I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been caught violating someone's copyright again. This time, presidential services made 400 unauthorized copies of a DVD when only 50 had been made by the publisher. Mr. Sarkozy, of course, is the one pushing the HADOPI law, which would disconnect the Internet service of an alleged pirate after three allegations of infringement. This isn't the first time he's been connected to copyright violations, either. His party had to pay some €30K for using a song without authorization. If he were he subject to his own law, Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something."
Well he could write a book, that sounds very cultural, no? And it's someone who obviously has had a serious taste of foreign cultures, no? Sounds that he fulfills at least some of the requirements of a CULTURE minister.
Fascinating. Though he doesn't say how old they were, as has been pointed out in blogs on this, its not uncommon for an older man to use terms like young boy to refer to people in their teens and 20s. Also there is some question as to... what is too young? or is it about age or about power? The more damning admission for me is NOT age, but the fact that he knew he was in a world of slaves and forced prostitution.
Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds. Or as was said in that kinsey movie (I don't know if its an acutal quote by the man) "In an uninhibited society, a 12-year-old would know most of the biology which I will have to give you in formal lectures."
In any case... a paedophile is someone attracted to pre-pubecent children. He is CLEARLY not one of them.
On the other hand, he got her drunk and she didn't want to do it. Thats rape. Thats wrong at ANY age. I have seen blog post after blog post, and even now this man's defense of polanski who keep mentioning "sex with a 13 year old" and just seem to forget that it was RAPE. Why is sex with a 13 year old somehow worst than RAPE.
I find that disturbing.
The only saving grace here for him in my eyes is that it was so long ago. I see no real benefit in prosecurion of 30 year old crimes, unless the offender is believed to still be doing it.
Polanski probably isn't a pedophile in the sense he doesn't like prepubescent girls, as a 13 year old would have hit puberty. But in our society, 13 is still too young for people much older than her. Don't point to older societies or views because you can go talk about cavemen times all you want but keep in mind you would be lucky to reach 25 or 30. Age is much more spread out now and a 13 year old should be hanging out with other 13 year olds, not creepy old men. It is always disgusting and predatory when
I think you presume too much when you say "13 is immature" because it depends on the person.
I went to college with a 15-year-old and he was more mature than I was at age 19. And of course being in college, he had sex with coeds five years older than he. Although that was technically illegal (statutory rape), I don't consider it immoral. A young adult is still an adult and should be free to make his own decisions.
>>>The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
You don't have a daughter, do you. I think 25 is fine.
Two days ago a boyfriend/girlfriend spent a night in prison for exchanging nude photos over their phones. Isn't THAT a form of brutality against minors? Your lecture on the law sounds good in the abstract, but the practical application of that law is borderline tyrannical. Laws that result in minors being maltreated are just as bad as the pedophiles, and those criminal laws should be executed (repealed).
Rubbish. Coercion is mental brutality. Having sex with someone who isn't physically developed is physical brutality. Rape is both physical and emotional brutality. Consensual sex with someone who's physically mature (no, I don't buy the "their mind isn't developed; all sex is non-consensual" idea) is not brutality of any sort. Their body is ready and their mind is willing.
What is mentally damaging is telling someone they're still a dumb kid, they don't know anything, and they were abused (OMG, really? like they can't decide whether or not they were, and they're too dumb to figure it out) by this old pervert (who they thought cared about them, and who they cared about too). No, since they're just a kid, they're too dumb to even figure out that this person is a perverted creep and they were abused.
And since everybody thinks so, they have no alternative but to admit that yeah, they must be an idiot to even think of letting some old pervert abuse them like that. Great. Now they have a problem they didn't even know they had, just because everyone agrees that they should.
so respect the rules, or be punished for transgression.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm playing by the rules. I just think they're idiotic.
you yourself, if you have a human conscience, should simply understand that sex with minors is a transgression against your own human conscience, your own abilit yto empathize with the fact that 99% of 13 year olds are not psychologically ready to handle sex with an adult.
And adults somehow are?
