4101. cllrdr - April 16, 1999 - 8:04 AM PT
Which laws are you talking about? And what societal ill do they supposedly cure? The state cannot control people's minds. Neither can the church -- though that hasn't stopped it from trying. Laws preventing adults from taking unwanted sexual advantage of children seem perfectly reasonable to me, provided they are couched in the same terms utilized for laws prohibiting adults from taking unwanted sexual advantage of each other. What complicates the issue isn't "morality," but the fact that children are property.
4102. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 8:59 AM PT
PM:
"You can live in a society that decides child pornography is an acceptable form of free speech or you can argue that these things are so hard to define that laws don't need to be on the books in which case you make my life harder to raise my children (as yet unborn) properly as they become more vulnerable outside of my home."
What kind of laws are you referring to?
I'm pretty much against all laws that criminalize the creation, possession or circulation of any written or graphic material, except in certain narrowly-defined circumstances where the state's interests are overwhelming.
4103. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 9:09 AM PT
Proposed Law
"It will be illegal to distribute, disseminate or possess photographs, videotape or film of minors depicted in lewd, obscene and/or lascivious manners."
Objection: what the hell does lewd, obscene and lacivious mean?
Rejoinder: the aim of the law is so paramount that its inherent lack of clarity must be suffered, and, in fact, we must rely on juries to set forth applicable definitions and make judgments.
Reality: you either trust the system to parse between "Pretty Baby"/"The Tin Drum" and child pornography (with the expectation that hot-button, closer-to-the-line cases will occur) or you decriminalize child pornography with the rationale that better 100 children be abused than 1 borderline artists be charged in Ithaca, New York or Plattsburg, Tennessee.
4104. JJBiener - April 16, 1999 - 9:09 AM PT
Clldrdr - re #4101: What? Children are property? Law against only UNWANTED sex with children? What planet are you on?
4105. FreetoChoose - April 16, 1999 - 9:21 AM PT
elliot803
“…except in certain narrowly-defined circumstances where the state's interests are overwhelming.”
Now there's a loophole you could drive a truck through.
4106. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 9:27 AM PT
109109:
What evidence do you have to support the claim that the law you propose would in fact reduce the amount of child abuse? (Your made-up numbers are worthless). Simply asserting that a law infringing free speech is justified because the stakes are so high is not sufficient. The costs of the your law go far beyond the occasional wrongful conviction of an artist.
4107. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 9:28 AM PT
FTC:
"Now there's a loophole you could drive a truck through."
Hardly.
4108. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 9:30 AM PT
NinerBeFree has the extreme right wing disease: the inability to distinguish between acts and depictions.
4109. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 9:34 AM PT
elliot
There are significant arrests and convictions for child pornography every year. Does it deter others? I don't know. Is deterrence a requirement for your support of hate crime laws?
As for the law, I am proposing the staus quo (my law is essentially a short form for most child porn laws).
Are you proposing the decriminalization of child pornography laws?
4110. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 9:37 AM PT
NinerBeFree: "my law is essentially a short form for most child porn laws"
Essentially, no it is not.
4111. PsychProf - April 16, 1999 - 9:43 AM PT
Cellar...please explain what a "wanted sex act" is, between a 4 year old and an adult...I refer to Message #4101
4112. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 9:48 AM PT
109109:
"There are significant arrests and convictions for child pornography every year. Does it deter others? I don't know."
No, and I don't think anyone does. That's the problem. If the laws don't deter behavior that victimizes children, they are simply an unjust violation of people's First Amendment rights.
"Is deterrence a requirement for your support of hate crime laws?"
No.
"As for the law, I am proposing the staus quo (my law is essentially a short form for most child porn laws)."
The status quo is wrong. And it's in a state of flux, anyway. A recent attempt to protect children from sexual exploitation, the Communications Decency Act, was found by the courts to be unconstitutional. And the "obscenity" standard currently in use by the courts, relying as it does on vague and subjective "community standards," is becoming increasingly untenable.
"Are you proposing the decriminalization of child pornography laws?"
What do you mean by "child pornography laws?" I support laws that criminalize the sexual abuse of children.
4113. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 9:55 AM PT
I think the Internet has already demonstrated that you can no longer effectively legislate what kind of written and graphic material people consume, if in fact you ever could. And the ability of the government to censor such material is only going to get even more limited as the online world grows.
4114. JJBiener - April 16, 1999 - 10:05 AM PT
elliot - "That's the problem. If the laws don't deter behavior that victimizes children, they are simply an unjust violation of people's First Amendment rights."
