Free Speech, Porn And Internet Controls 498
dragons_flight writes: "The US Supreme Court is starting their next session, and on the docket are two cases that pit internet controls vs free speech as applied to porn. The first case will decide whether the government can force online providers to use age verification systems before allowing access to material deemed 'harmful to minors.' The second case deals with whether computer generated imitation porn can be treated with the same laws as porn involving real people (the particular case deals with child pornography). This news article discusses these and other issues before the court. Also ACLU commentary on the upcoming docket." The second of these cases was discussed before, in "Virtual Child Porn: Is It Illegal?"
Personally I'd think... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the child porn, for starters I think that if you get a kick out of that then there is something seriously wrong with you, but that feeling aside I can't see why "virtual" child porn should be illegal. The arguments against real life child porn is the exploitation of children, which is perfectly understandable. However if you get a kick out of seeing some sort of 3 year old alien that's virtual, or a pair of boots, or anything else that's virtual, hey, whatever turns your crank. No minors are being harmed or exploited in such endeavours (unless of course they're being modelled or are the ones being forced to program it), but as for the act of "virtual child porn" I cannot see why it should be illegal. Morally reprehensible, perhaps, but not illegal.
Just my $0.02
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're the kind of person who only gets off on kiddies, I think you're doing a morally admirable thing by sticking to artificial kiddie porn.
Geez, it's better than entering the priesthood and messing around with altar boys.
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:2, Interesting)
Because the internet is not the real world - in the real world, a government can easily claim authority over how buisnesses within its jurisdiction function. But how can any single country legitimately determine how certain resources must be accessed without disrupting the fundamental principles behind this global network of ours?
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:2)
I think the U.S. may make laws and monitor me. As that happens we'll move to bluetooth networks, repeater stations at strategic locations, etc.. I won't be run off the internet, we are smarter and faster than they are.
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only sure fire way to do it is this: I'd venture that most people that pay the bill for internet services are over 18. Each ISP MUST provide, by an easy to make decision by the customer, some type of service that would work with mandatory services on adult content sites, to deny access to those that have made that request. IMHO, thats the only way it can work
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've complained to my credit card company about porn sites that I have (way back when, don't do that anymore) checked out with my credit card and then they scammed me. Yes, I look at pornography. Big deal.
Until we get biometrics on every computer there will always be easy ways to get around the age verification issue, but the age verification isn't designed to be foolproof, only provide an easy way to stop most people who might be interested. Just like pirating music or software, if you're determined to look at pornography, you will be able to find it. It doesn't matter how old you are.
The ISP idea won't help either because how many kids use their parents ISP accounts?
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:2)
I believe this to be the easiest way. That way sending out information that verifies age wouldn't be as cumbersome and dangerous.
It's a start at least.
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think parents just need to take a more pro-active role in parenting in the US. If people spent more time with their kids, instead of the TV or daycare raising them, I think lots of problems could be solved.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. (Score:3, Funny)
I am a parent myself but I consider it my responsibility to look out for my child. I'd rather not have to explain why the goatse man's bottom looks like that, so unsupervised net access is a no no. (Actually, the little bastard's only 18 months and has just worked out how to turn the PC off and back on again - I'm getting him a job doing MS support.)
There's no technological solution that can completely work on web - we wont get those
PS I am not claiming to be perfect either.
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:3, Insightful)
All that I can see it doing is punishing the law abiding soft core porn sites, and driving kids to P2P services like Morpheus [musiccity.com] where it's trivial to find hard core porn, without even a record of your access on a server.
This legislation is window dressing. Kids are going to find porn if they go looking for it, or even if they don't. Better to allocate money to educate parents about what their kiddies are looking at, and how to deal with it.
No workable solution, except client-side filtering (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people forget that this isn't just about "pay" adult sites with porn, or even about sites with porn at all. The COPA was extraordinarily broad, and would have completely stifled free speech on the Net--it didn't apply only to porn pictures, it applied to everything deemed "adult," including words. So if I use lots of fucking profanity on my goddamned motherfucking website, should I have to go through an age verification service before people can access my pages? What about
And what of anonymity? Speech can only truly be free when accessing it can be anonymous, or else suddenly Big Brother becomes a real entity which can trace every electronic thing you've ever read or accessed. Hell, do you think most porn would exist at all, if everyone who bought something from a porn shop had to leave his identifying info behind? That's what it would be like in cyberspace if this law were upheld. But it wouldn't just be porn. It would be politically controversial websites, such as the Independent Media Center. Would people be so willing to go there if they had to provide personal info and knew that maybe next time there's a protest, the FBI might get hold of the list of visitors and start harassing people? They tried to subpoena IP addresses directly from the IMC before, but were shot down. But imagine how much easier it would be for them if third parties, like age verification services, also had access lists, complete with names and credit card or other personal info? Then maybe they could get partial lists just by asking these third parties, who have no real interest in the matter, instead of having to subpoena the IPs from the actual organization that runs the site. Very bad.
And what would be covered as "adult"? Would the IMC and other indie media outlets be blacklisted as "adult" because they're subversive? Or because they have open forums like
And what if I let my underage son or daughter have access to my adult verification password to access sites like that, and he or she makes the mistake of sharing it with friends at school despite my warnings? Should I then be responsible for something like contributing to the delinquency of a minor, if the parents of one of these other kids gets offended by a website accessed with my unwittingly and unwillingly leaked password?
It opens up a huge can of worms that's best left untouched. The fact is, COPA and similar legislation would do nothing but make free speech nonexistent on the Internet, make it difficult or impossible for parents to have real decision-making on the sites thweir kids visit, and muck things up real good for everyone except the ultra-right-wing Xtian moralizing Jerry Fallwells of the world who bought this unconstitutional legislation.
Your ISP based solution is unworkable because then they'd lose their common-carrier status and suddenly become legally liable for everything their users access on the Internet. What if a porn site got through to Little Johnny and Little Johnny's mommy got really upset because she ordered the "clean" internet? Lawsuit. What if Bob posts some child porn of Alice using that service? Lawsuit. ISPs cannot exist without common carrier status.
What that leaves us with is Internet filtering on the client-side, like AOL's Parental Controls, like Surfwatch and Cyberpatrol, etc.--which is what all parents are free to install right now.
That's why COPA and such are bad and not just that, but unnecessary--parents should just get filtering software if they don't want their kids alone on the big bad Net. I'd be perfectly happy with Federal legislation to buy every parent in the country a free copy of the Net filtering software of their choice--that would be the equitable solution. But of course the lawmakers who drafted COPA aren't really interested in just helping parents keep their kids away from adult content--they want to expurgate all adult content and turn the Net into a Xtian Coalition-approved "family" establishment. And that's not constitutional, it's anti-free-speech, and it's wrong. And we shoyuld all fight it and chastise every member of Congress who voted for this drivel, and who will vote for the next round of drivel when the Supremes put COPA to rest for good. If we don't actively fight for our liberties, we deserve to have them Bowdlerized.
Re:No workable solution, except client-side filter (Score:2)
Please, somebody mod this up...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:3, Insightful)
People will say "If you don't like it, don't surf for porn", but they are implicitly making a moral judgment about viewing porn... They really mean "You dirty person, you shouldn't do that anyway, so don't complain about giving out your credit card."
