4202. Jenerator - April 16, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
Rask,
I never said "ban", I said "I had a problem" with the phrase.
Au,
Where did I say that you qualified as a victim and criminal? If I recall correctly, I didn't state qualifications and/or restrictions.
4203. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:09 PM PT
"For example, I've seen Mapplethorpe's "non-sexual" photos of minors, and some were offensive and inappropriate."
Huh? Since when did Mapplethorpe do minors? The Cleveland exhibit was completely exhonerated of porn charges by a jury.
4204. Jenerator - April 16, 1999 - 2:13 PM PT
Okay, I see what's going on. The "freakazoid, dumb-ass blonde, thumper" aka Jenerator has attempted to talk about child pornography. But instead of any of you simply discussing it with me (gosh, we may even have similar views on certain aspects of it), you must try and attack me personally, make fun of me, and make up stuff about my views.
Fine, I leave you all to your clique.
Enjoy.
4205. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 2:15 PM PT
Rask:
"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?"
Don't know. But it seems to me the burden rests with those who support the censorship and criminalization to justify it. And what law are you referring to that is already on the books and is enforced constantly?
"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."
But what has the consumer done that justifies criminal punishment? Answer: He has viewed material you believe he should not have viewed. If you argue that he is partly responsible for the production of the material, then I think you have to prove that.
4207. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 2:23 PM PT
elliot
"If you argue that he is partly responsible for the production of the material, then I think you have to prove that."
Why? Modern drug and prostitution laws assume, rightly or wrongly, that the demand feeds the supply, and hence, culpability is on provider AND the user.
The assumptions seem valid. After all, if no one bought child pornography, sexual services or illegal drugs, production would certainly diminish.
The heart of this matteris that you don't see enough of a threat to the victims in these cases, so you ratchet up the need of justification.
For example, what if the buyer was not purchasing sex, child porn, or drugs, but rather, snuff films.
In order to criminalize viewing of the murder of another human being, must we also first "prove" (your words) the the viewer is "responsible for the production of the material"?
4208. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 2:30 PM PT
Rask:
"What is wrong with the current laws, as executed."
It is a violation of First Amendment rights for the government to punish people simply for viewing or reading material the government does not want them to view.
In any case, as I said, with the advent of the mass availability of tools for producing fake porn that is indistinguishable from real porn, and mass worldwide distribution over electronic networks, the ability of the government to legislate what people view and read has already more or less ended. For all practical purposes, there really is no way of preventing the mass distribution and consumption of any kind of material even now, unless it is tightly controlled at the source. Obscenity laws are already largely unenforceable on the Internet, and will become increasingly so.
4209. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:35 PM PT
"Modern drug and prostitution laws assume, rightly or wrongly, that the demand feeds the supply, and hence, culpability is on provider AND the user."
And we can all see how effectively that has worked.
"In order to criminalize viewing of the murder of another human being, must we also first "prove" (your words) the the viewer is "responsible for the production of the material"?"
Yes. Not only that but you have to prove that a real murder took place. In "snuff" films it is so easy to be realistic with the special effects you cannot tell from the film itself whether murder actually took place.
4210. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 2:37 PM PT
109109:
"Why? Modern drug and prostitution laws assume, rightly or wrongly, that the demand feeds the supply, and hence, culpability is on provider AND the user."
I don't think you'll find much sympathy for existing drug and prostitution laws around here, and for essentially the same reason: the government has no business telling people what to do with their bodies, sexually or otherwise. If someone gets off on looking at pictures of kids having sex, that's his business, and the government shouldn't have the power to punish him for doing so.
"The heart of this matteris that you don't see enough of a threat to the victims in these cases, so you ratchet up the need of justification."
What victim? Where is the "victim" in someone voluntarily looking at a picture of something?
"For example, what if the buyer was not purchasing sex, child porn, or drugs, but rather, snuff films."
Same thing. You shouldn't be prosecuted just for looking at something.
4211. zerosumgame - April 16, 1999 - 2:37 PM PT
"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."
Elliot, that is wrong in all the states I know of, it could be an 11 year old boy with a 13 year old girl seducing him, and the boy will be charged. After all we all know that all girls are "nice", just like Monica...
4212. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 2:38 PM PT
elliot
"It is a violation of First Amendment rights for the government to punish people simply for viewing or reading material the government does not want them to view."
False. The government simply does not want people viewing or reading the following material: child pornography films and photos of snuffs, films and photos of bestiality.
Indeed, in many jurisidictions, the government does not allow people to view penetration, and the poor inhabitants of Cobb County, Georgia are left with soft-core, cable porn.
None of which runs afoul of the First Amendment, only your minority reading of its application
4213. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 2:38 PM PT
zerosumgame:
I didn't say that, 109109 did. And you've misread his statement, anyway.
4214. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
elliot: "Don't know. But it seems to me the burden rests with those who support the censorship and criminalization to justify it. And what law are you referring to that is already on the books and is enforced constantly? "
Actually, the burden of proof is usually considered to lie with those who seek to change the status quo. As for the laws, are you asking for statute numbers? If so, I don't know them.
4215. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
109109:
"False. The government simply does not want people viewing or reading the following material: child pornography films and photos of snuffs, films and photos of bestiality."
It is not false. As I said, that's a violation of the First Amendment.
"Indeed, in many jurisidictions, the government does not allow people to view penetration,.."
Really? Where?
4216. JADEGOLD - April 16, 1999 - 2:42 PM PT
NinerBeFree: "Why? Modern drug and prostitution laws assume, rightly or wrongly, that the demand feeds the supply, and hence, culpability is on provider AND the user."
Nope. You aren't a lawyer.
