Gary Coleman doesn't look 4. Gary Coleman barely looks 20. You are trying to defend child pornography by saying that in some stories it's ok because the 4 year old being tentacle raped is actually a 18 year old freshmen that was cursed by a witch or something.
Actually I'm defending the first amendment which, coincidentally covers child porn when it doesn't harm others. Oh, and when Coleman was actually twenty he didn't look legal.
That is just trying to make it ok to see the 4 year old being tentacle raped.
If no one is harmed it should be okay.
That is fine, but you guys have to understand why most people are going to think that is insane right?
I meant that you should at least understand why someone would find that a little messed up. Most high school students I see hate the government for no apparent reason. Why should drawings of kids being sexed up be completely unrestricted exactly?
I don't go with the whole "because it isn't real" excuse. I can see a difference between a drawing of a half wolf man going down on a dragon, but a realistic drawing of a 5 year old being jizzed on seems a bit too much.
Well, I, for one, think a realistic drawing of a 30-year old engaging in missionary sex with the naughty bits blocked out seems a bit too much. I also feel the same way about violence in video games.
What is so special about child pornography that makes its depiction in fiction specifically something that can be limited under the First Amendment, that doesn't apply to any other crime? What is the legal standard you're using?
Uh, because it's child pornography. I think we're on philosophical differences here. haha
I can't really explain in any technical terms why depictions of a 5 year being raped or messed up and should maybe be restricted in some way. I don't agree that the guy should go to jail for it, but he was found with real pictures right? I would think if you are into cartoons of kids being raped, you are probably into the real thing.
Here is something I was thinking about. What if it is a drawing of a real person? Is it not ok then? Say a guy was found to have had drawings of himself engaged with sex with children around the neighborhood. Should he be investigated or what?
Here is something I was thinking about. What if it is a drawing of a real person? Is it not ok then? Say a guy was found to have had drawings of himself engaged with sex with children around the neighborhood. Should he be investigated or what?
Did he have sex with them? No? Then it's just fucked up and not illegal because nothing wrong actually happened. Otherwise you just banned fictional retelling of child molestation based on true stories in the media because, hey, that child actor on the screen looks like the kid that was actually molested.
Or what if it's a person who stopped aging as a child like in that one Batman cartoon with the childhood TV star that was in her forties or something but still looked four.
You are still seeing a 4 year old having sex.
It's not the "child porn" part of this that I'm defending. This ruling means that you can take a pen and paper and draw something illegal, that would mean significant jail time for you and anyone with a copy of the drawing. If this ruling is upheld then those stick figures Durandal and Jeffe created really could be deemed child pornography by a court of law. Obviously no sane court would do that, but the point is that they could. That is crazy.
If that is the case, then yeah I agree with you and it is insane.
As long as were all on the same page that child porn is not cool and a little beyond icky.
"I can't really explain in any technical terms why depictions of a 5 year being raped or messed up and should maybe be restricted in some way."
Exactly. You can't explain in technical terms because it's just wrong to you. But I think that you've come to terms that there's nothing inherently illegal about this.
And about drawings of real people? I'd say it's not illegal so long as it's not hurting anyone. That means if it's circulated and ruins that person's reputation, the guy needs to be charged. A guy drawing himself fucking kids? I'd say it's legal. He's not showing it to anybody.
Well, practically speaking, the fact that McVeigh's actions mirrored events in the book. And I know, that's just one crazy out there, but through liberal applications of the law Pierce has been tried a few times but never convicted.
Or what if it's a person who stopped aging as a child like in that one Batman cartoon with the childhood TV star that was in her forties or something but still looked four.
You are still seeing a 4 year old having sex.
No they're not, they're forty. They just look like a kid. Or is it illegal for Gary Coleman to be in a porn?
Gary Coleman doesn't look 4. Gary Coleman barely looks 20. You are trying to defend child pornography by saying that in some stories it's ok because the 4 year old being tentacle raped is actually a 18 year old freshmen that was cursed by a witch or something.