Not true. If the laws punish those who victimize children then they do have value whether they act as a deterrent to others or not. If the laws prescribe isolation such that the offender can not repeat his offense then that has value as well.
I agree that the definition 109 provided is not sufficient. I would prefer something like: Child pornography is the explicit depiction of a child engaged in a sexual act.
This would allow for artistic simulation, medical/scientific uses, etc. while preventing the exploitation of children for sexual purposes.
Your thoughts?
4115. cllrdr - April 16, 1999 - 10:06 AM PT
PsychProf -- I guess I didn't make myself clear. I can't imagine what would be "wanted"from anyone. Laws, for the most part, pertain to the "unwanted," and that's what's at issue. Children are not supposed to be able to have "wants" of any kind -- unlike adults.
4116. cllrdr - April 16, 1999 - 10:08 AM PT
"4104. JJBiener - April 16, 1999 - 9:09 AM PT
Clldrdr - re #4101: What? Children are property? Law against only UNWANTED sex with children? What planet are you on?"
Earth calling J.J. See previous post re "unwanted." And yes -- children are property.
4117. JJBiener - April 16, 1999 - 10:09 AM PT
elliot - "I think the Internet has already demonstrated that you can no longer effectively legislate what kind of written and graphic material people consume, if in fact you ever could."
My concern is with those who consume, but rather with those who produce. Once it gets to the consumer, the damage has already been done. I see little benefit in making them the focus of the issue. They may have contributed and enabled the producers, but I see that as far less of a crime. I much prefer that the efforts be limited to the producers and that the consequences be harsh (if not brutal).
4118. cllrdr - April 16, 1999 - 10:10 AM PT
Elliot's #4113 answers JJ's #4114.
4120. JJBiener - April 16, 1999 - 10:11 AM PT
cllrdr - I second PP question's. What represents a "wanted sex act" with a child? How do figure that children are property? Children have rights as individuals. Property does not.
4121. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 10:16 AM PT
JJBiener:
"If the laws punish those who victimize children then they do have value whether they act as a deterrent to others or not."
As I said, I support laws that punish the sexual abuse of children. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about laws that punish simply possessing or creating or circulating depictions of sexual acts involving children, such as the law 109109 proposed in his earlier message.
"I agree that the definition 109 provided is not sufficient. I would prefer something like: Child pornography is the explicit depiction of a child engaged in a sexual act."
The Tin Drum contained a depiction of a child engaged in a sexual act. I don't see how your proposal exempts "artistic simulation" or "medical/scientific uses" at all.
4123. cllrdr - April 16, 1999 - 10:18 AM PT
What "rights" are you talking about. Children are "in custody" to their parents, no? Wives were considerd property too once. Right along with livestock. What's the big deal?
4127. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT
JJBiener:
"My concern is with those who consume, but rather with those who produce."
But what do you mean by "produce?" If someone makes a crude line drawing of an adult and a child having sex, is that "producing child pornography" in your opinion? What about a collage of photos cut out of magazines? Or a photo-realistic computer graphics image or video? It is already possible to produce film and video simulations of children engaged in sexual acts that are indistiguishable from "real" child porn. And that ability will soon be available to almost any private individual on an inexpensive home computer, and the results could be made available almost instantly to millions of people via the Internet. Any hope of legislating such material away is surely doomed.
4128. PsychProf - April 16, 1999 - 10:26 AM PT
Cellar...many children "want" the attention that adult sexual abuse brings...I cannot overestimate the number of abusers who indicate that the child "enjoyed" their sexual "relationship". BTW, if children are property, they belong in some way to all of us...
4129. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 10:28 AM PT
It's simply a conservative ploy to limit free speech.
4130. JJBiener - April 16, 1999 - 10:30 AM PT
elliot - I haven't seen Tin Drum, but my understanding that it does not explicitly show a child in a sexual act. It uses the same kind of techniques used in other movies where sex between two people appears to be occuring but no real sex act takes place.
I agree that merely possessing child pornography doesn't harm the child and punishment is more trouble than it is worth. I would punish those who create and distribute it. They may not be the ones who actually engaged in the abuse, but they are the ones ultimately responsible for it and they are the ones who profit from it. Obviously, the individual on film who engaged in the act is guilty as all hell and should receive serious injury, uh, punishment.
4131. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 10:34 AM PT
JJBiener:
I still don't know what you mean by "produce." If you mean "produce" in a way that involves actual abuse of a real child, then I fully support making it a criminal offense. But if you mean simply producing depictions of children having sex that do not involve actual abuse, then I consider laws that criminalize such activity both unjust and unworkable, for the reasons I have described.