Nothing magical happened when I turned 18. As I said before, what they're not psychologically ready for is all the guilt and shame that accompanies them being indoctrinated to believe that they willingly allowed themselves to be raped – despite the fact that any sane person would see that's an absurd concoction of contradictory words.
you're describing patronization and condescension as the real crime, as a worse crime than child rape
I never said "rape". I'm talking about consensual acts, and they weren't traumatized until society told them what a perverted thing they did (and maybe jailed their partner!). I'm not talking about pedophilia (pre-pubescent sex), either. I'm talking about people whose bodies are mature and who are mentally willing, and I don't care about all this bullshit about them being mentally incompetent to make that decision.
I mean, we've finally admitted that the whole "OMG, he's teh gay, that's perverted!" reaction is harmful (go look for articles about gays committing suicide because of the emotional persecution, I'm sure there are plenty of them out there). Why can't we understand that "OMG she had sex with a grown-up? That's perverted!" is also harmful? The only difference is that, in one case, we have an easy out (blame the grown-up) that lets us claim WE didn't cause the mental distress.
The rest of what you posted frankly makes little sense and you're accusing me of a lot of stuff that I never claimed to think. Please consider what I've said, not all the crazy things you assume I think just because I've said that this whole emotional maturity thing is baloney. Al-Qaeda? Showing a 3-year-old movies about torture and dismemberment?
Watching torture and dismemberment ought to be traumatic to anyone, regardless of their mental maturity; it's just that at a certain point they should be mentally mature enough to deal with some of the crueler things in the world and also to understand the difference between fiction and reality.
Whereas, on the other hand, consensual sex is not emotionally traumatic (to anyone, of any mental maturity), rape or coerced sex always is (regardless of someone's mental maturity). Needless to say pedophilia is both painful and emotionally traumatic, so by all means that's an obviously barbaric and reprehensible action. Lastly, if we're concerned about broken relationships, those are a part of life and they are always traumatic – so just how long are we going to protect them from this? Didn't we just agree that learning is a part of growing up?
18 if the other person is in a position of trust, such as their teacher (at least in England and Wales, not sure about Scotland)
drinking and smoking are both 18
Not so simple. As Wikipedia correctly points out:
Children under 5 must not be given alcohol unless under medical supervision or in an emergency (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937). However, children aged 5 and over may legally consume alcohol in their own home or someone else's as long as they are under the supervision of an adult.
The minimum age for the purchase of alcohol is 18. People aged 16 and 17 may consume wine, beer or cider on licensed premises (pubs/bars/restaurants) with a table meal. In England & Wales, an adult must order. In Scotland, no adult is required to be present. The legal age for the purchase of alcohol from an off-licence (store/supermarket) is 18 (16 for liqueur chocolates).
Purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor is illegal in Scotland, England and Wales. This means acting as the young person's agent.
18 is right for buying tobacco products, but I don't know what the law is on whether younger people can smoke tham.
> I don't think it's worse, but I do think that having sex with a 13 year old is both predatory and pathetic, > if you're a [physically] grown adult anyway. The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.
When has the organ that changes over the course of your entire life from birth to death "fully developed" in your eyes? As a 31 year old myself, I would put it somewhere around 26 years old.
As for "predatory and pathetic"... I guess that depends on how you see sex. I don't tend to see it as bad or dirty. Its j
Yeah, well, I never was really talking specifically about young/old relationships in my original post (though the guy I was replying to was, I suppose).
However, I do know one thing: if you do discover an ongoing, consensual, 15/30 year old relationship, breaking it up and making the kid testify against the adult and throwing the adult in jail is going to do a hell of a lot more emotional damage than the relationship ever could – even if it soured and/or the kid grew up and realized they were young and
I'm fairly certain most kids learn about sex well before they're physically mature enough to have it; I know I did. Understanding it and being able to make the decision to do it are very different. If you would let your 13 year-old children have sex with their peers, let alone adults, then you are the monster, you idiot.
So according to you, Spain [wikipedia.org] and Argentina [wikipedia.org] are countries of monsters (age of consent is 13), Not to mention Canada [wikipedia.org] (which allows 12 years old to have sex with their peers).