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:2, Insightful)
At least where I come from, the parents (may/should?) control what their children see. The TV stations aid the parents by not sending unappropriate material at unappropriate times. They are not forced to screen only PG shows around the clock. If you want more control, you'll have to buy the appropriate equipment or spend the
In essence, the parents buy the TV and pay for the feed, they have to control it. They buy a PC and get Internet,
>As for the child porn...
Well, I don't find that one so easy. One could say, no child is harmed, so what does it matter.
On the other hand, a (virtual) crime is depicted and thereby probably even promoted (nonvirtual).
Doesn't promoting a crime you in some degree guilty of the same crime?
One could say that Hollywood is depicting murder and robbery in almost every film and we surely don't want to outlaw them. But are they promoting the crimes?
Lastly, a crime depends on the deed but also on the intent. (murder/manslaughter/self-defence)
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't promoting a crime you in some degree guilty of the same crime?
How is it promoting the crime? You're getting a virtual view of something that is illegal.
But the important part to realize about why it is illegal is because of exploitation of children.
If people can get their kicks by watching something that is virtual and not real, then we can remove part of the market that caters to these people. And anyone who says that "being able to watch it increases the desire to do it in real life" I think needs to give their head a shake. There are plenty of things that proove quite the opposite. I'm horny, GF isn't around or on another continent (sniff) so I pop in some porn and relieve myself. I don't go to a strip club, I don't go and rape some woman, and I don't cheat on my GF. Thus, I can conclude that it's benefitial in all respects for my usage. If, for some reason, I got my kicks watching kiddie porn then I'd assume that the results would be much the same.
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:2, Insightful)
Putting on my amateur literary criticism hat here... BTW, I've read the book and seen the Kubrick movie, not the more recent one.
AFAIK, it illustrated a erotic relationship between a mature man and girl in a favourable way. The book was hotly discussed for the same reasons we are discussing here.
I don't think that either the book or the movie presented the relationship in a favourable way. Especially in the book, it was presented as an obsession with the 'idea' of Lolita (symptomatic of his fixation on a childhood experience of sex), to the point where he grew to quite dislike her as a person, despite his need to control and, indeed, possess her.
In other words, it was a relationship in which the interests of one party were completely dominant, which objectified the young girl to the point where she could well have been anyone. It didn't seem all that positive to me.
Also, Nabokov is a beautiful writer -- read some of his other books if you don't believe me. Seems to be that some of the people who come to English as a second language have a better ear for it as a medium... Joseph Conrad was another.
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:5, Interesting)
Using online credit cards for identifying someone's age isn't only unreliable (as you pointed out) but also is not accessible to a large number of Americans.
After high school, I ran up a huge long distance bill calling BBSes across the country. I didn't have the money to pay the bill on time, so an entry was put on my credit report that I had a late payment. As a consequence, it was more than five years later before any credit card company would touch me.
There are a lot of people with low or modest income that have no access to get a credit card, not to mention one of the biggest problems Americans have right now is TOO MUCH DEBT. I think it would be foolish to block so many people from access to content that they are legally allowed to view.
When it comes right down to it, there just isn't a good way to know for sure who is on the other side of the keyboard. And it will cost businesses too much to figure out a way to make sure, so I hope there aren't any stupid decisions by the Fed on this issue.
As for the virtual porn...It's just one step from saying an artistic rendering of a real act is illegal to saying writing about it is illegal...And then from there, who knows? Thinking about it becoming illegally? We don't want to start down that road...
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, we're there already. There's a case being appealed now (can't find a link) where a paroled pedophile was found to have a manuscript in his home describing a fantasy of torturing and molesting children. He wrote it, and never distributed it, and is now accused of violating his parole.
Now, this is at best the kind of worst case scenario that tests your will to support civil rights -- the guy is blatantly evil and any inch you give him could easily turn into a nightmare for some poor kid. But criminalizing what you can write down and keep in your desk...?
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:3, Insightful)
A parolee does not have the full rights of a citizen of the USA. For example they do not have the right of free association -- i.e. they can be sent to jail for hanging out with the wrong people.
So curtailing their right to free speech (or free writing, or privacy) is not the same as infringing on the rights of someone who has been convicted of no crime.
(now it might suck for a ton of folks who are falsely convicted, or are convicted of unjust laws, but that is another matter...)
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:2)
What? Having 1 late phone bill payment doesn't give you a negative credit rating. Having 1 late bill payment that you don't pay for 6 months after several notices and warnings, however, will. I've been late several times. They just add on interest and you pay it late.
When it comes right down to it, there just isn't a good way to know for sure who is on the other side of the keyboard
You are exactly right. So although credit card usage isn't perfect, it's about the best method that we have to do it.
As for the virtual porn...It's just one step from saying an artistic rendering of a real act is illegal to saying writing about it is illegal...
That's another reason why I doubt that they're going to illegalize it. And I disagree with you there, making a real-to-life picture about something and writing about it is a rather large step, not a very small one. And in this case especially I doubt that people will get their kicks from reading about said acts vs viewing realistic impressions of them.
credit cards are not a good answer (Score:2)
Re:credit cards are not a good answer (Score:2, Interesting)
While I agree that there is one big problem with the credit card idea, (that minors CAN get them. In fact Visa is promoting credit cards for kids [visabuxx.com] right now.). First of all, anyone that can get a bank account these days can get a "credit card" for the purposes of this argument. Any Visa or Mastercard will do. And since every bank in the US that I'm aware of offers some kind of Visa or MC "check card" with a CC# that draws directly from your checking account, anyone can get one. No credit check is needed, because it's not credit. It's just a Visa or MC# that draws from your bank account rather than racking up a bill. Also, even if that weren't true... so what? So people without credit cards won't be able to get a hold of it. Neither will people without internet access. Should we say that these companies shouldn't be alowed to sell net porn unless they figure out a way to offer it to people without computers too? Remember this is "free", not nessisarily "Free" speach. I run pr0n sites for a living and I can think of no better way of screening minors. Lets say that some kid does have a credit card. Well, he/she choudln't get it on their own. They CAN have one, but in the states, a kid can't get a job without parental concent, let alone a bank account, credit card, etc. So if a kid is together enough to get all this stuff together, and sign up for a porn site account. Oh well. the kid's probably already close to 18 anyway. And if not, then I think the kid's got bigger problems that the parrents need to deal with. If a kid steals his mom's CC, then the porn is the least of the problems. If a kid is lying to their parents, forging signatures to get a job and a bank account... well, not only are there more serious problems there, but I'd almost say the kid earned it! Granted I'm not expecting that a six year old is doing these kinds of things, but c'mon, how many of us that enjoy porn waited until we were 18 if we had a choice? Weather it was the copy of penthouse you found on the side of the road, or your uncle jim's stash of dirty movies that you found, if you're the kind of person that's going to enjoy porn, I don't think there's much that's stopping people in today's society.
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Porn can't necessarily be protected under the 1 (Score:2, Informative)
Will banning child pornography affect me at all? Not in any way I can think of. However, it opens the door for censorship that will affect everyone. Censoring things because they are "indecent" or because they "make people more likely to perpetrate particular acts" is a ridiculous idea that has frightening long-term implications.
In response to: To refute your example of the effect of violent movies on children in comparison to child porn presentations on anyone (typically adult males), the majority of children who have seen violent movies will not directly act upon their exposure to the violence.