Big difference. Consumers of illicit drugs and prostitution do not want fantasy cocaine or a fantasy hooker. They want real drugs or a real hooker. Not so with viewers of pornography; they may only want the fantasy of sexual relations. The crime is with the act not the imagining of same.
"In order to criminalize viewing of the murder of another human being, must we also first "prove" (your words) the the viewer is reponsible for the production of the material"?
Sure. Acion films often top the box office charts; our appetite is to see films depicting carnage, brutality, and horrible acts. Do we really wish that a Dirty Harry guns down an entire city block? No. But we like to watch it on video.
4217. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
elliot
"I don't think you'll find much sympathy for existing drug and prostitution laws around here, and for essentially the same reason: the government has no business telling people what to do with their bodies, sexually or otherwise. If someone gets off on looking at pictures of kids having sex, that's his business, and the government shouldn't have the power to punish him for doing so."
Not all of us are that concerned with sympathy from the masses. Regardless, rightly or wrongly, the assumption is that if demand hurts, supply hurts.
"What victim? Where is the "victim" in someone voluntarily looking at a picture of something?"
If someone purchases snuff films of homosexuals, they increase supply. They are, after all, demand.
"Same thing. You shouldn't be prosecuted just for looking at something."
This is too cute by half. No one is talking about a man in an alley saying "Psssst. Elliot, look at this" and then lo and behold, before you knew it, you'd seen a snuff film. What about buying it, knowing what the product was prior to purchase?
4219. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:46 PM PT
Elliot --
"It is a violation of First Amendment rights for the government to punish people simply for viewing or reading material the government does not want them to view."
There have always been community standards, both implicit and explicit, that have curtailed your "fundamentalist" view (not much different from a Thumper's view on the Bible) of the first amendment.
"In any case, as I said, with the advent of the mass availability of tools for producing fake porn that is indistinguishable from real porn, and mass worldwide distribution over electronic networks, the ability of the government to legislate what people view and read has already more or less ended. For all practical purposes, there really is no way of preventing the mass distribution and consumption of any kind of material even now, unless it is tightly controlled at the source. Obscenity laws are already largely unenforceable on the Internet, and will become increasingly so."
Despite your take on how we can't control anything anymore because of the internet, child pornographers take great care to hide their web sites. They know that juries, judges, and most reasonable people will have no problem distinguishing between say Japanese anime (Cartoon drawings of very young looking nubile girls who are engaged -- sometimes against their will -- in sex acts) and the real article. Just a few months ago, a large child pornography ring was busted that had used mobile sites and multiple passwords to exchange their pictures. After they were busted, a couple of them committed suicide.
AuNatural -- (and you too Elliot)
How do you write the law that protects children from being used by adults as sex partners. I want to see it in your own language.
4220. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 2:47 PM PT
elliot
"Really? Where?"
Cobb County, Georgia, and many other places throughout the country. You may want to re-check First Amendment obscenity law, which allows a great deal of local governmental latitude in determining what is obscene. Under what authority do you think Mapplethorpe was banned from so many places? Under what authority was "The Tine Drum" taken from so many shelves, if violation of the First Amendment is so clear?
Your sweeping belief that it violates the First Amendment is nice. But stamping your feet does not make it so.
4221. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 2:47 PM PT
"But what has the consumer done that justifies criminal punishment? Answer: He has viewed material you believe he should not have viewed. If you argue that he is partly responsible for the production of the material, then I think you have to prove that."
He has contributed to the financial support and continuation of the kiddie porn industry. Like all businesses, they need customers to operate.
4222. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 2:48 PM PT
Rask:
"Actually, the burden of proof is usually considered to lie with those who seek to change the status quo."
The basic principle is that the government should not be able to restrict people's freedoms in any way without just cause. Show me the just cause for making criminals of people simply for viewing sexual material of their own choosing.
"As for the laws, are you asking for statute numbers? If so, I don't know them."
No, the names of the laws and their basic provisions will do. As far as I can tell, existing First Amendment law is a mess, and simply cannot last much longer in a world of mass electronic communication.
4223. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 2:49 PM PT
elliot
In your education, start with the Roth case, which illustrates the Supreme Court's first attempt at defining the permissible scope of obscenity law and remains the cornerstone of modern obscenity law. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, noted that "implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance." Thus, the Court held that obscenity was not protected speech under the First Amendment.
4224. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
Then, go to Miller. The Miller test:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
4225. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
"None of which runs afoul of the First Amendment, only your minority reading of its application "
It runs afoul of the literal word of the First amendment. The courts, activist creatures that they are, created exceptions to the amendment to satisfy popular opinion and personal prejudice. (Of course no REAL conservative would ever do such a thing...!)
4226. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 2:53 PM PT
elliot: do your own research.
4227. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 2:54 PM PT
Post Miller cases have basically cemented the doctrine that governmental criminalization of hard core pornography (i.e., penetration) is not a violation of the First Amendment.
4228. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:54 PM PT
Elliot --
"The basic principle is that the government should not be able to restrict people's freedoms in any way without just cause. Show me the just cause for making criminals of people simply for viewing sexual material of their own choosing."
It is just a *basic* principle, nothing more. Just like private property is a *basic* principle. No principle has such ultimate authority that it overrides even the most commonsense and widespread notions of decency just so we can feel we are absolutely consistent. Here is where you should go with your general philosophy of "millions and millions of people agree with me."
4229. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 2:57 PM PT
Au
"It runs afoul of the literal word of the First amendment. The courts, activist creatures that they are, created exceptions to the amendment to satisfy popular opinion and personal prejudice. (Of course no REAL conservative would ever do such a thing...!)"