Let me assume that, in spite of resorting to ad hominem, you are capable of reasonable discussion of complex and emotionally loaded topics.
The real problem is not sexual relations and age, it is exploitative relations (sexual or otherwise), which should be illegal at any age.
I agree that most modern 13yo lack the necessary emotional maturity and understanding and therefore an adult entering into sexual relations with them will be, ipso facto, exploiting them. However, that is a consequence of how society treats and shelters young people and not of their age per se.
So firstly, I suggest that, regardless of the law in your jurisdiction, you spend the time and effort to educate your children to the point where they are able to to give (or, more likely, withhold) their informed consent. It will be much better for them if they choose to avoid sex until they are ready for any consequences that may arise instead of being held back by an arbitrary number set by the legislation.
And secondly (and I'm going to get a lot of heat for that), I believe that a cookie-cutter approach is not suitable and instead of a hard-coded age, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, should the minor in question prove to be mature enough to make these decisions. After all, assuming that all people automagically gain insight and wisdom precisely on their 18th birthday (or a different one, based on their geographical location) is just silly.
And as you're all nodding your heads in agreement, please keep the parent's words in mind next time you're tempted to rail on what a terrible country the USA is.
Yes, and I can confirm that it does indeed suck. Its not just the politicians, most of the general public can be considered a bunch of douchebags as well.
But I would also like to point out that people on both sides of the political fence are unhappy. From the BBC article:
Socialist Party spokesman Benoit Hamon told Reuters: "As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker accused of raping a child and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking."
Marine Le Pen, vice president of the right-wing National Front, read excerpts of Mr Mitterrand's book aloud during a television interview, and said it left "an indelible stain on the government".
She called for the culture minister to step down.
"Resign, Mr Mitterrand and perhaps, afterwards we'll be able to give lessons to other people," she said.
Mr Mitterrand said it was an honour to be dragged though the mud by the National Front, and criticised the Socialists for making common cause with the extreme right.
But I would also like to point out that people on both sides of the political fence are unhappy.
The state of their personal satisfaction with life is frickin' irrelevant. What matters is the HE IS STILL MINISTER OF CULTURE. Until he resigns or is fired, Sarkozy and his party are condoning him.
Please don't mix up our joke of a governement with our entire country. The public opinion here is just as appalled as you are by this affair (even if the medias try to downplay it), this minister and this governement as a whole.
You (assuming you're american) had your G.W. Bush, we've got Sarkozy. I hope we'll get our Obama in 2012...
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
May I remind you of this fine fellow named Dick Cheney ? How about Donald Rumsfeld ? They may not be pedophiles but they have fucked up the lives of much more people than Mitterand.
If you get Obama in 2012 it'll be awesome, your government's political parties will have a majority so powerful there is no way anyone can stop them from doing what they want, and yet nothing will continue to get done because they can't agree with themselves.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the actual politics in America, but Obama's presidency and the Democrat majority in congress has been nothing short of a joke. They have their entire team in office, everything is under their control, [...]
That's already the case for us. The opposition is a pathetic joke, Sarkozy has control of the governement and the media, he can do whatever he wants without any risk of backlash. He gets things done, problem is he's headed in a completely wrong direction.
[...]and they still can't get anything useful actually accomplished.
That's not the impression I'm getting from here, the healthcare reform seems much needed despite the public outcry (which I don't really understand BTW), but what do I know ? Guess I'm just a retarded european...
It's because the French people allow a Frenchman with a penchant for little boys to remain their Minister of Culture.
That suggests the French people are pretty fucked in the head. Even if the average Frenchman does not want this person to be in that position, it is the French people who created the situation that allowed the man in that position, and keeps him there. The blame for the government of any democratic system rests on the people who put that government in place - that is the voting population.
I am not fond of my minister of culture nor my government. But that is false. The book is not about his sexual relation with young Thai boys but about his life and the things he never told anyone before. It is like "Confessions" by Rousseau.
There is a chapter where he says he paid for sex with male young ADULT. I read an excerpt and there is no confusion possible. Perhaps he had relation with minor (that I don't no) but the book does not say so.