4132. JJBiener - April 16, 1999 - 10:38 AM PT
elliot - My concern is with people who exploit children. I have my doubts about the technology you describe and if such becomes possible, I will consider it then. In the here and now I believe that the use of children in sexually explicit products should be illegal and those who produce and profit from it should be prosecuted.
4134. JJBiener - April 16, 1999 - 10:43 AM PT
Elliot - I was very careful to include only depictions of actual abuse. That is why I used the word "explicit". In film and video, it is the term I've seen used to distinguish between the films for "mature" audiences and the hardcore porn.
4135. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 10:51 AM PT
Wiener: "My concern is with people who exploit children."
Nonsense. Your concern is with promulgating laws to restrict or abridge free speech. I find it odd that you would support GOFP efforts to deny children welfare, health insurance, and access to education. However, your solution to stop the exploitation of children is to make it unlawful for someone to write a book like "Lolita" or make a movie like "Tin Drum" or "Pretty Baby."
Children are not property, contrary to the libertarian or Xtian Coalition view. It is against the law to force or compel children to participate or engage in sexual acts.
4136. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 10:52 AM PT
JJBiener:
Well, then it seems to me that your position is essentially the same as mine: that it is the production of child pornography that involves the actual sexual abuse of a real child that should be criminalized, rather than simply the possession or circulation of material that depicts sexual acts involving children.
I might, by the way, be persuaded to support criminalization of the latter if it were shown that such a law reduced actual abuse, but I don't think such a demonstration is possible (not least because I don't think the law has that effect).
4137. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 10:57 AM PT
Yes, the recent film version of Lolita is another good example of something that was effectively censored for many Americans in part because of legal concerns arising from vague anti-child pornography laws.
4139. JJBiener - April 16, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
Jade - Here is a suggestion. Why don't you try reading what I write instead of trying to dictate to me what I believe. When your done with that you might try the same thing with the Republican party. We've been at this for years now, and you have failed to learn a thing. A pathetic showing to say the least.
4140. JJBiener - April 16, 1999 - 12:00 PM PT
Elliot - The only real difference I see in our positions is that I would punish those who profit from child pornography. It may not make a difference in the number of offenses, but it is behavior that I find reprehensible enough to warrant sanction.
4141. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 12:01 PM PT
Wiener;
I've not misrepresented a thing that you've said here or elsewhere. And I've not mischaracterized the policy or agenda of the GOFP.
I cannot help that you are embarrassed when contradictions in what passes for your thought processes are pointed out.
4142. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 12:02 PM PT
Wiener;
Define 'pornography.'
4145. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
Lolita was not "effectively censored" for legal concerns. It did get some theater bookings, and airs constantly on Showtime.
The problem it had with distribution is that no major studio wanted to touch it (not uncommon, they are fobbing off Dogma as well), and the price the producers were asking was pretty high (the film had about a $50 million budget). I don't know if I can blame a major studio for passing on an expensive, risky, controversial movie which wasn't even getting good reviews.
Ironically, Blockbuster video, which is famous for having a policy of not renting NC-17 films, nabbed exclusive distribution rights in the US for the Lolita videotape.
4146. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
Joe pays Blow $1000 to cruise the streets, pick up an 11 year old boy, and have Blow perform fellatio upon the boy, while Trixie films the act. No force or compulsion is used upon the boy. Blow merely asks if the boy would let him perform fellatio upon him while the camera is rolling. The boy agrees. Trixie films the act and delivers the tape to Joe.
Joe then publicly and privately places the video for sale. Gary buys it from Frank's Smut Shop and views it.
Andrea then gets a hold of the tape (it is given to him as a gift). She incorporates frames of the sex act into a larger piece of visual art, a documentary on child pornography.
Under the varying positions set forth (which are noticeably silent on actual law or how it might work, but strong on bromides), I'd like to hear everyone's views on the criminal culpability of the players.
Should Joe be criminally culpable (the mastermind)?
Should Blow (the actor)?
Should Trixie? (the director)
Should Gary (the purchaser)?
Should Frank (the middleman)?
Should Andrea (the documentarian)?
4147. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
Joe, Blow, Trixie are definitely criminally culpable.
Frank may be.
4148. trouserPilot - April 16, 1999 - 12:45 PM PT
I say: throw the book at that 11-year-old. What's he doing roaming the streets?
