisions which they later regret. So if the teenager regrets
sex should it then be statutory rape? Or perhaps it should just be
easier to prove rape - that there need be much less burden of proof,
if the victim is underage, and the perpetrator is an adult.
Therefore, if the teenager is perfectly happy with their decision,
then the sex act would in no way be a crime. And if they were not
happy with their decision, and yet not forced, they must admit that
they were in some way intimidated or coerced or pressured because the
other person was an adult. This could, if perfected, perhaps apply to
sex with minors of any age.
Is sex with a teenager currently legal if their parents consent? A
gray area is ultimately unacceptable. This is likewise the same case
as with child porn. Is it legal to have naked pictures of your
children? Are all pictures of other's naked children legal? If all
pictures of naked children - for instance nudist minors, in general
are legal - as some have asserted, perhaps incorrectly, and without
enforced Constitutional protections, it may depend upon one's
jurisdiction; yet supposedly sexual naked pictures are not legal, what
is a sexual picture? Is it dependent upon what the intent of the
photographer was? Is it dependent upon what the intent of the viewer
or possessor of the photography is? And yet how is one to know the
intent of the photographer? And likewise, as discussed above, how can
anyone possibly know the intent of the possessor? These cryptic laws
can not possibly be a firm foundation for the establishment of liberty
and justice for all.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
well gee....you really said it all....the news has reported lately
that ..phoenix prosecutors have refused to indict the ones that were
arrested on that show....and it will probably be the end of that
sting....i do not believe in stings where children are being exploited
by adults and capitalism.....i would have pursued such ventures by
admitting that my going to the kids house was to finally see what the
deal was....and upon entering i would say...i expected all you
perverts to be here....he he ha ha...what a bunch of perverts...you
guys fantazise about little girls being molested and wanted to play
this game...huh....this is unbelievable...cops...young female posing
as a child on t he internet...media....and police...you perverts are
really sick....jonZeee- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stuffed Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
20 Jun 2007 11:41:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:23:19 -0700, wrote:
....
Is sex with a teenager currently legal if their parents consent?
No.
... Is it legal to have naked pictures of your children?
Yes, if you mean simple nudity.
Are all pictures of other's naked children legal?
Yes, if you mean simple nudity.
... yet supposedly sexual naked pictures are not legal,
Sexual pictures of children are generally not legal in the USA,
whether the children are naked or not.
What is a sexual picture?
That would depend on the jurisdiction.
Is it dependent upon what the intent of the photographer was?
Not as a rule.
Is it dependent upon what the intent of the viewer or possessor
of the photography is?
Not as a rule.
And yet how is one to know the intent of the photographer? ... how can
anyone possibly know the intent of the possessor?
Legality is defined by community standards (in the USA), not intent.
In general, crotch shot pictures of children, suggestive poses,
suggestive clothing, sexual acts and the like are illegal.
There are plenty of crimes that are defined by intent, such as the
differences between first degree murder, second degree murder, third
degree murder, manslaughter, and so on.
Running someone over with a car is not always a simple accident. It
depends on the intent of the driver.
I think intent should be a factor. That enables contextual standards,
such as medical images or educational images to trump community
standards and protects workers in these fields. It also allows finer
distinctions among the degrees of crime, as you have been asking for.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cultkiller" |
|
| Title: Re: Controversial Postings |
21 Jun 2007 07:31:19 AM |
|
|
On Jun 21, 12:41 am, Stuffed Tiger <N...@NotAnAddress.com>
I think intent should be a factor. That enables contextual standards,
such as medical images or educational images to trump community
standards and protects workers in these fields. It also allows finer
distinctions among the degrees of crime, as you have been asking for.
I do not know of any ligitimate medical image involving child nudity
that has ever been prosecuted.
Intent goes to the difference between planned or accident. It is
easier to determine the 'intent' behind a questionable automobile
accident than over the snap of a shudder on a nude adolescent.
A camera shudder 'accident' can be reversed or distroyed unlilke a
murder or auto accident. Thus the different take on the written law.
If not destroyed then the law as written is the best way to deal with
the offender. If not, every person ending up in a Court room would
take the accident or art defence. The accident and art cards are not
the way to address a photo of children having sex or in any other
compromising situation involving nudity.
Some laws in some places respecting child nudity need to be altered or
done away with, thats for sure.
A restrictive law pertaining to child nudity can also be changed or
removed but not by introducing the intent of the offender.
www.Fairwindlakes.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