That is just trying to make it ok to see the 4 year old being tentacle raped.
That is fine, but you guys have to understand why most people are going to think that is insane right?
Oh I totally understand why most people would think the above is insane.
It's because most people don't have the slightest comprehension of what "freedom of speech" means.
It's because most people don't understand exactly why live-action child pornography is banned in the first place.
It's because most people respond to things immediately and emotionally instead of taking the time to process and rationalize.
It's because most people don't want anything in the world to exist that falls outside of their precious, little comfort zone.
It's because most people are selfish.
And as for "normal" and "sane," a normal, sane person, one would presume, would appreciate the freedom of speech granted to us in the First Amendment, to the degree where they wouldn't be willing to give that up in the name of something that they find icky being allowed to exist. Of course, most "normal, sane" people don't think things like that through, because they're fucking idiots.
Insane people often think they are the ones that are in fact normal and not insane. :P
Well, practically speaking, the fact that McVeigh's actions mirrored events in the book. And I know, that's just one crazy out there, but through liberal applications of the law Pierce has been tried a few times but never convicted.
It isn't like this is the first time someone copied the events from a book.
Well, practically speaking, the fact that McVeigh's actions mirrored events in the book. And I know, that's just one crazy out there, but through liberal applications of the law Pierce has been tried a few times but never convicted.
It isn't like this is the first time someone copied the events from a book.
Crazy people will find a way to be crazy.
I, myself, am trying to recreate events depicted in The Kama Sutra.
Well, practically speaking, the fact that McVeigh's actions mirrored events in the book. And I know, that's just one crazy out there, but through liberal applications of the law Pierce has been tried a few times but never convicted.
It isn't like this is the first time someone copied the events from a book.
Crazy people will find a way to be crazy.
But I think there's a reasonable distinction between, say, Mark David Chapman reading from a Copy of Catcher in the Rye and whole groups of people getting heavily organized and trying to carry out the events of The Turner Diaries. Chapman is very clearly insane, whereas these people are simply hateful and don't appear to actually be suffering from any mental disorders. I mis-spoke earlier because it's not just one crazy, but several people, who knows how many if you include The Order.
To me, it's clear that this book has incited violence several times. There's a line that needs to be drawn. I'm not sure where, but it needs to happen before we get another McVeigh.
Well, practically speaking, the fact that McVeigh's actions mirrored events in the book. And I know, that's just one crazy out there, but through liberal applications of the law Pierce has been tried a few times but never convicted.
It isn't like this is the first time someone copied the events from a book.
Crazy people will find a way to be crazy.
But I think there's a reasonable distinction between, say, Mark David Chapman reading from a Copy of Catcher in the Rye and whole groups of people getting heavily organized and trying to carry out the events of The Turner Diaries. Chapman is very clearly insane, whereas these people are simply hateful and don't appear to actually be suffering from any mental disorders. I mis-spoke earlier because it's not just one crazy, but several people, who knows how many if you include The Order.
To me, it's clear that this book has incited violence several times. There's a line that needs to be drawn. I'm not sure where, but it needs to happen before we get another McVeigh.
Where do you draw the line, Hipster?
If I happened to write a fictional book in which one of the characters is a bigot/rascist and he shoots the gay/black president and someone plans out and actually assassinates the real president following the same guidelines/ideals as my fictional character, should I be held responsible?
Fiction should not be censored.
Well, practically speaking, the fact that McVeigh's actions mirrored events in the book. And I know, that's just one crazy out there, but through liberal applications of the law Pierce has been tried a few times but never convicted.
It isn't like this is the first time someone copied the events from a book.
Crazy people will find a way to be crazy.
But I think there's a reasonable distinction between, say, Mark David Chapman reading from a Copy of Catcher in the Rye and whole groups of people getting heavily organized and trying to carry out the events of The Turner Diaries. Chapman is very clearly insane, whereas these people are simply hateful and don't appear to actually be suffering from any mental disorders. I mis-spoke earlier because it's not just one crazy, but several people, who knows how many if you include The Order.