Too bad it's the opposite. There's a poor man doing life in a California prison for stealing a candy bar (three strikes law), while a chicken plant manager who chained the fire doors shut to keep the workers from stealing chicken parts got two years after the place burned down, burning twenty five people to death.
Rich people only go to prison if they steal from someone richer than themslves. Stealing from the poor is encouraged.
We have an official presidential immunity in France. It sucks.
I mean, it wasn't that bad when presidents acted reservedly - but now that Sarkozy starts to fuck up, sue people and everything, *while being protected of all judicial proceeding*, man...
Amen to that man. Immunity for politicians in charge is one of the worst things for a democracy, two days ago in Italy we avoided a similar law thanks to the Constitutional Court rejecting Berlusconi's ignominous proposal... we still have a mafia's boss as a Prime Minister, but now he can be prosecuted for his crimes... of course the trials were blocked with ad-personam laws and they have to start them over again, so in the meantime he'll come up with another trick to avoid being prosecuted, but still it's
This was the first version of the law ("HADOPI 1"), which was overruled by the Constitutional Council precisely for this reason.
In HADOPI 2, a judge will order the suspension. But it will almost be an automatic ruling, you can't come and defend yourself, and the judge's decision will be based solely on the logs of the private firms which will monitor P2P networks.
Keep in mind that the Constitutional Council has not examined HADOPI 2 yet, and as this 2nd version is just as moronic and iniquitous as its pre
You don't really expect high ranking politicians to follow the law, do you? If you're american, you've had bush for the last 8 years, and this shouldn't be surprising. If you're european, this should be par for the course, and if you live anywhere else, you're not important (according to the USA or Europe).
It's all about getting punished. I'm sure this will be swept under the rug in no time, by the French RIAA to boot. You know, don't bite the hand that feeds you...
Let's see, he's pushing a law that enforces copyright by punishing those whom violate it and yet can't keep his own people from violating it on his behalf?
Looks like the problem isn't as clear as he would lead you to believe if even his own staff and himself can't stay within copyright laws.
What you fail to take into account is that no French law is really ever used. To anybody. Unless of course you are a criminal, terrorist or foreigner. French laws are essentially a bunch of guidelines to stear you in the right way, but if you break them tastefully, you may very well get away with it. And being the President de la Republique means you can get away with murder....
Too bad that most Western law insists that the law apply equally to everyone. Lawmakers would write simply the greatest laws . . . if they themselves didn't have to be bound by them.
We'd have the greatest family values, the greatest IP protection, the greatest right to life . . .
If only the lawmakers could be above the laws . . .
"...a balance struck between the rights of creators and users"
A nice idea; maybe start by listing these?
Be careful, as soon as you say "creators have a right to get paid" you've left the free-market camp. Not that the free-market camp is the only good and true and noble one, but that's beside the point.
When being-paid is thought of as a *right, rather than a hit-or-miss result of free market activity, you have to turn in your libertarian badge.
I'll start with an actual right I believe creators have: attribu
I think in an elected official the hypocrisy, though arguably expected by most of us, is probably the worst thing here and makes everything he's done in this instance questionable. Do we need the law to protect content-producers? If so he shouldn't be responsible for piracy himself. Or should we not have such a law, in which case he should come out against it.
Even if I thought copying were OK, I'd still think that doing it whilst overseeing the introduction of anti-copying legislation was morally wrong.
France just sucks (Score:3, Informative)
Their "Culture Minister" wrote a book about buggering young Thai boys.
What a joke of a country.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No seriously, google it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=france+culture+minister+young+thai+boys&cts=1255098089473 [google.com]
He actually wrote a book about it and they still made him culture minister.
I'm not flaming.
France really does suck.
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Fascinating. Though he doesn't say how old they were, as has been pointed out in blogs on this, its not uncommon for an older man to use terms like young boy to refer to people in their teens and 20s. Also there is some question as to... what is too young? or is it about age or about power? The more damning admission for me is NOT age, but the fact that he knew he was in a world of slaves and forced prostitution.
Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds. Or as was said in that kinsey movie (I don't know if its an acutal quote by the man) "In an uninhibited society, a 12-year-old
would know most of the biology which I will have to give you in formal lectures."
In any case... a paedophile is someone attracted to pre-pubecent children. He is CLEARLY not one of them.
On the other hand, he got her drunk and she didn't want to do it. Thats rape. Thats wrong at ANY age. I have seen blog post after blog post, and even now this man's defense of polanski who keep mentioning "sex with a 13 year old" and just seem to forget that it was RAPE. Why is sex with a 13 year old somehow worst than RAPE.
I find that disturbing.
The only saving grace here for him in my eyes is that it was so long ago. I see no real benefit in prosecurion of 30 year old crimes, unless the offender is believed to still be doing it.
-Steve
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you presume too much when you say "13 is immature" because it depends on the person.
I went to college with a 15-year-old and he was more mature than I was at age 19. And of course being in college, he had sex with coeds five years older than he. Although that was technically illegal (statutory rape), I don't consider it immoral. A young adult is still an adult and should be free to make his own decisions.
>>>The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
Parent
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Funny)
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
You don't have a daughter, do you. I think 25 is fine.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ahh, another victim of Poe's Law [rationalwiki.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>and sex with with minors IS brutality
Two days ago a boyfriend/girlfriend spent a night in prison for exchanging nude photos over their phones. Isn't THAT a form of brutality against minors? Your lecture on the law sounds good in the abstract, but the practical application of that law is borderline tyrannical. Laws that result in minors being maltreated are just as bad as the pedophiles, and those criminal laws should be executed (repealed).
Re:psychological maturity is not physical maturity (Score:5, Insightful)
and sex with with minors IS brutality.
Rubbish. Coercion is mental brutality. Having sex with someone who isn't physically developed is physical brutality. Rape is both physical and emotional brutality. Consensual sex with someone who's physically mature (no, I don't buy the "their mind isn't developed; all sex is non-consensual" idea) is not brutality of any sort. Their body is ready and their mind is willing.
What is mentally damaging is telling someone they're still a dumb kid, they don't know anything, and they were abused (OMG, really? like they can't decide whether or not they were, and they're too dumb to figure it out) by this old pervert (who they thought cared about them, and who they cared about too). No, since they're just a kid, they're too dumb to even figure out that this person is a perverted creep and they were abused.
And since everybody thinks so, they have no alternative but to admit that yeah, they must be an idiot to even think of letting some old pervert abuse them like that. Great. Now they have a problem they didn't even know they had, just because everyone agrees that they should.
so respect the rules, or be punished for transgression.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm playing by the rules. I just think they're idiotic.
you yourself, if you have a human conscience, should simply understand that sex with minors is a transgression against your own human conscience, your own abilit yto empathize with the fact that 99% of 13 year olds are not psychologically ready to handle sex with an adult.
And adults somehow are?
Nothing magical happened when I turned 18. As I said before, what they're not psychologically ready for is all the guilt and shame that accompanies them being indoctrinated to believe that they willingly allowed themselves to be raped – despite the fact that any sane person would see that's an absurd concoction of contradictory words.
Parent
Re:what a moron (Score:4, Funny)
you're describing patronization and condescension as the real crime, as a worse crime than child rape
I never said "rape". I'm talking about consensual acts, and they weren't traumatized until society told them what a perverted thing they did (and maybe jailed their partner!). I'm not talking about pedophilia (pre-pubescent sex), either. I'm talking about people whose bodies are mature and who are mentally willing, and I don't care about all this bullshit about them being mentally incompetent to make that decision.
I mean, we've finally admitted that the whole "OMG, he's teh gay, that's perverted!" reaction is harmful (go look for articles about gays committing suicide because of the emotional persecution, I'm sure there are plenty of them out there). Why can't we understand that "OMG she had sex with a grown-up? That's perverted!" is also harmful? The only difference is that, in one case, we have an easy out (blame the grown-up) that lets us claim WE didn't cause the mental distress.
The rest of what you posted frankly makes little sense and you're accusing me of a lot of stuff that I never claimed to think. Please consider what I've said, not all the crazy things you assume I think just because I've said that this whole emotional maturity thing is baloney. Al-Qaeda? Showing a 3-year-old movies about torture and dismemberment?