4149. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 12:46 PM PT
elliot
"Well, then it seems to me that your position is essentially the same as mine: that it is the production of child pornography that involves the actual sexual abuse of a real child that should be criminalized, rather than simply the possession or circulation of material that depicts sexual acts involving children."
Under this test, to prosecute child pornography, the threshold question is "Was the anal penetration of the 13 year-old 'actual sexual abuse'?" So, the 13 year old becomes a witness for cross-examination in the criminal trial:
Q. Come on? You loved it, didn't you?
Then, even is deemed '"actual sexual abuse," under this test, the buyer and the seller and the distributor and the funder are clean free. Only the actor - the one who penetrated the 13 year old - is criminally culpable.
4151. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
109: I might let Andrea off the hook, but I would sooner risk having her thrown in jail than let the other pederasts go free.
4152. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
Psychprof:
These is no such thing as a "wanted" sex act between a 4 year old and an adult. But there could easily be between a 16 year old and an adult. Existing laws usually do not distinguish between the two. They assume that all adult-child sex is equally harmful. And that all persons under an arbitrary age are equally childish.
4153. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 12:49 PM PT
Message #4149 is nonsense.
Again, NinerBeFree attempts to create hypotheticals about his own hypothetical.
4154. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT
Rask
Andrea too, for me, but with a lesser sentence.
4155. PSEUDOERASMUS - April 16, 1999 - 12:54 PM PT
Re the child pornography discussion, I don't understand why you are all talking about distractions like Lolita or the Tin Drum. Elliot wants to decriminalise visual records not just of simulated sex acts involving children but also of children being actually sexually abused. The latter seems to me the more arguable and objectionable part of his argument. Would Elliot, who wishes to legalise the consumption if not the production of child pornography involving actual sex acts, also permit the consumption if not the production of goods based on elephant ivory, rhino horns, gorilla limbs, zebra & lion hides, etc.?
4156. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
elliot stated:
"that it is the production of child pornography that involves the actual sexual abuse of a real child that should be criminalized, rather than simply the possession or circulation of material that depicts sexual acts involving children."
I think this is absolutely contrary to another view - there will be no inquiry as to whether it is "actual sexual abuse of a real child." In short, it will be an unrebuttable presumption that if you penetrate a 13 year old with your penis, and you are over the age of majority, you have committed a crime. And if you film it, watch it, sell the visual imagery therefrom, you will also be criminally culpable.
Now, can there be mitigation? Of course. If the child represented him or herself as 18 and looks same, this would certainly factor into sentencing. If the defendant was 19 and the victim were 17, of course.
4157. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 1:02 PM PT
NinerBeFree;
Can you get a partial refund from Catholic U? You are due one.
4158. trouserPilot - April 16, 1999 - 1:02 PM PT
I think elliot803 would indeed object to the production of goods based on children's teeth or hides. Though I hesitate to speak for him.
4159. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 1:07 PM PT
This is also way too abstract a discussion for something which is already on the books and is enforced constantly. How many Andreas are arrested under kiddie porn laws? How many Tin Drums and Lolitas have been banned? How many kiddie porn consumers have been arrested? Have their arrests been used to nail distributers?
One of the chief advantages I see of the criminalization of kiddie porn is that you have considerable legal leverage. You can let off the consumer if he helps you nail distributers, and can plea bargain with the distributer if he helps you nail the producers. If only the producers and adult actors are culpable, catching them will be extremely difficult.
4160. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 1:07 PM PT
Of course, the latter is speculation. I am just wondering if anyone actually knows anything about how this stuff works in practice.
4161. trouserPilot - April 16, 1999 - 1:10 PM PT
"How many kiddie porn consumers have been arrested?"
Yes, let's have a show of hands.
4162. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 1:11 PM PT
"Should Joe be criminally culpable (the mastermind)?"
Yes, if Joe is an adult. What if Joe is a minor? Where would you draw the line?
"Should Blow (the actor)?"
Yes, if Blow is an adult. What if Blow is a minor? What if Blow is a ten year old girl?
"Should Trixie? (the director)"
See above.
As to the others, they didn't do anything to the boy in question. Why should they be legally culpable?
4163. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
Under this test, to prosecute child pornography, the threshold question is "Was the anal penetration of the 13 year-old 'actual sexual abuse'?" So, the 13 year old becomes a witness for cross-examination in the criminal trial:
What about drawing or written/verbal descriptions? What about films that imply without showing? These are considered pornography yet involve no abuse of a real child. You have such a narrow mindset to not have thought of this.