To me, it's clear that this book has incited violence several times. There's a line that needs to be drawn. I'm not sure where, but it needs to happen before we get another McVeigh.
I'm sorry, but I don't think "inspirational" is a valid reason to ban or censor a book. Sure, if it provides technical documents on how to make a bomb, then that's one thing. But if it's just a book that happens to inspire people - to bad or good - then that's just how it is. You can't ban or censor books on that foundation.
My question is, if texts depicting underage sex is kosher, does that mean that if one were to take a text, shrink the font and recolor the letters so that they acted as pixels in a child-pornographic picture, would it be prosecutable?
Or, an even better question: Why the hell am I thinking about this?
Well, I, for one, think a realistic drawing of a 30-year old engaging in missionary sex with the naughty bits blocked out seems a bit too much. I also feel the same way about violence in video games.
What is so special about child pornography that makes its depiction in fiction specifically something that can be limited under the First Amendment, that doesn't apply to any other crime? What is the legal standard you're using?
Uh, because it's child pornography. I think we're on philosophical differences here. haha
I can't really explain in any technical terms why depictions of a 5 year being raped or messed up and should maybe be restricted in some way. I don't agree that the guy should go to jail for it, but he was found with real pictures right? I would think if you are into cartoons of kids being raped, you are probably into the real thing.
Here is something I was thinking about. What if it is a drawing of a real person? Is it not ok then? Say a guy was found to have had drawings of himself engaged with sex with children around the neighborhood. Should he be investigated or what?
I would think that if you're into simulated murder, you're into real murder, as well. Played much WoW, lately?
I'm not objecting to him being prosecuted for the real, actual child pornography. That's fine.
And you can draw pictures of yourself having sex with whomever you want to. Again, First Amendment. Why should the government be able to tell you what you can and can't draw? And if it can, where, exactly, do we draw the line? What legal principle do we use to say "it's okay if the government bans drawing this, but not okay if they ban drawing that?"
Wonder_Hippie: Let me ask you this, and I'm especially curious because of your position on religion: If it was in your power to do so, would you ban The Bible? The Bible has inspired countless negative acts in modern society. Do you think it should be banned?
This is a fucked up decision. I have no idea where this court got any kind of precedent for this decision. All the precedent out there goes directly against it.
I'll await further details - there's gotta be some other explanation.
Well, practically speaking, the fact that McVeigh's actions mirrored events in the book. And I know, that's just one crazy out there, but through liberal applications of the law Pierce has been tried a few times but never convicted.
It isn't like this is the first time someone copied the events from a book.
Crazy people will find a way to be crazy.
But I think there's a reasonable distinction between, say, Mark David Chapman reading from a Copy of Catcher in the Rye and whole groups of people getting heavily organized and trying to carry out the events of The Turner Diaries. Chapman is very clearly insane, whereas these people are simply hateful and don't appear to actually be suffering from any mental disorders. I mis-spoke earlier because it's not just one crazy, but several people, who knows how many if you include The Order.
To me, it's clear that this book has incited violence several times. There's a line that needs to be drawn. I'm not sure where, but it needs to happen before we get another McVeigh.
Where do you draw the line, Hipster?
If I happened to write a fictional book in which one of the characters is a bigot/rascist and he shoots the gay/black president and someone plans out and actually assassinates the real president following the same guidelines/ideals as my fictional character, should I be held responsible?
Fiction should not be censored.
Normally I agree, but I think there are reasonable actions that can be taken on a case-by-case basis. Nevermind for a moment the martyr complex people that follow The Turner Diaries already have, I'm not speaking practically but rather hypothetically.
I think the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that I'm implicating this book in several highly consistent acts carried out by otherwise sane people, whereas your example is closer to the Mark David Chapman model. There is absolutely a difference, and you can see it when you see that so many people are unified by their interpretation and understand of the message and intent of the book - and I mean that they see it as an instruction to basically begin Manson's Helter Skelter - not when you have one or two crazies taking a piece of literature to unreasonable extremes.