This doesn't refute my example. My point was not based on actual results. I even included a message to clarify that in parentheses! The point is that the free speech rights of the first amendment should override any effects or inherent qualities of a form of expression, as long as nothing illegal has been done in the creation of such work.
Don't get me wrong here: I think that child pornography is a disgusting idea, and that it is the moral responsibility of those who are sexually aroused by it to refrain from indulging that facet of their personality, because it is one of the few things in this world that is intrinsically evil.
Specious argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sex with a minor is rightfully illegal because under our current legal system we assign ages at which it is presumed that a majority of people of such an age can make a good decision regarding something difficult. In my state, for example, you can't drive until you're 16, since most 16 year olds can handle a car after driving school, but at younger ages they cannot. You can't smoke until you're 18, because that causes physical harm and psychological addiction which people under 18 may not be able to make good decisions about. You must also be 18 to consent to sex in my state under the theory that the decision to have sex is a very important one with physical and psychological consequences and people are probably not able to make that decision well and freely until most of them are 18. And the decision to drink isn't legally available until 21 because there are both physical and emotional consequences, there is the possibility of death or disability thanks to overdose, there are chances of addiction, the poor decision to drink and drive can lead to a violation of public safety, etc.
Well, child pornography falls within the same rubric. The theory behind making it illegal to make pornography involving minors is that the decision to have sex that is being recorded and documented and possibly seen by others is a serious one with life-altering consequences, and so people cannot give consent to have sex starring in moving or still images or audio until they reach the age of 18. That at least is the legal theory upon which the federal law against child pornography is founded. Taking the images is and should rightfully be illegal, since it harms the minor victim. Distributing the images is and should rightfully be illegal since that propagates the images which were illegally taken and causes further harm to the minors involved, since it exposes their exploitation to a wider audience. The legal theory underpinning this framework is that it causes harm to the minors in the child ponrography, *NOT* that it may induce other adults to go out and have sex with other minors. Indeed, that could not legally be the underpinning of the law, because it would be a restriction on the content of speech. Child porn is illegal not because it says something objectionable or incites viewers to take a harmful action, it is illegal because it harms the minor being portrayed. I can say, "Hey, go fuck a 12 year old, they're so tight and cute and they just love to suck on a grown-up's cock" all I want; it's objectionable, but not illegal. I cannot, however, send you a picture of someone fucking a 12 year old--under the legal theory that doing so harms the 12 yeatr old in the picture by exposing her abuse.
But the real trap you fall into is the notion that seeing pictures of child pornography causes people to imitate what's depicted. It doesn't. Either you think sex with young people is wrong, or you don't--an image isn't goin g to change your moral bearing. The easy explanation, and the true one, for why "a much larger majority of those who indulge themselves in child porn actually will act out the things they indulge themselves in" as you said, is that the kind of peoplw who collect child pornography are the kind of people who are attracted to children in the first place and who don't think having sex with them is wrong--or else they wouldn't be keeping pictures of it, would they?
To say that child porn causes people to molest children is like saying that gay porn causes people to be gay or straight porn causes one to be straight. It just doesn't work that way, because you're mistaking cause for effect. If you find lots of gay porn in a guy's PC, the odds are he's gay--he wasn't converted to gayness by the gay porn, either, rather he got the gay porn because he was already gay. Likewise with child ponr--if you find a bunch of child ponr on a guy's PC, he's probably a pedophile. The porn didn't make him a pedophile, rather, he collected the porn because he was already a pedophile.
"This argument can be extended to regular porn, which can cause a person to be so overwhelmed by sex that they could turn to rape (although this doesn't really apply to the many casual porn viewers, only porn-"zealots"). And this can definetly be extended to extremely hardcore porn and things such as snuff films."
Well, in that above paragraph you make it clear that you're either trolling, or an anti-porn thumper type. "Adult" porn has never made anyone rape anybody; that whole theory came about when notorious serial killer Ted Bundy claimed that "my addiction to porn made me rape and kill all those girls". He said so not because it was true, but because he thought it would get him a lighter sentence if he was a "victim" too. Not coincidentally, he made this claim at the height of the social debate that was occurring back during the years when porn was first going "mainstream" and being sold fairly openly instead of in illicit back-alley shops. The Moral Majority types of course took it as Gospel that porn causes rape--ironic that they'd believe a convicted serial killer and obvious psychopath (no we call them "sociopaths" instead) over all the repected scientists who've refuted the claim.
The fact is, porn is a release valve for our sexual frustrations. That's why porn is as old as civilization--the explicit paintings in almost every Rioman villa, the pictogram porn of the Egyptians, the explicit sculptures and paintings of ancient Greece. We see it, we get excited as if by a real partner, we jerk off, and our tensions are gone.
That's precisely why I hope "virtual" child porn becomes acceptable. Wouldn't it be great if pedophiles could freely download CGI child porn, pound their puppies, and not have to dabble in ral child porn? And have that release valve, so they don't explode their sexual frustrations and touch a real child? I think so.
Re:Porn can't necessarily be protected under the 1 (Score:2, Interesting)
As a secular state, and one that values privacy, traditionally we do not make laws against "evil thoughts." The underlying assumption in our child pornography laws is child porn is a record of a real crime committed against a real child, sold for the delectation of the voyeur.
Your argument that certain pictures should be banned because they will prompt "evil thoughts" (amd your ability to qualify such evil thoughts, somehow, as actions), has no precedence; we don't usually attempt to pre-empt crime by outlawing its precursors.
Your attitude has grown more popular lately, and grows more popular daily, it seems.
I suspect this has something to do with our increasing historical distance from the threat of Fascism a half-century ago; the phrase "thought police" seems not to have the impact that it used to.
That worries me. YMMV, and I'm sure it does....
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, that's what you're supposed to do with porn? I was mixing it with fiberglass, putting it inside my walls, and using it as heat insulation.
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:2, Informative)
"When Sweden legalized porn, [then the crimes of] rape, child molestation, and other sex crimes dropped."
eudas
Re:Personally I'd think... (Score:3, Funny)
So then what we really need are a bunch of non-profit porn dispersal centers.
What do you think the internet is?
your logic is so misguided... (Score:2)
Secondly, even if something -- porn or otherwise -- does have an adverse side effect, does that imply you can ban it simply because of that side effect? Take alcohol as an example. The legality of alcohol (assuming you are of appropriate drinking age) unambiguously increases the number of drunk-driving fatalities. However, that fact doesn't mean that you can outlaw alcohol itself. You can only reasonably outlaw the illegal behavior, not the catalyst, if you will.
Other topics (Score:5, Informative)
A coalition of photographers, moviemakers and producers of "adult" materials challenged the law, arguing that it was vague and that only pictures of actual children can be banned because only they do harm to children.
While a lower federal court sided with the Free Speech Coalition, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that even fictitious images of children having sex help to feed the overall market for child pornography, and that prosecutors would find it difficult to prove that any image was of an actual child, as opposed to a computer-generated one.
A separate case, Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 00-1293, involves a different statute designed to protect children from seeing sexually explicit material on the World Wide Web. Passed in 1998 after the court struck down a more broadly worded version in 1997, the statute says "commercial" Web sites may not post material that is "harmful to minors" as defined by "contemporary community standards."
Re:Other topics (Score:5, Informative)
108 countries in the world have abandoned capital punishment, including all of western europe countries.
Among countries still doing it:
Afghanistan
USA
China
Iran
Sudan
Saudi Arabia
...