Blah blah blah. If I were to entertain a concept of literalism, criminalization of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre would be a serious infringement on the tenets of the First Amendment, and owning bazookas would be a real violation of the Second.
4230. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 3:01 PM PT
Rask:
"He has contributed to the financial support and continuation of the kiddie porn industry. Like all businesses, they need customers to operate."
How does simply viewing something contribute to the financial support and continuation of the kiddie porn industry?
If the sale, possession and viewing of existing child porn were decriminalized, might that not produce wider distribution? And if existing material were more widely distributed, might that not reduce the market pressure for the creation of new material? Ditto for the production and distribution of high-quality fake porn (CGI, etc). You simply assume, rather than show, that the legal availability of child porn--fake or real--would cause more children to be abused, when in fact that opposite may be true, and on the basis of that unsubstantiated assumption you violate one of the most basic rights in our political philosophy.
4231. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 3:01 PM PT
AuNatural --
"It runs afoul of the literal word of the First amendment. The courts, activist creatures that they are, created exceptions to the amendment to satisfy popular opinion and personal prejudice. (Of course no REAL conservative would ever do such a thing...!)"
The law does not exist in some peopleless and cultureless environment. There are always exceptions and mitigating circumstances to the application of law that dilute your "fundamentalist" approach to the law.
4232. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 3:05 PM PT
"Post Miller cases have basically cemented the doctrine that governmental criminalization of hard core pornography (i.e., penetration) is not a violation of the First Amendment."
Says nothing to the obvious proposition that such laws are ineffective at best and very bad government. Damned activist conservatives.
4233. 109109 - April 16, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
elliot
"In any case, as I said, with the advent of the mass availability of tools for producing fake porn that is indistinguishable from real porn, and mass worldwide distribution over electronic networks, the ability of the government to legislate what people view and read has already more or less ended."
This is unbelievably infantile.
No one buys fake porn!!! That's what makes it "the money shot"!
And this:
"You simply assume, rather than show, that the legal availability of child porn--fake or real--would cause more children to be abused, when in fact that opposite may be true, and on the basis of that unsubstantiated assumption you violate one of the most basic rights in our political philosoph"
is very funny stuff.
Have a good weekend all..
4234. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 3:07 PM PT
Elliot --
"You simply assume, rather than show, that the legal availability of child porn--fake or real--would cause more children to be abused, when in fact that opposite may be true, and on the basis of that unsubstantiated assumption you violate one of the most basic rights in our political philosophy."
Bullshit. Asia is a good example of this where the laws towards having sex with children have been very loosely enforced. The sad cases of young girls (and young boys as homosexuals are just as bad as heterosexuals at taking advantage of poor young children to satisfy their sexual wants) who have been used and then let go once the thrill of something forbidden was gone is tragic. They are much much more numerous in these countries than in the United States.
4235. Raskolnikov - April 16, 1999 - 3:09 PM PT
elliot:"If the sale, possession and viewing of existing child porn were decriminalized, might that not produce wider distribution?"
Certainly.
"And if existing material were more widely distributed, might that not reduce the market pressure for the creation of new material?"
I don't see why. You are making a very strange argument in saying that increased demand would have a negative effect on supply. Think about this for a bit. It makes no sense.
4236. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 3:09 PM PT
AuNatural --
"Says nothing to the obvious proposition that such laws are ineffective at best and very bad government. Damned activist conservatives."
Damn idiotic libertarians.
You still haven't answered my question concerning what law you would write to protect children from the sexual advances of adults.
4237. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 3:10 PM PT
109109:
"If someone purchases snuff films of homosexuals, they increase supply. They are, after all, demand."
Purchase is not the same as distribution, possession or viewing. I ask again: Where is the "victim" in someone voluntarily looking at a picture of something?
"Cobb County, Georgia, and many other places throughout the country. You may want to re-check First Amendment obscenity law, which allows a great deal of local governmental latitude in determining what is obscene."
Penetration shots are banned in many parts of the country? Then I can only assume these laws are never enforced. I'd be interested if you could provide a meaningful reference.
"Under what authority was "The Tine Drum" taken from so many shelves, if violation of the First Amendment is so clear?"
Under the authority of an idiotic Blockbuster Video employee, if memory serves. Nothing to do with the First Amendment.
4238. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 3:11 PM PT
Elliot --
"And if existing material were more widely distributed, might that not reduce the market pressure for the creation of new material?"
Yes, we can see how this has worked in the rest of the pornography market. Just nipped it in the bud, it did.
4239. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 3:11 PM PT
"If I were to entertain a concept of literalism, criminalization of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre would be a serious infringement on the tenets of the First Amendment, and owning bazookas would be a real violation of the Second."
They aren't???
4240. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
"Penetration shots are banned in many parts of the country? Then I can only assume these laws are never enforced. I'd be interested if you could provide a meaningful reference.
There are plenty of places in the south where the sale of many types of pornographic materials are banned. You didn't know this?
4241. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 3:22 PM PT
"The law does not exist in some peopleless and cultureless environment.
But the Constitution should, else there is no point to having it.
4242. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 3:24 PM PT
Elliot;
I guess 9er couldn't answer your charge. "is very funny stuff." is as close to a concession as one will get around here.
4243. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 3:25 PM PT
Rask:
"I don't see why. You are making a very strange argument in saying that increased demand would have a negative effect on supply. Think about this for a bit. It makes no sense."
You're right: it makes no sense. Which is probably why I didn't say it. The argument is not that increased "demand" would have a negative effect on supply, but that it is reasonable to believe that increased distribution of existing material would have a negative effect on the production of new material, especially if the latter activity is strongly punished. And that also goes for the production and distribution of fake porn that doesn't involve any actual abuse of children.