Again, it's not a case of one person taking some piece of art to an unintended and extreme interpretation, it's a case of several groups of people performing acts of violence consistent with the book and its message.
Drez: I don't know if it does or not. I've wanted to read it, but can you imagine walking to the front of your library trying to check out that book? Maybe if I sandwiched it between Twilight books...
Wonder_Hippie: Let me ask you this, and I'm especially curious because of your position on religion: If it was in your power to do so, would you ban The Bible? The Bible has inspired countless negative acts in modern society. Do you think it should be banned?
I don't feel like I have to answer this because I'm not actually advocating for banning it.
Considering the people who did these acts were part of a hate group to begin with, doesn't that mean they would have done something along these lines anyway?
What makes the book so special that it causes sane men to become murderers?
Unfortunately, it seems like Obscenity applies here.
I mean, unless we're talking about this porn having serious artistic, literary, scientific, or political value. It's unsurprising that this decision was rendered.
However, I seem to be generally with everyone that unless speech directly provokes violence or criminal action (and is intended to do so). This would apply to written speech such as "Go out there and rape some people, now!" Not to speech such as "Jews are evil." If no causal link can be established between looking at this cartoon child porn and committing of any crime, then it's icky and I don't like it, but I don't like a lot of things.
The one weakness of my standard is that it requires proof of intent. I'm okay with it being hard to restrict speech.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
My question is, if texts depicting underage sex is kosher, does that mean that if one were to take a text, shrink the font and recolor the letters so that they acted as pixels in a child-pornographic picture, would it be prosecutable?
Or, an even better question: Why the hell am I thinking about this?
Unfortunately, it seems like Obscenity applies here.
I mean, unless we're talking about this porn having serious artistic, literary, scientific, or political value. It's unsurprising that this decision was rendered.
No, it is VERY surprising, considering the way the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past.
Medopine on
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
However, I seem to be generally with everyone that unless speech directly provokes violence or criminal action (and is intended to do so). This would apply to written speech such as "Go out there and rape some people, now!" Not to speech such as "Jews are evil." If no causal link can be established between looking at this cartoon child porn and committing of any crime, then it's icky and I don't like it, but I don't like a lot of things.
The one weakness of my standard is that it requires proof of intent. I'm okay with it being hard to restrict speech.
How do you feel about authors such as the Marquis de Sade?
Unfortunately, it seems like Obscenity applies here.
I mean, unless we're talking about this porn having serious artistic, literary, scientific, or political value. It's unsurprising that this decision was rendered.
No, it is VERY surprising, considering the way the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past.
In the very recent past. "Recent" as in "all of the justices who were in the majority are still on the court."
Wonder_Hippie: Let me ask you this, and I'm especially curious because of your position on religion: If it was in your power to do so, would you ban The Bible? The Bible has inspired countless negative acts in modern society. Do you think it should be banned?
I don't feel like I have to answer this because I'm not actually advocating for banning it.
So what are you advocating? What does "drawing a line" actually mean, then?
Considering the people who did these acts were part of a hate group to begin with, doesn't that mean they would have done something along these lines anyway?
What makes the book so special that it causes sane men to become murderers?
I'm starting from the results of the book and looking back. I don't have to know what special about it, I just have to know that it's consistently been enough to push the hateful people over the edge. I mean, they frequently cite it after conviction. It's the white supremacist's utopia gained by violence and, eventually, nuclear war wiping out all the non-whites and Jews. It's a powerful message, and it's been powerful enough several times.
Considering the people who did these acts were part of a hate group to begin with, doesn't that mean they would have done something along these lines anyway?
What makes the book so special that it causes sane men to become murderers?
I'm starting from the results of the book and looking back. I don't have to know what special about it, I just have to know that it's consistently been enough to push the hateful people over the edge. I mean, they frequently cite it after conviction. It's the white supremacist's utopia gained by violence and, eventually, nuclear war wiping out all the non-whites and Jews. It's a powerful message, and it's been powerful enough several times.