See something wrong with that list?
Re:Other topics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Other topics (Score:2)
Capital punishment in the US is not going to be decided by a head count of countries. It will be decided by convincing moral arguments and facts.
Re:Other topics (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it has the word "among" above it and an ellipsis at the bottom. That makes it look like you picked out countries that Americans don't particularly like to list, rather than listing all of the countries that still use capital punishment.
Re:Other topics (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't leave much of a list of countries that the US would *like* to list. You're left with Africa, the Asian subcontinent, South America...
Name a country out of those that you'd like to be emulating.
Ah the thought police (Score:2)
We might as well punish a person for thinking about sex with a child if we are to ban mere drawings or generated child porn. As rape fantasies more often than not do NOT lead to rape, neither does thoughts of having sex with a child lead to predation.
Two comments (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the virtual child-porn, I think the main issue at stake is whether or not the virtual porn leads to real children being harmed. To the best of my knowledge there's no evidence showing that virtual porn does lead to the real thing, so the only way the government can win is at least 5 of the justices ignore the evidence and vote based on "Child porn is bad." It's the harming of innocent kids that's bad, not the porn itself. Can the Supreme Court see past that? We'll have to wait and see.
Re:Two comments (Score:2)
Apparently, after the 9th circuit blew the government out of the water on this point, they changed their tack somewhat. Now they're arguing that it's just too much darn work to figure out whether an image involves actual children. In other words, convict first, verify later (if at all.)
I think the desired outcome is for the gov't to be able to arrest and convict someone (or at least, prevent them from publishing) without actually proving that the image actually involves a child. I assume this means that anybody caught with a pornographic image containing a youngish-looking 18-year old could theoretically be tossed in jail. Honestly, I'm not sure why the gov't is pursuing this piece of crap.
Re:Two comments (Score:2)
Bars, strip clubs, buying cigarettes or liquor, all of these places are required to check for ID. So what are you talking about?
Anyway, credit cards won't work very well on the Internet, especially with the advent of Visa Buxx and similar cards that are designed for 13-17 year olds
It takes 1/2 a second to do an online check to see (a) if the credit card is valid and (b) to see if it's a minor or an adult card.
Perhaps the argument should be wether or not there should be age restrictions on things like alcohol, liquor, porn et al.
WEll. (Score:2)
I think online providers of pornography should check the age of their users, or risk being charged.
I mean.. why should they be any different than meatspace providers of porn? They shouldn't.
My own view is that such controls are rediculous..
True enough (Score:2)
Very true. It's not as if it harms anyone - hell, if my memory serves my right there's actually obscene amounts of cash in modeling for playboy or maxim.
The right way to think about OpenGL kiddie porn (Score:3, Interesting)
In such a scenario, can we possibly tolerate the state inserting itself into the circuit between our imagination and our sense of touch?
At what point between now and then do we boot the state out?
It seems obvious that the line to be drawn here is between those activities that harm others and those that harm noone. Computer-generated images of children engaged in sex while objectionable on several levels are nonetheless harmless. No children need be hurt in the production of this material.
To rule otherwise will likely condemn us to a future where the state becomes a part of our consciousness. I think this would be very bad.
Age verification systems won't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing more that a political "bone" being tossed at the "soccer moms". Maybe they instead need to be told to stop abdicating their parenting responsibilities to the TV or the Internet and start getting personally involved with raising their kids. You can't legislate well-raised children...it takes personal involvement and WORK!
Re:Age verification systems won't work. (Score:2)
I thought "soccer moms" were mothers who try to be active in the child's life. I would expect those mothers to calmly explain to their children what porn is if their children encounter it, or install filtering software themselves if they feel strongly that their child will be permanently hurt if they catch a glimpse of a naked woman. I don't think they expect the government to filter the Internet for them.
Re:Age verification systems won't work. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a step forward (Score:2)
I think as the Supreme Court goes forward this session it'd be worth remembering that U.S. laws do NOT have domain over the whole net, however much grandstanding our politicians may make.
Pandora's box (pardon the pun) (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens when kids can't get onto adult websites? Well, they'll use stolen credit card numbers, or stolen adult ID codes, or just plain lie. How can you tell if the person on the other side of the monitor is below 17? Do you plan on implanting smartcard chips below the skin of everyone once they reach their majority?
Parents whine and wail because, after they've given their kids unrestricted access to the net, the little tykes are heading straight to XXX websites. The horror! But while they'll lobby and rally for all sorts of controls on this monster we call the world wide web, they'd never consider picking up and installing some parental control software. (For the most part, I don't think a majority of parents are even competent to install any software; that may be why.)
Re:Pandora's box (pardon the pun) (Score:3)
They'll go to P2P services and find them stuffed full of beastality, rape and kiddie porn, that they can share anonymously.
<sarcasm>On the bright side, as there's no traffic figures or weblogs, we can pretend they're not doing it. So that's all right then. </sarcasm>
I personally think that you have to admit to yourself that kids are going to find porn. Deal with that, and realise that it might as well be soft core stuff from ethical servers.
Re:Pandora's box (pardon the pun) (Score:2)
Let's say you put locks on all porno sites, with security so high that only a few determined kids could get in. What do you think those kids would do? Why, download the pics and swap them, via their handy peer-to-peer software! One stolen pic gets copied a thousand times, and it's "stylish" to have some on your computer.
So you start piling on more and more security; Java applets that don't let you save pics, or screen capture; watermarks that OS patches won't let be displayed unless from the original web site... But guess what? There'll always be ways around them, and those ways will spread like wildfire. Gotta taste that forbidden fruit! And in the meantime, even adults can't view porn, thanks to all these overlapping security features. Software monopolies will be enforced ("this page can only be viewed in IE 6.0"), kids will still be looking at porn, and everyone will be unhappy.
National ID to confirm age. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Political Cartoons at Political Strikes [politicalstrikes.com]
Re:National ID to confirm age. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:National ID to confirm age. (Score:2)
Ronald Reagan administration gave 3 billion dollars to Afghanistan for weapons, the same weapons that the Taliban are using now. We can thank the CIA (Under RRA) for helping Afgahnistan terrorist groups, the same ones today that formed the Taliban. [emperors-clothes.com]
Nothing like Americans killed with Republican funded weapons, and Republican created terrorist groups.
The only Republican I can approve is the Secretary of State Colin Powell. I have no respect for that draft dodger Bush [theage.com.au] who uses a mostly republican seated Supreme Court and his brother in florida to help him overthrow an election.
-
My how people forget, when its not on CNN.
what's next, age verification for real-life sex? (Score:3)
It does make me laugh thinking about one thing. Even if buying porn at age 17 or whatever is illegal, what's to stop you from getting the friendly girl next door (or guy, don't want to be choosy about gender or sexual orientation here ;-) to get naked, completely consensually, in your presence? I'll admit that such an event didn't occur for a geek like me until I was of legal age to purchase porn anyway, but I've heard plausible rumors that jocks and other popular-type people actually did get to see and touch real live naked people at the tender age of, say, 15.
Seriously, though, isn't there something kind of ironic about the fact that you can, completely legally, see and touch (and do other fun things with ;-) real live naked people when you're under 18, but can't legally view pictures of naked people?
Re:what's next, age verification for real-life sex (Score:3)
Extra-marital real-life sex illegal in Virginia (Score:2)
Not so in Virginia.