4244. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 3:28 PM PT
PM:
"There are plenty of places in the south where the sale of many types of pornographic materials are banned. You didn't know this?"
You mean you can't subscribe to Playboy or Advocate Men if you live in, oh, Alabama? You can't download porn from the Internet? I don't believe it.
4245. PSEUDOERASMUS - April 16, 1999 - 3:36 PM PT
Elliot (Message #4179): Could you explain why not?
It seems reasonable to me that if you think there is a right to view that child pornography which already exists in the market, then you should also be entitled to consume those gorilla ashtrays or ivory carvings which already exist on the market.
Your argument that a wider distribution of existing kiddie porn might dampen the demand for (and thus the production of) new material, could be applied to products based on endangered species. It's speculative, but it seems as plausible as your argument.
Perhaps the only difference in your two positions is that for some reason you want kiddie porn "decriminalised" but you don't want people to ingest pulverised rhino horn aphrodisiacs.
4246. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 3:42 PM PT
Au Natural --
"But the Constitution should, else there is no point to having it."
Bullshit. It absolutely should not exist in a peopleless and cultureless environment. The point is that it fits our particularly culture and enviroment well and is not easily transferable to other cultures (although most modern societies have something similiar). The particulars of it are left up to us to decide as for what they mean and how they are enforced. Societies are different stages of development do not need nor should they want our constitution
BTW, you still have not answered my question about what kind of laws you would have on the books to protect children from the sexual advances of adults. Are you avoiding it?
4247. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 3:44 PM PT
Every national commission on obscenity and pornography with the exception of the Meese Commision has found NO link between viewing pornography and sex crime. They found strong suggestion the opposite occurs, that porn serves as a pressure relief valve.
Ed Meese had publicly announced in advance what conclusion he was going to reach, then hand picked the committee's membership. It split with a large minority reaching the same conclusions as prior committees and castigating Meese & Co. for unscientific conduct and lack of professional objectivity. n scientific circles the Meese report is not as useful as a good roll of toilet paper.
4248. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 3:45 PM PT
AuNatural --
"I guess 9er couldn't answer your charge. "is very funny stuff." is as close to a concession as one will get around here."
What is very funny is how you are continuing to avoid the question of how you would legally protect a nubile nine year-old from the sexual advances of an adult. Rather than attack other people's solutions, I want to see what you can come up with.
4249. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 3:47 PM PT
PM:
"There have always been community standards, both implicit and explicit, that have curtailed your "fundamentalist" view (not much different from a Thumper's view on the Bible) of the first amendment."
Oh please. "Fundamentalist" view. What nonsense. I've said countless times that I don't believe any right is absolute, including First Amendment rights. And "community standards" are increasingly meaningless in an age of instantaneous worldwide mass communication.
"Despite your take on how we can't control anything anymore because of the internet, child pornographers take great care to hide their web sites."
So what? I'll bet there's still a massive amount of material available. Websites outside the U.S. are beyond the reach of U.S. law. And public websites aren't the only source, anyway. An enterprising producer could probably compile a long list of customers and send them material via anonymous email on a regular basis with little or no chance of detection. And the Internet is just getting started. No serious authority believes that the U.S. government can possibly regulate its content.
4250. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 3:49 PM PT
AuNatural --
"Every national commission on obscenity and pornography with the exception of the Meese Commision has found NO link between viewing pornography and sex crime. They found strong suggestion the opposite occurs, that porn serves as a pressure relief valve."
What are the other committees? What work did they do in the area of child pornography? Did they recommend the sale of child pornography? Give in a brief sketch the evidence they provided that said that porn provides a pressure relief valve?
4251. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 3:51 PM PT
PM:
"The particulars of it are left up to us to decide as for what they mean and how they are enforced."
This is thae same as saying it means whatever you damn well please. When the courts say that freedom of religion forbids having voluntary prayer in schools, you have no defense other than "But milions and millions of people agree with me!"
"Societies are different stages of development do not need nor should they want our constitution."
Amazing. Nice of you to make that decision for them.
4252. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 3:52 PM PT
pseudo:
"It seems reasonable to me that if you think there is a right to view that child pornography which already exists in the market, then you should also be entitled to consume those gorilla ashtrays or ivory carvings which already exist on the market."
Why? The markets are completely different. An existing child porn film can be copied a hundred times and distributed to a hundred consumers. An existing gorilla ashtray cannot.
"Your argument that a wider distribution of existing kiddie porn might dampen the demand for (and thus the production of) new material, could be applied to products based on endangered species."
Huh? I don't see how.
4253. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 3:54 PM PT
Elliot --
"You mean you can't subscribe to Playboy or Advocate Men if you live in, oh, Alabama? You can't download porn from the Internet? I don't believe it."
No, I am sure you probably could, but as you said earlier, censorship is not just the government keeping certain items from the public (although this is debateable, I will use this definition since you seem to believe it). It also could be reduced outlets for their supply, and the south definitely reduces many of those outlets, including the sale of Playboy and Penthouse at local seven-elevens in some localities. And contrary to your view, the government does lightly regulate the material on the internet.
4254. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 3:56 PM PT
pseudo:
A *valid* analogy between child porn and animal products would be the effect of fakes. Just as the legal availability of fake fur and other products that closely resemble real animal products reduces the market for such real products, so the legal availability of fake child porn would be likely to reduce the market for real child porn.
4255. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 4:00 PM PT
PM:
Then you're conceding my point that laws banning pornography are already highly ineffective. And with coming technological advances, they will become increasingly ineffective. Unenforceable laws are generally bad laws.