Wonder_Hippie: Let me ask you this, and I'm especially curious because of your position on religion: If it was in your power to do so, would you ban The Bible? The Bible has inspired countless negative acts in modern society. Do you think it should be banned?
I don't feel like I have to answer this because I'm not actually advocating for banning it.
So what are you advocating? What does "drawing a line" actually mean, then?
It's a simple concept, Drez. If there's a continuum from its current status where there are no legal ramifications associated with it in any way to a status where it is the ultimate contraband, we're all the way on one side, thusly:
[nothing]><
[worse punishment than mass murder]
I'm just saying maybe we need to push it right a few hash marks. It's been enough to consistently inspire violent acts, just maybe something needs to be done, a "line" needs to be "drawn" somewhere a little closer to that right side. It's a common thread, the intent of the book is clear, and it's basically instruction for white supremacists to overthrow the government and kill all non-whites. It presents absolutely no value otherwise.
Many of you here seem to be promoting the "I know it when I see it" argument when it comes to differentiating classes of pornography. That doesn't hold much water.
Wonder_Hippie: Let me ask you this, and I'm especially curious because of your position on religion: If it was in your power to do so, would you ban The Bible? The Bible has inspired countless negative acts in modern society. Do you think it should be banned?
I don't feel like I have to answer this because I'm not actually advocating for banning it.
So what are you advocating? What does "drawing a line" actually mean, then?
It's a simple concept, Drez. If there's a continuum from its current status where there are no legal ramifications associated with it in any way to a status where it is the ultimate contraband, we're all the way on one side, thusly:
[nothing]><
[worse punishment than mass murder]
I'm just saying maybe we need to push it right a few hash marks. It's been enough to consistently inspire violent acts, just maybe something needs to be done, a "line" needs to be "drawn" somewhere a little closer to that right side. It's a common thread, the intent of the book is clear, and it's basically instruction for white supremacists to overthrow the government and kill all non-whites. It presents absolutely no value otherwise.
Posts
If no one is harmed it should be okay.
Abloo fucking who they can suck it.
Uh, because it's child pornography. I think we're on philosophical differences here. haha
I can't really explain in any technical terms why depictions of a 5 year being raped or messed up and should maybe be restricted in some way. I don't agree that the guy should go to jail for it, but he was found with real pictures right? I would think if you are into cartoons of kids being raped, you are probably into the real thing.
Here is something I was thinking about. What if it is a drawing of a real person? Is it not ok then? Say a guy was found to have had drawings of himself engaged with sex with children around the neighborhood. Should he be investigated or what?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/obscene_publications_trial/
If that is the case, then yeah I agree with you and it is insane.
As long as were all on the same page that child porn is not cool and a little beyond icky.
Exactly. You can't explain in technical terms because it's just wrong to you. But I think that you've come to terms that there's nothing inherently illegal about this.
And about drawings of real people? I'd say it's not illegal so long as it's not hurting anyone. That means if it's circulated and ruins that person's reputation, the guy needs to be charged. A guy drawing himself fucking kids? I'd say it's legal. He's not showing it to anybody.
Oh I totally understand why most people would think the above is insane.
It's because most people don't have the slightest comprehension of what "freedom of speech" means.
It's because most people don't understand exactly why live-action child pornography is banned in the first place.
It's because most people respond to things immediately and emotionally instead of taking the time to process and rationalize.
It's because most people don't want anything in the world to exist that falls outside of their precious, little comfort zone.
It's because most people are selfish.
Insane people often think they are the ones that are in fact normal and not insane. :P
I kid. I kid.
I'm gonna go jack off to Pokemon now.
Crazy people will find a way to be crazy.
*high five*
I, myself, am trying to recreate events depicted in The Kama Sutra.
It's not working out so well just yet.
But I think there's a reasonable distinction between, say, Mark David Chapman reading from a Copy of Catcher in the Rye and whole groups of people getting heavily organized and trying to carry out the events of The Turner Diaries. Chapman is very clearly insane, whereas these people are simply hateful and don't appear to actually be suffering from any mental disorders. I mis-spoke earlier because it's not just one crazy, but several people, who knows how many if you include The Order.