18.2-344. [state.va.us] says
The minimum marriage age in Virginia is 16 [state.va.us].Now why these laws are not used to prosecute teen fathers is beyond me.
Re:Extra-marital real-life sex illegal in Virginia (Score:3, Insightful)
And why precisely would it be used to prosecute teen fathers?
Or is there a huge population of unknowing teen mothers out there that just accidentally got pregnant, through no fault of their own?
The best way... (Score:4, Informative)
...to ``protect'' children from being ``harmed'' by the sight of naked people having sex is not by passing laws.
It's by parents putting the computer in the living room.
Children are required to show ID before they can purchase a copy of ``Playboy'' or whatever because they can enter stores where pornography is sold without being accompanied by a responsible adult.
In the home, many adults have access to pornography through cable TV, videos, or copies of ``Playboy,'' or other means. Parents who don't want their children to see pornography on TV should be monitoring and restricting their children's access to TV--but they should be doing that anyway. If they can't lock out channels, they should lock up the remote with the VHS stash.
Parents who don't want children calling 1-900-LIVE-SEX should have the phone company block 900 numbers, or pay attention to their phone bills.
Parents who are really paranoid about the matter should know what kind of pornography exists in their children's friends' homes before allowing visits.
The computer should be treated no differently. You don't want your children surfing over to www.hotsexyteenlesbians.com? Fine, do it the same way you keep your children from all the rest of the pornography in the world.
And maybe, just maybe, recognize that children are also sexual beings. Talk with them about sex (in an age-appropriate manner, of course), relationships, pregnancy and parenthood, love, STDs, marriage, committment, and what it all means to you.
Or, in other words, parents being parents and legislators making laws is good; parents making laws and legislators being parents is bad.
b&;
Re:The best way... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the sentiment; Allow me to complete it.
The best way to keep kids from being harmed by seeing images of naked people having sex is to relax. Kids don't have any problems with sexual encounters; It's only after adults tell them that they've seen something terribly wrong that they get confused.
When children have questions about sex, answer truthfully. Buy erotic art that you like, and hang it on the wall. Go to nudist resorts, to show your children that it's okay to be naked. If a movie that you like has a sex scene in it, don't fast forward it. If you like hentai, allow your children to watch it with you.
This will protect your child from harm.
I have a 6-month old daughter, and she's being raised around pornography. Both my girlfriend and I like to watch hentai movies, and read erotic comics; I see no reason why our daughter should be excluded from the same. Amber and I talk about the line art, the characterizations, various styles; I see no reason why our daughter should be excluded as well.
The reason kids get weird about sex is because adults do. When adults are relaxed around sex, children are relaxed as well.
Sex is not a big mystery. I think for a lot of people, at least here in the US, sex is like this closet in the basement, and they fear that it is full of monsters.
First, the closet isn't in the basement, it's on the 1st floor of our psyche. Second, you can open the door. Maybe there's some garbage in there, or something, but you can clean it up, see what's in there. There are no big monsters in there. Turn on the light; Take an inventory, clean it up. Maybe take some things out, put things inside. It's just a closet in your psyche. It's totally okay. It's good square footage in our minds; It's good not to ignore it or freak out about it. It's really not all that weird a space.
Like drinking water, or going to bed at night. =^_^=
Virtual child porn laws , what a kettle of fish. (Score:2)
You cannot be charged with statory rape of a nineteen y/o even if she told you she was 16. It is impossible since she is 19. What about porn with a 19 y/o that looks 16? What about taking a 20 y/o picture of a 30 y/o and using that in a virtual porn flick? The picture is of a 10 y/o, but she is 30 now.
What are the current laws on... (Score:2, Interesting)
THE WOZ RULES! (Score:2)
(KERNEL PANIC)
Japanese comics? (Score:2, Interesting)
What about similar comic books produced in the US? Is there a precedent? I'm sure it would apply to computerized pron.
Problematic free porn (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously if all images require age verification schemes then it will be like a ban on advertising for these sites; the sites may well ignore it.
Better is to demand proper labeling of information with meta tags and the likes that appropriate filters and checking software can use to remove/block content.
As for 'virtual' porn. It's got to be bad. Where do 'celebrity fakes' stand in the law? Surely other virtual porn has to follow in a similar way.
Degree, not Type (Score:3, Interesting)
Pornography, wether child, teen, obese, hetero, homo, s+m, bondage, etc. is all of the same type, and only varies by degree. To me, there is a "right" way to behave sexually: one and only one lifetime consensual sexual partner with the sexual relationship established after formal partnership (marriage), with the primary intent of procreation. !!! Any sexual activity outside of that partnership (including auto-sexuality) is inappropriate to some degree or another, but is all of the same type and ultimate consequence. I will be the first to admit that a teen masturbating in the bathroom is a lot different than an individual who gets off on a harem of children. But again, in degree. There is no hard and fast boundary between the two behaviors. Anyone who has read this far with either be thinking I'm a complete idiot or a religious fundamentalist. I hope I am neither. I just happen to have thought about this issue a lot over the last 18 years (since my early teens). So if you are still reading, here is why I think the way I do in very brief form: Essentially every major world religion and culture advocates or prescribes chastity: no sexual partners until marriage, and only one after that with the intent to produce children. Why is this such a common view? Perhaps because it "works". Next idea. What is the conceptual dividing line between the following spectrum of sexual activity: masturbation, being masturbated with your consent, giving someone a hand job with their consent, oral sex, oral sex with someone slightly younger than yourself, oral sex with someone lots younger than yourself (still consensual, still age of "majority"), and lastly oral sex with a minor who has given consent (and of course that last one is the real controversial step). What age exactly is it when someone can give consent? Is it 15? Is it 14? Is it puberty? Is it 10? There is no scientific means known at this time to decide that age, only a legalistic mechanism that says such an age is too young. Next idea. At what point is safe sex really safe? At what point is birth control really effective? Again, there is a whole spectrum of options here and they all have one thing in common: nothing is 100% certain to be safe or effective. I could go on with a number of other spectrums of options or behavior where the only real differences between the options are of degree rather than type. The only time there is a difference of type comes when you choose to be proactive about chastity, formal monogamy and procreation. I don't think that my argument is going to change anyone's opinion about the whole issue of sexuality, but perhaps it can shed some light on the issue of the article: legalistic solutions are not really solutions!!! (Which is something I think many here _will_ agree with.) I believe from the preceding points and others, that the only solution is actually a sort of moral conversion of our society, where people recognize the logical and societal consequences of their actions and change their moral standpoint on that basis. Good luck!
Re:Degree, not Type (Score:2, Funny)
Only thing you left out... only the missionary position under the covers with the lights out on a Saturday night, and don't enjoy it.
Re:Degree, not Type (Score:2)
Re:Degree, not Type (Score:2, Informative)
Morals do, like it or not, change according to culture and society.
A middle-ground needs to be found where you can feel reasonably safe, and where I can live without feeling persecuted.
Here's an example: A hundred years ago in the south it was considered immoral and an outrage for two people of different racial types to get married. The vast majority of this country thinks that view is bullshit these days. Morals do change, and I think it's a healthy thing that they do so.
Another 'moral' issue: Marriage itself is viewed differently by certain sub-cultures. Case in point, Mormons. I don't have a problem with them. Do you? Do you think they should be prevented from living their lives as they see fit?