Watching torture and dismemberment ought to be traumatic to anyone, regardless of their mental maturity; it's just that at a certain point they should be mentally mature enough to deal with some of the crueler things in the world and also to understand the difference between fiction and reality.
Whereas, on the other hand, consensual sex is not emotionally traumatic (to anyone, of any mental maturity), rape or coerced sex always is (regardless of someone's mental maturity). Needless to say pedophilia is both painful and emotionally traumatic, so by all means that's an obviously barbaric and reprehensible action. Lastly, if we're concerned about broken relationships, those are a part of life and they are always traumatic – so just how long are we going to protect them from this? Didn't we just agree that learning is a part of growing up?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The UK age of consent is 16
18 if the other person is in a position of trust, such as their teacher (at least in England and Wales, not sure about Scotland)
drinking and smoking are both 18
Not so simple. As Wikipedia correctly points out:
Children under 5 must not be given alcohol unless under medical supervision or in an emergency (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937). However, children aged 5 and over may legally consume alcohol in their own home or someone else's as long as they are under the supervision of an adult.
The minimum age for the purchase of alcohol is 18. People aged 16 and 17 may consume wine, beer or cider on licensed premises (pubs/bars/restaurants) with a table meal. In England & Wales, an adult must order. In Scotland, no adult is required to be present. The legal age for the purchase of alcohol from an off-licence (store/supermarket) is 18 (16 for liqueur chocolates).
Purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor is illegal in Scotland, England and Wales. This means acting as the young person's agent.
18 is right for buying tobacco products, but I don't know what the law is on whether younger people can smoke tham.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> I don't think it's worse, but I do think that having sex with a 13 year old is both predatory and pathetic,
> if you're a [physically] grown adult anyway. The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.
When has the organ that changes over the course of your entire life from birth to death "fully developed" in your eyes? As a 31 year old myself, I would put it somewhere around 26 years old.
As for "predatory and pathetic"... I guess that depends on how you see sex. I don't tend to see it as bad or dirty. Its j
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of other things have also changed. Including lifespan. And scientific advances. And not dying from diseases we now see as trivial.
Just because we've made the best part of life last longer doesn't mean we should have to wait longer before we can enjoy it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, well, I never was really talking specifically about young/old relationships in my original post (though the guy I was replying to was, I suppose).
However, I do know one thing: if you do discover an ongoing, consensual, 15/30 year old relationship, breaking it up and making the kid testify against the adult and throwing the adult in jail is going to do a hell of a lot more emotional damage than the relationship ever could – even if it soured and/or the kid grew up and realized they were young and
Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
So according to you, Spain [wikipedia.org] and Argentina [wikipedia.org] are countries of monsters (age of consent is 13), Not to mention Canada [wikipedia.org] (which allows 12 years old to have sex with their peers).
Let me assume that, in spite of resorting to ad hominem, you are capable of reasonable discussion of complex and emotionally loaded topics.
The real problem is not sexual relations and age, it is exploitative relations (sexual or otherwise), which should be illegal at any age.
I agree that most modern 13yo lack the necessary emotional maturity and understanding and therefore an adult entering into sexual relations with them will be, ipso facto, exploiting them. However, that is a consequence of how society treats and shelters young people and not of their age per se.
So firstly, I suggest that, regardless of the law in your jurisdiction, you spend the time and effort to educate your children to the point where they are able to to give (or, more likely, withhold) their informed consent. It will be much better for them if they choose to avoid sex until they are ready for any consequences that may arise instead of being held back by an arbitrary number set by the legislation.
And secondly (and I'm going to get a lot of heat for that), I believe that a cookie-cutter approach is not suitable and instead of a hard-coded age, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, should the minor in question prove to be mature enough to make these decisions. After all, assuming that all people automagically gain insight and wisdom precisely on their 18th birthday (or a different one, based on their geographical location) is just silly.
Parent
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
No seriously... a country does not suck because they have shitty representatives.