To me, it's clear that this book has incited violence several times. There's a line that needs to be drawn. I'm not sure where, but it needs to happen before we get another McVeigh.
If I happened to write a fictional book in which one of the characters is a bigot/rascist and he shoots the gay/black president and someone plans out and actually assassinates the real president following the same guidelines/ideals as my fictional character, should I be held responsible?
Fiction should not be censored.
I'm sorry, but I don't think "inspirational" is a valid reason to ban or censor a book. Sure, if it provides technical documents on how to make a bomb, then that's one thing. But if it's just a book that happens to inspire people - to bad or good - then that's just how it is. You can't ban or censor books on that foundation.
Or, an even better question: Why the hell am I thinking about this?
I'm not objecting to him being prosecuted for the real, actual child pornography. That's fine.
And you can draw pictures of yourself having sex with whomever you want to. Again, First Amendment. Why should the government be able to tell you what you can and can't draw? And if it can, where, exactly, do we draw the line? What legal principle do we use to say "it's okay if the government bans drawing this, but not okay if they ban drawing that?"
I'll await further details - there's gotta be some other explanation.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Normally I agree, but I think there are reasonable actions that can be taken on a case-by-case basis. Nevermind for a moment the martyr complex people that follow The Turner Diaries already have, I'm not speaking practically but rather hypothetically.
I think the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that I'm implicating this book in several highly consistent acts carried out by otherwise sane people, whereas your example is closer to the Mark David Chapman model. There is absolutely a difference, and you can see it when you see that so many people are unified by their interpretation and understand of the message and intent of the book - and I mean that they see it as an instruction to basically begin Manson's Helter Skelter - not when you have one or two crazies taking a piece of literature to unreasonable extremes.
Again, it's not a case of one person taking some piece of art to an unintended and extreme interpretation, it's a case of several groups of people performing acts of violence consistent with the book and its message.
Drez: I don't know if it does or not. I've wanted to read it, but can you imagine walking to the front of your library trying to check out that book? Maybe if I sandwiched it between Twilight books...
I don't feel like I have to answer this because I'm not actually advocating for banning it.
What makes the book so special that it causes sane men to become murderers?
I mean, unless we're talking about this porn having serious artistic, literary, scientific, or political value. It's unsurprising that this decision was rendered.
However, I seem to be generally with everyone that unless speech directly provokes violence or criminal action (and is intended to do so). This would apply to written speech such as "Go out there and rape some people, now!" Not to speech such as "Jews are evil." If no causal link can be established between looking at this cartoon child porn and committing of any crime, then it's icky and I don't like it, but I don't like a lot of things.
The one weakness of my standard is that it requires proof of intent. I'm okay with it being hard to restrict speech.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
More importantly, what about ASCII porn?
No, it is VERY surprising, considering the way the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past.
How do you feel about authors such as the Marquis de Sade?
So what are you advocating? What does "drawing a line" actually mean, then?
I'm starting from the results of the book and looking back. I don't have to know what special about it, I just have to know that it's consistently been enough to push the hateful people over the edge. I mean, they frequently cite it after conviction. It's the white supremacist's utopia gained by violence and, eventually, nuclear war wiping out all the non-whites and Jews. It's a powerful message, and it's been powerful enough several times.
So what are you suggesting?
It's a simple concept, Drez. If there's a continuum from its current status where there are no legal ramifications associated with it in any way to a status where it is the ultimate contraband, we're all the way on one side, thusly:
[nothing]><
[worse punishment than mass murder]
I'm just saying maybe we need to push it right a few hash marks. It's been enough to consistently inspire violent acts, just maybe something needs to be done, a "line" needs to be "drawn" somewhere a little closer to that right side. It's a common thread, the intent of the book is clear, and it's basically instruction for white supremacists to overthrow the government and kill all non-whites. It presents absolutely no value otherwise.
So... what are you suggesting?