I'm not attacking or defending, I am merely pointing out that 'morals' frequently follow from religious and cultural mores that are 1) Not shared by everyone and 2) Change with time.
But not all morals change in the US. Murder is, was and probably always will be, considered wrong and grossly unjust to the murdered.
Child pornography involving real children does disgust me and probably always will. But I also realize that that disgust arises from my culture and society, which can change.
'Fake' child pornography.. Well, on it's face, the issue doesn't appear any different than with pornography that doesn't involve children. But in the case of, say, hand-drawn animation from a certain island nation, it's just about impossible to 'tell'. Visually there isn't a lot of distinction in age differences in how many manga (that's the point right, it's an abstract, not ment as a photorealistic work) draw women. So if you were to make virtual child porn illegal, you'd probably see alot of hentai disappear, merely because the people depicted could be children.
A sticky issue, one that I don't think will be satisfactorally settled by the courts.
Re:Degree, not Type (Score:2)
Re:Degree, not Type (Score:5, Insightful)
"Essentially every major world religion..."
You're right, the largest religions in the world, are all just like christianity. Islam promotes monogamy, right? What? they don't? You're kidding. Well, surely Judaism tells you masturbation and polygamy is wrong. What? The only prohibition is on coveting somebody's wife, and lying with farm animals? Next thing you know, you'll tell me hinduism doesn't make that big a deal out of virginity, and hatched a big book of sex with some wacky name like Khama Sutra or something, some of the positions in which involve more than two people. At least there was a stigma on all that awful, non-puritanical sex in historic cultures, like greece, right? Harems of little boys for the emperor you say...oh my.
I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, people liking to do things that feel nice are usually encouraged, except in christianity of the last couple thousand years. Don't just take that statement in reference to sexuality. (Warning, short libertarian rant coming) Why shouldn't people do whatever they want? The government's role is to keep people from hurting each other in that process. As long as nobody but my poor old right hand suffers, and people are willingly being naked/drunk/angry in online forums without gaining deep psychological scars, then so be it. Let the teens have their thrills, as long as nobody else suffers. Let the suck fucks look at bondage, as long as the lady in the nipple clamps isn't unhappy, why should you be? Let lady liberty wave her torch high, as long as she doesn't light the sky on fire.
Re:Degree, not Type (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Degree, not Type (Score:3, Funny)
Bzzzt. False.
Futile (Score:2, Insightful)
2.) No amount of government regulation can do anything to stop kids from getting access to porn. If they want it they will get it.
3.) Everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they do not inflict tangible harm on non-consenting people. Virtual child porn doesn'y hurt anybody.
4.) Parents ought to be responsible for their own children, instead of having the government force this crap on everyone's children.
Porn, Sex, and Children (Score:3, Insightful)
It really is as natural as breathing and digestion, and many European countries have a much better attitude towards it, with fewer negative side effects than this Nation...
Why Porn? (Score:3, Interesting)
The first is the typical abuse of people, men, women, children, animals, etc for profit that you see in prostitution and in many criminal activities.
The second is the sensuality and sexuality of pornograpy as see in works of various degrees of and ranges of artistic merit.
The third is the morality issues
The forth is the thought control issues.
The thought control issues are the most troubling, because who hasn't wanted to stop someone from even thinking a certain criminal or other type of somehow forbidden thought. Hate, anger, jealousy, depression all come to mind.
Laws against virtual porn seek to restrict people from thinking thoughts that others believe to be bad. The question is if this is viable and practical, and the nature of the "bad thoughts" on the first place. Let's face it, all criminals want freedom to have their way, to do their thing.
But then, so do most rational folks, except that they respect their fellows.
Use the Leisure Suit Larry Method. (Score:4, Funny)
Unrealistic expectations... (Score:2)
I think these kinds of decisions are simply half-assed efforts at shutting up the complaining and (rightfully so) concerned parents and advocates. While I do believe that it's important that only adults have access to pornography, I firmly believe this decision would change little or nothing in terms of solving the problem of exposing underage viewers to porn on the 'net.
Why we can't ban computer-generated images (Score:2)
For example, there was discussion following the Sept 11 attacks of banning burning of the American flag. Suppose that laws were passerd banning flag burning. Would we then have to ban images and videos of computer-generated flags being burned by a computer-generated fire?
I think that anyone that would look at computer-generated child porn is sick, but it really does no harm to any child. It only sets a poor precedent, in my mind.
A note on european ages of consent (Score:2, Informative)
BTW when there is a formal age of consent, it tends to be 16, as in the UK and Ireland, with some countries putting the formal age as 14 or 12.
Many of my friends in the UK, both male and female, first had sex between 12 and 14, typically with someone the same age or slightly older. (mine was 17, but then i'm a geek
France has no minimum age for alcohol, and in the UK, if a parent is present, it is about 12. I should say most european kids start off having a glass of quality wine or a sip of beer with their parents at the weekly sunday dinner, at about 12 onwards, when they start becoming curious about what their parents are drinking, and this is allowed for by law. It's independent drinking or purchase of alcohol by teens that is illegal.
Likewise, for porn, in france there is no minimum age for softcore purchase I think, and for hardcore, 18.
A solution to censorship? (Score:2, Interesting)
Different opinions on what is kid appropiate? No problem. There will be surely a group somewhere with the same views as you, and you can use their list of 'appropiate' websites. E.G if you're an X-ian, you can use the 'Catholic Church Approved list' (or something maintained by whichever sect you adhere to) and thus your kids at home can only access sites on that list. Sure if they want to access something independent, they'll have to go down the library or a friends computer, but at least it wont be in your own home
Got quirky views? Create your own approved list. My list would probably be something like encyclopaediabrittanca.com (sodding spelling), slashdot.com, indymedia, and a few others.
What do you think?
Everyone *SAYS* They're Sexually Liberal... (Score:3)
So why the heck is there this concept that we (North Americans) live in a sexually repressed society?
I think we're hoaxing ourselves. "We" keep saying it, but not because "we" are repressed: because we think "they" must be repressed.
Well, hell, surprise folks, *THEY* are just the same as us. There is *NO* moral majority that's decrying the sin and depravity of nude beaches, porn magazines, or rockin' good sex.
Let's quit trying to not offend that mythical group of sexually repressed beings. They don't exist, unless we're teenagers living at home, and in that case, they're just our parents...
Re:Everyone *SAYS* They're Sexually Liberal... (Score:2)
Re:Everyone *SAYS* They're Sexually Liberal... (Score:2)
The media tells us that we're sexually "repressed," and uses that as an excuse to keep us sexually _juvenile_. How bad of a thing that is is another issue.
And as an aside, we may need a SysAdmin in Toronto or thereabouts. I'll keep you posted.
Re:Everyone *SAYS* They're Sexually Liberal... (Score:2)
Sorry, bit of a flashback there...
There is a "moral majority," and they're in the
minority. Just ask Jesse Jackson who he represents.
There _are_ people who follow him (dare I say?) religiously, and believe that anything besides husband-on-top missionary position sex is immoral. I've met these people. I've gotten drunk with the offspring of these people (which is an interesting moral statement right there, but that's another story...)
But here's the crux of the matter. The US government (and any democratically elected government) is going to pander to the lowest common denominator, and that is the "moral majority." Regardless of how important it is to the general populace to 'save the children,' the people who are going to _vote_ one way or another because of issues like that are going to oppose anything remotely liberal, modern, or unrepressed. So the government pushes their ultra-conservative agenda, screwing over the people who don't CARE what the government says about what consenting adults do.