If they have enough shitty politicians their government might suck, but I don't know if I would be calling that particular kettle black
Have you even been to France?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And as you're all nodding your heads in agreement, please keep the parent's words in mind next time you're tempted to rail on what a terrible country the USA is.
Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Who elected your representatives?
American and French citizens both bear the blame for voting for corrupt people.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and I can confirm that it does indeed suck. Its not just the politicians, most of the general public can be considered a bunch of douchebags as well.
Have YOU ever even been to France?
Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Informative)
No seriously, google it:
And so I did....
French minister in 'boy sex' row [bbc.co.uk]
The Bad Life: A Memoir by Frederic Mitterrand (Author), Jesse Browner (Translator) [amazon.com]
But I would also like to point out that people on both sides of the political fence are unhappy. From the BBC article:
Socialist Party spokesman Benoit Hamon told Reuters: "As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker accused of raping a child and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking."
Marine Le Pen, vice president of the right-wing National Front, read excerpts of Mr Mitterrand's book aloud during a television interview, and said it left "an indelible stain on the government".
She called for the culture minister to step down.
"Resign, Mr Mitterrand and perhaps, afterwards we'll be able to give lessons to other people," she said.
Mr Mitterrand said it was an honour to be dragged though the mud by the National Front, and criticised the Socialists for making common cause with the extreme right.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The state of their personal satisfaction with life is frickin' irrelevant. What matters is the HE IS STILL MINISTER OF CULTURE. Until he resigns or is fired, Sarkozy and his party are condoning him.
Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
We didn't make him culture minister, Sarkozy did.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who made Sarkozy president?
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Informative)
Please don't mix up our joke of a governement with our entire country. The public opinion here is just as appalled as you are by this affair (even if the medias try to downplay it), this minister and this governement as a whole.
You (assuming you're american) had your G.W. Bush, we've got Sarkozy. I hope we'll get our Obama in 2012...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
boy
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Lil' Bow Wow either, though "bastard" might be a little harsh.
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
May I remind you of this fine fellow named Dick Cheney ? How about Donald Rumsfeld ? They may not be pedophiles but they have fucked up the lives of much more people than Mitterand.
If you get Obama in 2012 it'll be awesome, your government's political parties will have a majority so powerful there is no way anyone can stop them from doing what they want, and yet nothing will continue to get done because they can't agree with themselves. I guess you haven't been paying attention to the actual politics in America, but Obama's presidency and the Democrat majority in congress has been nothing short of a joke. They have their entire team in office, everything is under their control, [...]
That's already the case for us. The opposition is a pathetic joke, Sarkozy has control of the governement and the media, he can do whatever he wants without any risk of backlash. He gets things done, problem is he's headed in a completely wrong direction.
[...]and they still can't get anything useful actually accomplished.
That's not the impression I'm getting from here, the healthcare reform seems much needed despite the public outcry (which I don't really understand BTW), but what do I know ? Guess I'm just a retarded european...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's because the French people allow a Frenchman with a penchant for little boys to remain their Minister of Culture.
That suggests the French people are pretty fucked in the head. Even if the average Frenchman does not want this person to be in that position, it is the French people who created the situation that allowed the man in that position, and keeps him there. The blame for the government of any democratic system rests on the people who put that government in place - that is the voting population.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am not fond of my minister of culture nor my government. But that is false. The book is not about his sexual relation with young Thai boys but about his life and the things he never told anyone before. It is like "Confessions" by Rousseau.
There is a chapter where he says he paid for sex with male young ADULT. I read an excerpt and there is no confusion possible. Perhaps he had relation with minor (that I don't no) but the book does not say so.
An article (in french) on this subject : http://www.rue89.com/2 [rue89.com]
"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:5, Insightful)
In this day and age are there still people who think that the laws apply equally to everyone?
Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:5, Insightful)
No it should not. Poor people get a slap on the hand, rich presidents get the Guillotine!
Someone stealing bread to survive should be overlooked, the rich asshole stealing because he cant be bothered needs to be killed on the spot.
Viva La Revolution'!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[JAVERT]
Now bring me prisoner 24601
Your time is up
And your parole's begun
You know what that means.