4164. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 1:16 PM PT
Rask;
I have no problem with levying criminal penalties against distributors if intent to produce, obtain, or distribute kiddie porn was established. As for the consumer---I think it would be nigh unto impossible to prove such intent.
Look at perhaps the most famous case of kiddie porn--the Tracy Lords case.
More difficult is what constitutes kiddie porn. Obviously, if we see children being abused ---that's porno. But, what of the more subtle cases such as the "Our Bodies, Our Selves" case? Do pictures of nude children constitute pornography?
4165. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 1:18 PM PT
Rask, you've got it backwards. Typically you hit the distributor who then turns over his clientel to stay out of jail. This maximizes convictions which looks good on the prosecutors record.
4166. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 1:23 PM PT
"I have no problem with levying criminal penalties against distributors if intent to produce, obtain, or distribute kiddie porn was established. As for the consumer---I think it would be nigh unto impossible to prove such intent."
Why this standard? I get the impression that it isn't too tought to lock up kiddie porn consumers as is.
What is wrong with the current laws, as executed. Currently, "Our Bodies, Ourselves" books, Pediatric textbooks, and videotapes of "Lolita", are easy to obtain.
We don't need to worry about most hypotheticals, since the laws are already on the books.
4167. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 1:24 PM PT
AuNat:"Rask, you've got it backwards. Typically you hit the distributor who then turns over his clientel to stay out of jail. This maximizes convictions which looks good on the prosecutors record."
Are the consumers then pressed for other distributers? Are producers ever nailed?
4168. JadeGold - April 16, 1999 - 1:31 PM PT
Rask;
Again, I'm sure it is relatively easy to round up consumers of prurient materials. That's not the point. The purpose is to ensure that we are getting the consumer (or demand side) of the kiddie porn market. Take a look at the Tracy Lords case---that's kiddie porn. Are you prepared to prosecute everyone who saw a Tracy Lords film?
As for the "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and "Tin Drum" and "Lolita" cases; every now and again, some conservative group feels the need to brand this as pornography. Retailers and consumers continually have their rights trampled in these cases.
4169. Jenerator - April 16, 1999 - 1:34 PM PT
Jade,
How would you feel if some man took your child (lets say aged four) and raped him/her anally and took pictures of the event and sold them in a magazine.
Would you have any problems with your neighbor looking at the pictures? Of course you would!
4170. trouserPilot - April 16, 1999 - 1:38 PM PT
To All:
Feel free to ignore any argument that begins with "How would you feel if this happened to you...?"
Idiot.
4171. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 1:43 PM PT
"Take a look at the Tracy Lords case---that's kiddie porn. Are you prepared to prosecute everyone who saw a Tracy Lords film?"
Uh, oh, I saw John Waters' "Crybaby". Guess it is time to head to Canada.
Seriously, I don't know what happened in the Traci Lords case. Were any consumers of her movies prosecuted?
"As for the "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and "Tin Drum" and "Lolita" cases; every now and again, some conservative group feels the need to brand this as pornography. Retailers and consumers continually have their rights trampled in these cases."
In what way? I wouldn't be surprised if there are such cases, I am just wondering how frequent and damaging they are. Then we still need to know the extent to which the laws have succeeded in curbing kiddie porn, whether through severely reducing demand or in providing avenues to attack distributers and producers.
4172. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 1:43 PM PT
Rask:
"Lolita was not "effectively censored" for legal concerns. It did get some theater bookings, and airs constantly on Showtime."
I said, "effectively censored for many Americans" meaning that it was not widely distributed and shown, in part because of legal concerns arising from obscenity and child porn laws. Censorship means more than just a straigtforward government ban.
4173. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
"Are the consumers then pressed for other distributers? Are producers ever nailed?"
Only an idiot would produce kiddie porn in the US. You do it in France where 13 is legal. Or some country where nobody gives a shit what you do. Can't nail them as they are violating no local law.
What happens is the mailing lists get seized which are then used in sting (sometimes entrappment) operations.
Another point to consider: Titanic is technically kiddie porn. Those boobs you see are on a 17 year old character. That's a 17 year old character engaging in simsex on the screen. Doesn't matter that the person playing the character is over 18.
4175. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 1:48 PM PT
Re: Message #4146. The people involved in the production of the film that involved the sexual abuse of the child should be held criminally liable. The others should not.
4176. cllrdr - April 16, 1999 - 1:48 PM PT
How would you feel if you were murdered?
How would you feel if your wife ran off with Wolf Blitzer?