Getting off to little kids isn't a fetish, people. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't care how sexually liberal anyone is. This has nothing to do with sexual liberation or freedom. I place my limit on sexual freedom (fetishes) when someone gets sexual entertainment from looking at naked kids. That's not a "fetish". That is absolute perversion.
I don't care if the images are computer generated or not.
This is the question posed by some:
"What is the harm or crime in a man jacking off to computer generated photos of six year olds?"
And to that, I say this : If you actually need an answer to that question, you are yourself in dire need of help.
District court discussion of age verification (Score:3, Informative)
Eliminate copyright protection on pornography (Score:3, Interesting)
At the time I found the idea appealing for other reasons (free porn!), but there are other, more noble, positive aspects.
Kiddie porn, rape, and mismanaged expectations (Score:5, Informative)
The purpose of having a mock-life in your head has clear evolutionary advantages. You don't need to walk into the lion's den to find out what would happen -- you can simply imagine the outcome and do something harmless, instead. (please don't quibble with the example -- it's contrived, but the point still stands). However, our ability to imagine things that haven't (or won't) happen has a secondary, and possibly inadvertent, purpose. It's mental masturbation. It stimulates the pleasure centers of our brains. Not just by thinking about sex, but by thinking about things that give us pleasure. Daydreaming, for example. In fact, the extreme extension of this unique condition explains our love of TV shows and movies (and books, for that matter).
But also, it provides us with pleasure not as a "how can I achieve this goal" function but as a "I'd like to _____ but the consequences would be too severe so I'll just imagine it, instead." I'm sure we've all been with our respective bosses at one point or another and imagined clubbing him/her over the head with a clipboard or stuffed barricuda, I mean, who hasn't?
Yeah, yeah, get to the point, right?
Many men fantasise about rape (I won't say 'most', because I don't have any studies with numbers at hand, but I'd be inclined to) for a number of reasons, one of the most pertinent being that rape provides zero cost access to the thing men desire extremely highly (I'll skip the Freudian bit about how everything boils down to sex and death, but it's well understood that men spend a lot of time trying to get laid, not just in bars, but trying to get prestige careers, fancy cars, etc.) Zero cost because there's no initial investment (everything from buying drinks and being interesting to demonstrating long-term fitness as a mate) and there's no follow-up investment (everything from cuddling when you want to sleep to being a long-term fit mate). It's what Erica Jong [amazon.com] refers to as the "zipperless fuck".
Most male rape fantasies commit what is generally termed the "she really wanted it" genre. And this is because most men really don't want to hurt their sex partner -- they want to be nice guys and still get zero cost sex. Once again, I haven't read or conducted any studies on the matter, so this part is pure speculation, but I would be very surprised if the majority of men who have rape fantasies imagine the way it really is. That is, I doubt they imagine the pain and suffering they're inflicting.
To use a couple of examples from the media. I'm guessing for most guys it's closer to the rape scene from "The Hollow Man" -- sexy, a little scary, and mercifully blurred, as opposed to the rape scene in "Boys Don't Cry" one of the most visceral moments in American cinema, in my opinion.
My point is that men's sexual fantasy lives, especially as conditioned by the media, are of the 'bonk the boss on the head' sort of thing. Any rape support group will tell you that rape isn't about sex, it's about violence. My contention is that rape fantasies, generally speaking, are about sex and that most men find the idea of violence against women to be abhorrent.
These same arguments apply to kiddie porn. Imagining sexual relations with a child is a far cry from the reality. I think that, in order to be fair, the bifurcation between fantasy and reality needs to be carefully considered. Especially the idea that more often we fantasise so as not to do something than to do it.
DISCLAIMER: I do not advocate rape. I do not advocate molesting children. I do not advocate violence. In fact, I don't even advocate thinking. I think we were better off as monkeys. Most of this diatribe is pure flim-flammery and it's only purpose is to propose an idea that may incite thought, but I hope not, as I don't advocate thinking. Please don't send me e-mail telling me I'm a sick bastard (I already know that -- my degree was in philosophy and cognitive science). One final point -- I think the same arguments apply towards women, but I omitted them since I'm not "in-house".
Thought experiment in line drawing (Score:3, Interesting)
- nude portraits of children
- fictional accounts of child/child or child/adult sexual situations (a la Lolita)
- fictional accounts of child/child or child/adult explict sexual situations (what would be considered XXX material in a standard porn movie)
- drawings/paintings/macrame of child/child or child/adult explict sexual situations
- fake images (gimp, photoshop) of child/child or child/adult soft core sexual situations
- fake images (gimp, photoshop) of child/child or child/adult hard core sexual situations
- animations (cartoon) of child/child or child/adult soft core sexual situations
- animations (cartoon) of child/child or child/adult hard core sexual situations
- fake movies (special effects like the hobbits in LotR) with child/child or child/adult soft core sexual situations
- fake movies (special effects like the hobbits in LotR) with child/child or child/adult hard core sexual situations
- inflatable child sex dolls
- interactive virtual reality sexual programs involving simulacrum of a child
- pedomorphic robotic sex dolls (like the kid in the Kubrick A.I. movie (except as a sex doll))
- organically grown child concubines (like Pris in Blade Runner, except as a kid).
I tried grouping these roughly in order of least offensive to most offensive, but it may be a reflection of my prejudice, more than anything. Also, we don't currently have the technology for some of these items, but hey, it's a thought experiment!Solipsism and pedophilia (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's pretend that the world is made up of people like you and me -- people with genuine mental phenomena -- and zombies -- people without mental phenomena. Now, we know that there are zombies out there; their existence has been demonstrated empirically, but functionally they behave identically to you and me. However, consider that zombieism is the height of bad taste and no zombie would want to admit that he/she is a zombie -- "Yeah, when I hit my thumb with a hammer, I scream, and shake my hand, but I don't experience any of this 'pain' stuff." Given these circumstances, most zombies would probably assume all their friends are like you and me and not zombies. They've probably heard about zombies on the news, but don't actually know any. Here's the question. What percentage of the population would have to be zombies before things turned over and being a zombie was socially acceptable and being a non-zombie was unacceptable?
Okay, now, think about this. What if everyone in the world is sexually aroused by children except for you and me. What if everything was exactly the way that it is -- nothing has changed externally in the world -- but everyone else finds children sexually appealing? There are just as many incidences of child abuse as there are, now, but the mental act of pedophilia is a societal norm, rather than the converse.
The parallels between zombiehood and mental pedophilia should be obvious. I'm asking you to put aside your knee-jerk "That's sick!" for a second and do some considering.
First of all, up until fairly recently, homosexuality was considered to be both sick and confined to a very small percentage of the population. It's sick just because it is (heavy sarcasm) and it was imagined to belong to a very small minority because of the stigma attached to it. However, homosexuality, now, is much more mainstream and occupies a fairly large demographic -- large enough that there's plenty of legislation to prevent discrimination against gays.
Second of all, humans participate in a wide variety of sexual situations that have very little to do with procreation. Take a walk through the alt.sex.fetish hierarchy sometime. There are people who derive sexual pleasure by sitting on food! Incidentally, their existence doesn't mean that I live in fear of having my refrigerator raped.