4256. CalGal - April 16, 1999 - 4:06 PM PT
Au,
"Every national commission on obscenity and pornography with the exception of the Meese Commision has found NO link between viewing pornography and sex crime. "
I would be very surprised if this included child pornography, which is a different thing entirely.
4257. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 4:15 PM PT
Elliot --
"Then you're conceding my point that laws banning pornography are already highly ineffective. And with coming technological advances, they will become increasingly ineffective. Unenforceable laws are generally bad laws."
I am conceding nothing. Technology can work both ways and despite your gift for seeing the future, I am not convinced that the future will not lead to greater regulation of the internet. The general public's use of the internet is new; computers are still not widely available to everyone (maybe 40-50% of the United States); children already can be protected by their families and schools through filters; technology and the law can be used to go after the sellers of this kind of crap even to overseas locations.
If the government is really unable to filter out to the general public what it wants (child pornography, in this case), then why should you care what laws are put on the books since they wont be able to enforce them anyway?
4258. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 4:18 PM PT
109109:
Thanks for the concise history of modern First Amendment law. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You do know, of course, that this area of constitutional law is amoung the most frequently and heavily criticized by constitutional scholars? What is a "prurient interest?" What is "patently offensive?" It is precisely because of the wholly subjective and arbitrary nature of these judgements that existing free speech law is considered so intellectually faulty. As one justice put it, in a widely-ridiculed phrase that sort of sums up the meaninglessness of obscenity as a legal concept, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." What kind of basis is that for criminal law?
4259. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
Au:
What about a very well-developed six year old who could PASS for a nine year old?
This is the idiotic argument you've been making for two days straight. As I said right in the beginning, you want to keep playing this stupid game until we decide that it's okay to fuck a six year old.
Whatever, Au. You have some truly bizarre thinking on this issue.
4260. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 4:23 PM PT
What laws to protect children from sexual advances?
Sexual intercourse between a legal adult and a minor is prohibited if the age differential is 35% of the minor's age or greater. Coercion or abuse of a position of authority shall be aggrevating circumstances. Said activity shall constitute statutory rape.
Sexually agressive behavior on the part of the minor shall be considered a mitigating factor. Deception shall be an afirmative defense provided a good faith effort was made by the adult to ascertain the age of the minor. Lesser degrees of sexual misconduct may exist dependent upon the age differential and the exact nature of the activity.
Sexual activity with a minor shall be prohibited in all circumstances where the minor is 12 or less unless the age differential is 2 years or less. Said activity shall constitute aggrevated statutory rape. Lesser degrees of sexual misconduct may exist dependent upon the age differential and the exact nature of the activity.
Nothing in this law shall be construed to prohibit innocent sexual play of the kind young children are apt to engage in, nor shall it prohibit nudity per se.
4261. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 4:24 PM PT
AuNatural --
"This is thae same as saying it means whatever you damn well please. When the courts say that freedom of religion forbids having voluntary prayer in schools, you have no defense other than "But milions and millions of people agree with me!"
Well, when you use the first amendment to say that it means we can protect the viewer of child pornography, then I say we have already reached the point where the constitution means whatever you damn well want it to mean.
"Amazing. Nice of you to make that decision for them"
I don't make that decision for them; they make that decision for themselves. Try telling someone from the Middle East (in the Middle East, especially Afghanistan) about how they need our constitution or any other cultural artifacts. More interestingly, I would like to see you tell them why you want to give it to them. If you aren't strung up and left for the vultures, then you need to come sell real estate with me.
4262. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 4:31 PM PT
PM:
"I am conceding nothing. Technology can work both ways and despite your gift for seeing the future, I am not convinced that the future will not lead to greater regulation of the internet."
Well, I'm sure there will be *efforts* to regulate the Internet, but I don't see how they can ever work effectively. There's just too much information and too much networking. It is in the nature of electronic and digital media that duplication is extremely easy. It is in the nature of a worldwide communications network that distrubution and communication of electronic media is extremely easy. Unless the government institutes massive invasions of privacy and other radical measures that I can't imagine people ever accepting, it will never be able to police the content on the Internet.
"The general public's use of the internet is new; computers are still not widely available to everyone (maybe 40-50% of the United States); children already can be protected by their families and schools through filters; technology and the law can be used to go after the sellers of this kind of crap even to overseas locations."
Ten years ago, it was closer to 1%, so I'm not sure why you seem to take any comfort from that fact that "only" around half of Americans now have access to the Internet. And it's growing a phenomenal rate. In another ten years, Internet access will probably be as common as television, and the number of websites will also have grown dramatically.
By the way, did you know that pornographic websites are both the most frequently visited and the most profitable?
4263. CalGal - April 16, 1999 - 4:33 PM PT
"Said activity shall constitute statutory rape. "
Try criminal sexual assault.
"Sexually agressive behavior on the part of the minor shall be considered a mitigating factor. "
Yeah, right. That four year old just made me do it.
You're still focusing on those nubile 13 year olds that don't fess up to their age, aren't you?
4264. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
PM:
"If the government is really unable to filter out to the general public what it wants (child pornography, in this case), then why should you care what laws are put on the books since they wont be able to enforce them anyway?"
Well, I will become less concerned as the laws become increasingly difficult to enforce. But my argument against them is not just that they are unenforcable but that they are unjust. It's a matter of principle as well as pragmatism.
4266. uzmakk - April 16, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
You are confused, Elliot. You clearly have a very limited viewpoint which revolves around your sexual desire. Society must protect itself from people like you.
4267. uzmakk - April 16, 1999 - 4:43 PM PT
Pragmatism?!?!?!? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
4268. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 4:44 PM PT
Cal, did you read the Post and do the math or just react?
Are you saying that no teenagers are ever sexually aggresive or that such agressiveness is irrelevent to the discussion?