How would you feel if Trouserpilot became coach of the local college football team?
How would you feel if your husband ran off with Elliot?
How would you feel if Bobo registered as a Liberal Democrat?
How would you feel if Boomer were transformed into an asteroid that was about to crash into the earth in three days?
All easy question.
4179. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 1:52 PM PT
pseudo:
"Would Elliot, who wishes to legalise the consumption if not the production of child pornography involving actual sex acts, also permit the consumption if not the production of goods based on elephant ivory, rhino horns, gorilla limbs, zebra & lion hides, etc.?"
No.
4182. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 1:54 PM PT
AuNat: so why wasn't Jim Cameron arrested (or Zefferelli for R&J for that matter)?
I assume the answer is that there is broad discretion in enforcement, and juries have additional discretion in choosing whether to convict.
I imagine this is partially why there aren't statutory rape sting operations in high school, trying to catch those 18 year olds having sex with 17 year olds. Should we also get rid of statutory rape laws?
4185. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 1:57 PM PT
Can we at least agree that the following should remain perfectly legal:
Depictions of sexual activity that are created without live models who are minors. (Painting, drawing, animation, claymation, etc.)
Depictions of minors who are nude but not engaged in sexual activity.
Depictions of adults made to appear like minors.
Writtten or verbal depictions.
4187. Jenerator - April 16, 1999 - 1:58 PM PT
Au,
I have a problem with this one:
"Depictions of minors who are nude but not engaged in sexual activity."
4189. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
Jen: you want the makers of the Coppertone billboard to serve hard time?
4191. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 2:01 PM PT
109109:
"I think this is absolutely contrary to another view - there will be no inquiry as to whether it is "actual sexual abuse of a real child.""
Huh? How is what I said "absolutely contrary" to the "view" that "there will be no inquiry as the whether it is" genuine abuse? And if it is, so what?
"In short, it will be an unrebuttable presumption that if you penetrate a 13 year old with your penis, and you are over the age of majority, you have committed a crime."
I think there probably should be a (rebuttable) presumption of that. Whether "it will be an unrebuttable presumption" depends on the law, which is what we're debating.
"And if you film it, watch it, sell the visual imagery therefrom, you will also be criminally culpable."
Film it--yes. Watch it--no. Sell it--depends. For the reasons I have already given.
As is often the case, it's hard to find a coherent argument in your post.
4192. cllrdr - April 16, 1999 - 2:01 PM PT
Actually I want Jodie Foster to serve hard time.
4193. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:02 PM PT
Jen:
You'd feel like suing the bastard who published the photos. I bet you leave him penniless and in the gutter.
The guy who took the photos would suddenly die when he was released from prison. So would the guy who did the rape.
4194. Jenerator - April 16, 1999 - 2:02 PM PT
Rask,
No, I just think that "pics of nude minors" needs to be more specific. For example, I've seen Mapplethorpe's "non-sexual" photos of minors, and some were offensive and inappropriate.
4195. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 2:04 PM PT
"Depictions of sexual activity that are created without live models who are minors. (Painting, drawing, animation, claymation, etc.)"
I don't like it, but I can't put my finger on a sound reason why I would ban it, off the top of my head.
"Depictions of minors who are nude but not engaged in sexual activity."
I would rephrase as something like "not for purposes of sexual titillation". Not sure on the exact wording, but I would probably want to ban an adolescent version of Playboy or Penthouse.
"Depictions of adults made to appear like minors."
No problem.
"Writtten or verbal depictions."
No problem.
4196. trouserPilot - April 16, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Let's prosecute the guy who took that photo of the naked Vietnamese girl running from her bombed village.
I agree with AuNatural's list. There are plenty of "legitimate" uses for photos of children (someone cited pediatric texts; "Our Bodies Our Selves" had a pretty benign intent). You can't forbid something just because someone might find a prurient use for it. I can find a prurient angle to watching a baseball game. Of course, I'm especially ingenious.
4197. Jenerator - April 16, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Oops, Message #4194 should be addressed to AuNatural. (sorry about that Rask)
4198. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Jen: ok. I have problems as well, but I wouldn't categorically ban nude depictions of minors.
4199. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:06 PM PT
Jen:
"Depictions of minors who are nude but not
engaged in sexual activity."
Good grief. I have nude photos of myself as a teenager. I'm a kiddie porn victim and criminal at the same time!
4200. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:07 PM PT
"Actually I want Jodie Foster to serve hard time."
Brooke Shields, too. And Olivia Hussey.