Thirdly, there's a huge market in eroticizing children. On everything from the clothes that are made for children, to makeup, to basic lifestyles as presented in the media. And, frankly, it's adults who design those styles and adults who encourage their children to dress and behave like sexual objects. The media is blurring the line between children as sexual objects and non-sexual objects and we, as consumers, are complicit.
Here's what I want you to consider. Finding children sexually attractive is natural and, in some circumstances, healthy. And, when I say 'natural', I mean it's an attribute shared by a large percentage of the population.
Okay, here's the disclaimer. I asked you to consider it. I didn't say it's true. I'm not trying to persuade you that it's true. The purpose of the exercise is to try and determine what parts of your feelings are visceral and what parts are based on reason. More than most issues dealing with civil liberties, this one provokes an immediate gut response. Even the posts where people advocate the legality of virtual kiddie porn are liberally peppered posts with "people who view this are sick sick sick. (But I still defend their right to view it, the sick bastards)" But there's no discussion of why it's sick. I can think of plenty of reasons why having sex with a child is sick (personally, I believe in capital punishment for someone who has intercourse with a pre-pubescent child.) I also think it's sick to use a child as an ancillary sexual device (for example, bathing a child and using that as wank material). But, the knee-jerk aside, what makes mental kiddie porn (and by extension, virtual kiddie porn) any sicker than homosexuality or cake-sitting?
P.S. One of the reasons you've got the knee-jerk "that's sick" attitude is 'cuz you're biologically selected for it via evolution. Our forebears didn't have sex with their children because 1) it leads to weak genes and 2) it physically damages the reproductive organs of children and so they're less likely to have kids themselves. Thinking is pretty new (anthropologically speaking) while the knee-jerk has been around for longer than we've had knees. So, when you immediately react strongly to something, chances are it's your biology speaking. Strive to get past that.
P.P.S. Despite the controversial nature of this post, I'm not posting it anonymously in the spirit of engaging in genuine rational discussion. I hope that I'm not subjecting myself to a deluge of "You're a sick fucker!" e-mails. In a different vein, I also don't want e-mail from pedophiles (mental or not) either welcoming me to the fold or soliciting kiddie porn. Kids aren't my kink. Informing me of illegal behaviour will result in intervention by John Law.
How this applies to me: My anime collection (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't collect the explicitly sexual stuff, but sheesh, even Sailor Moon (the original series, not the Cartoon network crap) has semi-naked girls that no one pretends are over 18. My Escaflowne laserdisc cover features Hitomi with what is most definitely a nipple showing, and I don't think she's understood to be 18. I can list dozens of other examples from mainstream and non-H series.
My concerns: Am I a potential law breaker for buying/owning all these tapes, lds, and dvds?
What about Japanese imports I buy from US companies? (I don't know what porn laws Japan has, but I never assumed I was in any danger of being criminal)
Can stuff I've owned for years suddenly be considered "virtual kiddy porn"?
Where is this line being drawn now, and is it going to change?
Do we trust US distributors to not sell us the illegal stuff?
Hopefully everyone will just flame me for overreacting and I can quit worry about my anime collection.
What constitutes a 'virtual child'? (Score:4, Interesting)
What is a 'virtual child'?
Take manga, for example, or hentai. Most of the characters in most Japanese animation have characteristics that look to westerners child-like. Does that make all sexually explicit manga child pornography? Is this [adultanime.com] child pornography [warning: explicit]? Should it be banned?
Then, how do you tell by looking at a picture how old the subject is? Sure, yes, you can (almost always) tell the difference between a five year old and a fifty year old, but can you always tell the difference between a fifteen year old and a twenty-five year old, even in real life? If you can't in real life, how can you in drawings?
What about fantasy worlds in which people change ages? Take, for example, Freaky Friday [yesterdayland.com], in which a mother and child exchange bodies for a day. If the 'mother' character (supposedly actually an adult but in a child's body) had had sex, would that be child porn? If the 'daughter' character (supposedly actually a child but in an adult body) had had sex, wouold that be child sex?
Simulated child porn vs other simulated stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
But simulated child porn, with what intentions do you think that someone will do such a movie? Whatever the answer to that question is, theres a fact that who ever looks at it, will surely wanna do it in real instead. And theres also a fact that child pornography (simulated or not) is done with the intent of arousing pedophilic feelings in the viewer.
Theres also several reports which support the fact that the availability of child porn will increase the number of child molestations. And that also conforms to virtual stuff too (but maybe some will get a bigger "kick" out of it if they know it is real children suffering).
So one can conclude that theres several reasons why banning child porn is rigth, it is not only because of the harmful effect of creating the porn on the real children involved. It is because they who watch this, also want to to the stuff they see on the screen.
And why should the producer of such a movie want to stick with just child pornography, because it is simulated they can do anything they want. They can kill the children, cut them into pieces and do more horrible stuff. I say that somewhere we have to draw the line. And I think that the line should be drawn to protect the children in our society. Or would you like to have your kids at the kindergarten when you know that their teacher watches movies with titles as "child porn slaughter 3000" or "kindergarten rapist" at his spare time, or at work?
A good use for Smart Cards (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep your certificate on a Smart Card, and it's portable, safe, and convenient.
I'm not talking about science fiction here. I'm talking about technology already being used all over the world for mostly security and corporate applications.
The only other thing I'd like to see is for the system to be more anonymous.
Re:The real problem (Score:2)
I agree, although I'm not sure that this is a new attitude at all. Various local, state, and even federal laws have sought to restrict the sale of pornography for years.
What's changed is the scale of the restrictions. Previously, if Podunkville wanted to keep porn out of town, it could pass some local restrictions (or just boycott the stores that sold the stuff.) People rarely bothered to challenge these laws up through the chain of courts toward the SC. With the Internet, it's becoming increasingy difficult for blue laws to function. So new laws are being passed and enforced that effect us all.
A troll, but a good point. (Score:3, Insightful)
It may sound like a silly example, but where is the line drawn? How about if I draw a risque sketch of a partially unclad high school cheerleader type? I recall seeing a rather silly adult comic strip of a high school cheerleader like, totally getting molestered by some bizarro alien thingy. Illegal? How about those old cartoons they ran in Hustler back in the 70s and early 80s, called "Chester the Molester"? It wasn't for the purposes of porn, but rather to be funny, and in a sick schadenfreude sort of way they were often hilarious.
How about the computer game *Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation*? In it, Lara Croft was supposed to be 16 years old, and they showed the outlines of her patch through her shorts, and you were able to make her bend over in ways that would be provacative if she were real and not CG. Child porn?
How about the kicker: almost all Japanese anime. Sure the import companies go out of their way to say that all the girls are supposed to be 18 or older, but anyone who knows about anime/manga and Japanese culure knows that that's not true. Most of the time, if you know Japanese, you can tell that the characters say they're 13, 14, 15, 16, or in high school or junior high. Often they're in "adult situations" at one time or another. Child porn?
The fact is, when you outlaw anything that's "virtual" and doesn't involve real people, you're outlawing ideas and expression and art, not actions. You should outlaw actions, not ideas, in a "free" society.
Re:virtual childporn (Score:3, Interesting)
The way law stand at the moment if you simply wrote a novel with this happening then it might well be against the law in many places. However if you wrote a screenplay, cast adult actors (and if you are a big organisation who throws lots of money at US politicans) then its probably ok.
If a regular person did it then expect the US constitution (14th ammendment) to suddently be ignored...