4269. doogie - April 16, 1999 - 4:45 PM PT
Elliot:
First, I am really pretty taken aback by your line of arguments; first Jade says she wants an SUV, and now you say that the viewing of snuff films should be legal-
Do you see any analogies between the viewing of snuff films, and say, Hate crimes legislation? Unless my memory fails me, you are a fairly substantial proponent of said legislation.
Do you think that it should be legal to tape the beating of a homosexual, or the lynching of a black person, and then sell/distribute that tape? Should it be legal to buy the tape? Should it matter if the purchasers explicitly encouraged the filmmaker to create the tape? Would a tape of a lynching discourage people from engaging in racist actions? How about a tape of the pistol whipping of a homosexual?
As for your interpretation of the first amendment - which "constitutional scholars" have ridiculed the category of obscenity? I know that many people question the clarity of the margins, but I have rarely encountered a proponent of doing away with the entire category. Surely snuff films, etc. are not on the margins of obscenity.
Second,
4270. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
"Honestly, officer, I SWEAR I thought she was thirteen! Look at her! She could EASILY pass for fourteen with makeup!"
4271. doogie - April 16, 1999 - 4:49 PM PT
That "Second," should not be there.
4272. cllrdr - April 16, 1999 - 4:51 PM PT
Just where *are* all these nubile 14 year-olds anyway?
Dirty Old Men Need Love!
4273. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 4:52 PM PT
PM:
"It is just a *basic* principle, nothing more. Just like private property is a *basic* principle. No principle has such ultimate authority that it overrides even the most commonsense and widespread notions of decency just so we can feel we are absolutely consistent."
"Notions of decency?" Please. Did you know that the Communications Decency Act was found to be unconstitutional in part because of the problems with that exact word, "decency?" What is "indecent" material? Why should people be prevented from viewing material they wish to view just because other people consider it "indecent?" Do you have any philosophical justification to offer, or are you going to continue to defend the status quo simply because it already exists?
(But, then, isn't so much of conservatism simply a reflexive defense of tradition, no matter how irrational or unjust?)
4274. doogie - April 16, 1999 - 4:53 PM PT
4272 - Cellar Dweller
Middle schools and shopping malls.
4275. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 4:53 PM PT
But, then, isn't so much of radical liberalism simply a reflexive attack on tradition, no matter how rational or commonsensical that tradition is?
Seems we caught Spudboy doing exactly this yesterday.
4276. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 4:56 PM PT
doogie:
"Do you see any analogies between the viewing of snuff films, and say, Hate crimes legislation?"
No obvious, relevant ones, no.
"Unless my memory fails me, you are a fairly substantial proponent of said legislation."
Yes, indeed.
"Do you think that it should be legal to tape the beating of a homosexual, or the lynching of a black person, and then sell/distribute that tape?"
It depends. Don't respectable photographers, news organizations, TV networks and so on film acts of violence and sell them all the time? Should that be illegal, in your view?
"As for your interpretation of the first amendment - which "constitutional scholars" have ridiculed the category of obscenity?"
I don't have any names to hand. Maybe I'll look some up, if my interest lasts.
4277. cllrdr - April 16, 1999 - 4:57 PM PT
Middle schools have guards, doogie. And when they're at the malls, the last person they want to talk to is an old codger like me. Even though I could help them with their English term papers.
4278. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 4:58 PM PT
"But, then, isn't so much of radical liberalism simply a reflexive attack on tradition, no matter how rational or commonsensical that tradition is?"
No.
4279. doogie - April 16, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
BobaFett:
Radical liberalism? What the hell is that? "Radical" generally implies Marxism, which is as antithetical to American liberalism as it is to American conservativism. A reflexive attack on tradition, no matter how commonsensical or rational, would probably either be racialist/feminist/queer kritik or Marxism. How dare you insinuate that Democrats want real change?
PS. Does "a reflexive attack" merely imply that presumption is against tradition? That tradition has the burden of proof of proving its "commonsensical" or "rational" basis?
4280. CalGal - April 16, 1999 - 5:02 PM PT
Au,
Yes, I read the post.
"Sexual intercourse between a legal adult and a minor is prohibited if the age differential is 35% of the minor's age or greater. Coercion or abuse of a position of authority shall be aggrevating circumstances. Said activity shall constitute statutory rape. "
This is criminal sexual assault. (Or whatever they call it specifically.) Statutory rape only starts at 12 or more, I believe. And even then it is usually for girls only and only if they consent.
"Sexually agressive behavior on the part of the minor shall be considered a mitigating factor. "
You have not mentioned teenagers *once* up to this time. There is nothing that indicates this isn't for all children. After that age, the fact that the teenager was willing is still irrelevant. Statutory rape is pretty much *only* for the teenagers who have given consent--it effectively says that consent doesn't matter. If they aren't willing, I believe it's just plain rape.
"Said activity shall constitute aggrevated statutory rape. Lesser degrees of sexual misconduct may exist dependent upon the age differential and the exact nature of the activity."
What is with this statutory rape? I am reasonably sure that criminal sexual assault of the sort that involves adults having sex with 9 year olds is considered a trifle more severe than statutory rape.
4281. doogie - April 16, 1999 - 5:03 PM PT
Elliot:
You are defending the distribution of snuff films (et al., understandably) as a speech issue, correct? Implying that they attempt to convey a message, right? What message is that?
4282. doogie - April 16, 1999 - 5:10 PM PT
I also would like to note what I believe to be "tenuously consistent" behavior on the part of 109 and BobaFett. Why are both of you so ardently opposed to hate crimes legislation when, to me, at least, there is only an illusory distinction between HCL and the criminalization of the distribution of snuff films, etc.