[VALJEAN]
Yes, it means I'm free.
[JAVERT]
No!
It means you get
Your yellow ticket-of-leave
You are a thief
[VALJEAN]
I stole a loaf of bread.
[JAVERT]
You robbed a house.
[VALJEAN]
I broke a window pane.
My sister's child was close to death
And we were starving.
[JAVERT]
You will starve again
Unless you learn the meaning of the law.
[VALJEAN]
I know the meaning of those 19 years
A slave of the law
[JAVERT]
Five years for what you d
Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad it's the opposite. There's a poor man doing life in a California prison for stealing a candy bar (three strikes law), while a chicken plant manager who chained the fire doors shut to keep the workers from stealing chicken parts got two years after the place burned down, burning twenty five people to death.
Rich people only go to prison if they steal from someone richer than themslves. Stealing from the poor is encouraged.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
here [sohovichlaw.com] and here [democratic...ground.com]?
Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, it wasn't that bad when presidents acted reservedly - but now that Sarkozy starts to fuck up, sue people and everything, *while being protected of all judicial proceeding*, man...
Parent
Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen to that man. Immunity for politicians in charge is one of the worst things for a democracy, two days ago in Italy we avoided a similar law thanks to the Constitutional Court rejecting Berlusconi's ignominous proposal... we still have a mafia's boss as a Prime Minister, but now he can be prosecuted for his crimes... of course the trials were blocked with ad-personam laws and they have to start them over again, so in the meantime he'll come up with another trick to avoid being prosecuted, but still it's
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This was the first version of the law ("HADOPI 1"), which was overruled by the Constitutional Council precisely for this reason.
In HADOPI 2, a judge will order the suspension. But it will almost be an automatic ruling, you can't come and defend yourself, and the judge's decision will be based solely on the logs of the private firms which will monitor P2P networks.
Keep in mind that the Constitutional Council has not examined HADOPI 2 yet, and as this 2nd version is just as moronic and iniquitous as its pre
whole impact ? (Score:4, Funny)
"Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something"
As president / head of France does it mean whole France would be disconnected ?
Re:whole impact ? (Score:4, Informative)
Point of order:
Zimmerman note, WW1.
Panzer development, 1920s.
Stalingrad, WW2.
But I'm sure you know what you're talking about since you didn't go to American "school."
Parent
Vive la France Libre! (Score:2)
anyone who knows french law (Score:3, Interesting)
is the fact that they removed the publishers name actually criminal?
Not about breaking the law (Score:4, Insightful)
The puppet master (Score:2)
So... he's above his own law? (Score:2, Informative)
Let's see, he's pushing a law that enforces copyright by punishing those whom violate it and yet can't keep his own people from violating it on his behalf?
Looks like the problem isn't as clear as he would lead you to believe if even his own staff and himself can't stay within copyright laws.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Next time he is *alleged* to pirate something (Score:5, Informative)
Summary is incorrect. He would be disconnected the next time he is alleged to have pirated something.
Too bad . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Too bad that most Western law insists that the law apply equally to everyone. Lawmakers would write simply the greatest laws . . . if they themselves didn't have to be bound by them.
We'd have the greatest family values, the greatest IP protection, the greatest right to life . . .
If only the lawmakers could be above the laws . . .
Re: (Score:2)
"...a balance struck between the rights of creators and users"
A nice idea; maybe start by listing these?
Be careful, as soon as you say "creators have a right to get paid" you've left the free-market camp. Not that the free-market camp is the only good and true and noble one, but that's beside the point.
When being-paid is thought of as a *right, rather than a hit-or-miss result of free market activity, you have to turn in your libertarian badge.
I'll start with an actual right I believe creators have: attribu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think in an elected official the hypocrisy, though arguably expected by most of us, is probably the worst thing here and makes everything he's done in this instance questionable. Do we need the law to protect content-producers? If so he shouldn't be responsible for piracy himself. Or should we not have such a law, in which case he should come out against it.
Even if I thought copying were OK, I'd still think that doing it whilst overseeing the introduction of anti-copying legislation was morally wrong.