4283. elliot803 - April 16, 1999 - 5:10 PM PT
doogie:
Yes, I'm defending the availability of--amoung other things--films depicting real or faked human deaths on free speech grounds. And no, this doesn't imply that I think they attempt to convey a message. With respect to the right of people to view such films, I don't care whether they attempt to convey a message or not.
4284. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 5:12 PM PT
Do you think that it should be legal to tape the beating of a homosexual, or the lynching of a black person,
Already is. The taping that is. There was a significant taping of a black man, one Rodney King.
and then sell/distribute that tape?
The Rodney King tape sold.
Should it be legal to buy the tape?
The Rodney King tape was bought.
Should it matter if the purchasers explicitly encouraged the filmmaker to create the tape?
Creating the tape is not the problem. Performing the beating is the problem. To the extent the cinematographer was an accomplice he/she violated the law. Ditto those who encoraged the tape's production. That is why any such *commercial* tape would almost certainly be simulated violence which can be much more spectacular than the real thing.
Would a tape of a lynching discourage people from engaging in racist actions? How about a tape of the pistol whipping of a homosexual?
Did tape and photos of the Vietnam war discourage people from supporting that war?
4285. CalGal - April 16, 1999 - 5:15 PM PT
"Why are both of you so ardently opposed to hate crimes legislation when, to me, at least, there is only an illusory distinction between HCL and the criminalization of the distribution of snuff films, etc. "
I'm not sure how. An act that falls under the hate crimes legislation is already a crime, yes? It just adds more time?
Criminalization of the distribution of snuff films creates a new crime.
If you are saying the argument is the same in both cases--that it will discourage the activity--the difference is that in hate crimes the defendant will be prosecuted whether HCL exists or not.
4286. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 5:29 PM PT
"This is criminal sexual assault. (Or whatever they call it specifically.)"
We can call it what we want. I was asked to write a law to protect minors from predatory adults from scratch. Statutory is the term I am familiar with. It get's you life imprisnoment in some states, 20 years in most others. That isn't severe enough???????
You'll note that I drew the mitgating line at "aggressive behavior", not "consent" which is a lesser standard. That line did not exist below the age of 12 in my suggested ordinance.
"You have not mentioned teenagers *once* up to this time"
I did - indirectly - and you missed it. I created a general rule for all minors then carved out a subgroup of all those 12 and under for extra restrictive protection. Thus only teenagers remain for the general rule.
4287. doogie - April 16, 1999 - 5:31 PM PT
Elliot:
The categorical approach to the protection of free speech (best illustrated in Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire) clearly indicates that the more explicit the message of the category of speech, the more protection that speech is entitled to. Hence the High-Low-No value speech hierarchy (obscenity has been deemed no value).
AuNaturel:
There is a substantial difference - the Rodney King tape documented alleged police brutality. It clearly had a political message and was clearly intended to influence people. Hence, it was afforded the greatest degree of first amendment protection, as political speech. The argument is merely that the creation of demand for snuff films, coupled with the real life networking typical of such ventures, makes all consumers of said films accomplices in the actual act of violence. It is really more of a fourteenth amendment claim than a first amendment - either under "badges of servitude" or equal protection.
Actually, I don't even think the court should apply strict scrutiny in this case, though it is probably content discrimination. Anyway, the compelling state interest is certainly sufficient.
4288. uzmakk - April 16, 1999 - 5:34 PM PT
Elliot:
You are so confused. Snuff films on free speech grounds. Haaaaah! Potatohead.
4289. uzmakk - April 16, 1999 - 5:36 PM PT
And that goes for the rest of your homosexual agenda too.
4290. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 5:40 PM PT
Au Natural Message #4260 --
Thank you for finally answering my question. Now I will attack your answer using the same logic that you have used.
"Sexual intercourse between a legal adult and a minor is prohibited if the age differential is 35% of the minor's age or greater. Coercion or abuse of a position of authority shall be aggrevating circumstances. Said activity shall constitute statutory rape."
Why use 35%? Why not 20% or 40% or something entirely different. Why is 35% (which you seem to have picked arbitrarily) special? And define position of authority? If someone is a teacher but doesn't teach at the school where he seduces the 17 year-old student, is this an abuse of authority?
"Sexually agressive behavior on the part of the minor shall be considered a mitigating factor. Deception shall be an afirmative defense provided a good faith effort was made by the adult to ascertain the age of the minor. Lesser degrees of sexual misconduct may exist dependent upon the age differential and the exact nature of the activity."
What is sexually aggressive? If a nine year-old girl walks into the living room without her shirt on to talk to her eighteen year-old babysitter, does this constitute sexual aggressiveness? How about that coy eleven year-old that just swore she was eighteen, your honor.
"Sexual activity with a minor shall be prohibited in all circumstances where the minor is 12 or less unless the age differential is 2 years or less. Said activity shall constitute aggrevated statutory rape. Lesser degrees of sexual misconduct may exist dependent upon the age differential and the exact nature of the activity."
Why twelve? Don't you know that some girls have gotten pregnant at the age of nine. If twelve is suppose to represent some kind of objective age for "nubility", that is obviously a flawed figure.
4291. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 5:40 PM PT
In short, Au, as I guessed it would, your law isn't any more clear or objective than what are already on the books in their various forms. The moment you try to set anything down you are open to the same criticisms that you have made of the current laws. That they are arbitrary, culturally-based, and subject to much of the same kind of abuse that you claim of our current laws.
4292. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 5:42 PM PT
"The argument is merely that the creation of demand for snuff films, coupled with the real life networking typical of such ventures, makes all consumers of said films accomplices in the actual act of violence."
Snuff films involving real death are nonexistant for practical purposes. Too damn easy to fake it. It is certainly impossible for an average person to tell from a tape that somebody really was dead. Having made such a tape One could then argue that it's purpose was a political message and good luck to you in proving otherwise.
Rodney King video was not produced as a political message altho some people turned it into one. It was a simple record of an extraordinary event encoutered as a matter of random chance. A staged event would have a political message.
4293. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 5:44 PM PT
Elliot --
"By the way, did you know that pornographic websites are both the most frequently visited and the most profitable?"
I am aware of it. That and financial service websites are about the only things on the net people will pay lots of money for. What does this have to do with child pornography? Are you saying that child pornography sites are destined for the same kind of availability?
4294. msgreer - April 16, 1999 - 5:46 PM PT
How should society handle incest?
What about the daughter whose father has intercourse with her/ or the father with his son... without consent from the child which is a working definition of incest.
How does society help the child as he/she grows up and carries scars that affect every aspect of their life?
Usually these children do not tell anyone about the experiences..it becomes a secret between parent and child. Atleast that is often what the parent will say to the child. *This is our little secret*.
Do we prosecute the parent if the adult/child confronts the parent?
There have been cases where the adult takes the parent to court. It is a difficult case to prove. (sorry, no specific cases to quote)
What if the grown child shares their horror with a therapist? Is the therapist only responsibilty to help the victim *learn to deal with it* or should they be obligated to report it.... as nurses are required by law to report child abuse/neglect or they risk losing their license...
That is a can of worms, I know, for there will always be those who
say the parent did it when they did not.
Incest.... an act which leaves its victim paralyzed.
4295. CalGal - April 16, 1999 - 5:55 PM PT
Au,
"I created a general rule for all minors then carved out a subgroup of all those 12 and under for extra restrictive protection."
No, you didn't. Not specifically. There is nothing technically in the second part that says the sexually aggressive behavior is now not a mitigating factor. In any event, your "law" is terribly written. Why not just say sexual relations (not intercourse, too narrow) with anyone over the age of 13 but not yet 18 is illegal if the age difference is greater than 35%? Consent is irrelevant. Then drop the caveat about "two years or less" when talking about minors under the age of 13; in fact drop all the caveats. And then it's fine. Of course, then it is pretty close to what we have now, I believe.
As for the term "statutory rape", I withdraw my objection since I consider the two terms different but don't really know what the correct terminology is. However, given what statutory rape is usually used to describe, I would choose a different term.
4296. CalGal - April 16, 1999 - 5:58 PM PT
MsG,
"What about the daughter whose father has intercourse with her/ or the father with his son... without consent from the child which is a working definition of incest."
What the hell is it with this consent? It is irrelevant.
Sexual activity between a parent and child, as far as I'm concerned, should be treated exactly the same as sexual activity between a child and a non-relative--send the fucker to jail for a long time.
Alas, I am not running the world this millenium.
4297. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 5:58 PM PT
Elliot --
""Notions of decency?" Please. Did you know that the Communications Decency Act was found to be unconstitutional in part because of the problems with that exact word, "decency?" What is "indecent" material? Why should people be prevented from viewing material they wish to view just because other people consider it "indecent?" Do you have any philosophical justification to offer, or are you going to continue to defend the status quo simply because it already exists?"
You seem stuck on this. Let me help you. It is whatever we choose it to be. The philosophical justification (and here, you seem stuck with many others here (on both the right and the left) who think that society is a rationally based and ordered organism rather than a cultural construct where rationality has only a place) is that rationality has limits. You have run up against them in this argument. I might as well turn the argument against you by saying why choose eighteen as the legal age for adult sex. Why can't you be allowed to seduce a boy of fourteen. Can *you* give me a rational reason why fourteen shouldn't be the age of adulthood rather than eighteen; it used to be in many societies and cultures. The answer is that you can't. Through custom and evolution of culture, eighteen just happened to become the age of adulthood and even here it is not strictly or rationally applied (for example, 21 is the age for drinking in many places even though an eighteen year-old can fight in a war). Rationality is overated by almost everyone here as the basis for culture, law, and society. We have many arbritary points that we have settled on that have no rational basis, and what's more, I think it is an impossible conceit to base society on a thorough rationalism.
4298. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 6:02 PM PT
Elliot --
"(But, then, isn't so much of conservatism simply a reflexive defense of tradition, no matter how irrational or unjust?)"
As I have already said, rationality divorced from tradition is insane (because it is impossible to do) and their is no injustice in keeping perverts from getting their hands on child pornography simply because you can make fuzzy the distinction between real child pornography and the film Lolita.
4299. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 6:04 PM PT
"Why use 35%?"
Had to pick something. 35% makes it illegal for 18 year olds (the youngest adults) to go after 13 year olds. The magic age is 13 because that is a typical upper boundary line for starting puberty. In the Jewish tradition it begins the age of accountability.
"What is sexually aggressive?"
You must live a cloistered life. I'll let the jury decide for you.
"If a nine year-old girl walks into the living room without her shirt on to talk to her eighteen year-old babysitter, does this constitute sexual aggressiveness?"
Try reading my post again. The sexual agressiveness mitigation does not exist in the 12 and below catagory. Above that point it is for the jury to decide. You can't use my logic if you fail to pay attention to what I said.
4300. msgreer - April 16, 1999 - 6:06 PM PT
CalGal.. I agree with you.
Although,
it is not always that simply as the child often does not tell anyone.
The help the child needs is not given because of it...
I am asking what is societys role in intervention.
As I said, as a nurse I could lose my license if I do not report what could be child abuse/neglect. (I might add physician's do not have this law apply to them)
Incest produces problems for society way after the act is over.