I guess my thoughts are that if its a story(ie words where no actual person is harmed) I don't think the govt should be involved in any way. I see it as being no different than the KKK putting out hateful literature.

 

That thinking also applies to pornographic written material.

 

I don't see how one can be for one but against the other.

 

Curious if you draw the line at fictional written pornography and what your thoughts are reagrding fictional (computer-generated) child pornographic images? Let's face it, no actual children are being harmed in the creation of these virtual images and it could even be considered as providing a victimless alternative to child pornographers (in that they don't have to use real children).

Curious if you draw the line at fictional written pornography and what your thoughts are reagrding fictional (computer-generated) child pornographic images? Let's face it, no actual children are being harmed in the creation of these virtual images and it could even be considered as providing a victimless alternative to child pornographers (in that they don't have to use real children).

 

If its truly a computer-generated picture or a drawing its no different in my mind than the literature.

LOL, I'm at 26. What does that say about us?

 

 

That you, me and mcpapa all own library cards, Borders Rewards cards, and shop the Amazon.com half-price link regularly?

 

Or...we're loopy, have no lives and spend our Saturday nights reading with our dogs? (Maybe that one is just me. :lol:)

 

Maybe we're well-read intelletuals.

If its truly a computer-generated picture or a drawing its no different in my mind than the literature.

 

Let me ask this - do you believe that exposure to child pornography can stimulate deviant criminal sexual intent that otherwise would not exist?

 

Would you agree that - beyond the obvious reason of protecting our children from such horrific acts - child pornography laws have a secondary purpose to limit exposure to images that might otherwise increase the desire and motivation to act on deviant sexual urges?

 

Personally, my answer to both above is yes. Therefore, I have a serious issue with 'virtual' child pornography and think it should be illegal (as it already is in some countries). Is not the obvious intent to appeal to the same “prurient interests” that caused the Supreme Court to exclude obscene material from First Amendment protection privileges in the first place?

 

And, just so we're clear, I am not talking about cartoonish images. I am referring to realistic, life-like - albeit computer-generated - images.

Let me ask this - do you believe that exposure to child pornography can stimulate deviant criminal sexual intent that otherwise would not exist?

 

Would you agree that - beyond the obvious reason of protecting our children from such horrific acts - child pornography laws have a secondary purpose to limit exposure to images that might otherwise increase the desire and motivation to act on deviant sexual urges?

 

Personally, my answer to both above is yes. Therefore, I have a serious issue with 'virtual' child pornography and think it should be illegal (as it already is in some countries). Is not the obvious intent to appeal to the same “prurient interests” that caused the Supreme Court to exclude obscene material from First Amendment protection privileges in the first place?

 

And, just so we're clear, I am not talking about cartoonish images. I am referring to realistic, life-like - albeit computer-generated - images.

 

A couple of points:

 

It would seem you could make the same argument for adult pornography as you do for child pornography. Are you for banning all of it? If not, why?

 

How do you legislate "life like" vs "cartoonish?" At what point would a drawing or image cross the line?

I really don't see how fiction can be a crime. If you go into a bank intending to rob it, but don't, has a crime been committed? Could John Hinkley sue the producers of "Taxi Driver" for giving him the idea to shoot Reagan and impress Jodie Foster?

A couple of points:

 

It would seem you could make the same argument for adult pornography as you do for child pornography. Are you for banning all of it? If not, why?

 

How do you legislate "life like" vs "cartoonish?" At what point would a drawing or image cross the line?

 

The first question is very easy to answer. Adult pornography is not illegal. Child pornography is. It is illegal to make, manufacture, sell, distribute, and possess.

 

As to the second question, "life-like" means, well . . . life like and realistic. The type of images that when one looks at you have to ask yourself if it's real or not. I think "cartoonish" is fairly self-explanatory. Kind of like the silly stuff you see in Playboy. Or at least I'm assuming - can't say I've browsed a copy recently.

 

Think about something for a second. Computer-generated "virtual" graphics are getting more and more life-like these days and will only get more realistic. If virtual images are legal, but real images are illegal, think about the difficulties that places on law enforcement as to the investigations they conduct. They may spend many man hours on a potential child porn case only to find out the images are computer-generated and therefore legal. Or when they catch someone with real child porn images, how convenient is it for them to simply claim they thought they were looking at virtual (legal) images and didn't realize it was the real (illegal) thing. Make it all illegal. None of it has any value and only causes harm to our society. Seriously - of what value would be life-like, computer-generated virtual porn other than to the predators/molesters already involved in this crime and for which the specific laws were enacted that made "real" child porn images illegal?

 

If I'm not mistaken, I believe several years ago a law was passed that made "virtual" child porn illegal, but it was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. I truly believe - and hope - that this will one day be re-visited by the high court.

The first question is very easy to answer. Adult pornography is not illegal. Child pornography is. It is illegal to make, manufacture, sell, distribute, and possess.

 

As to the second question, "life-like" means, well . . . life like and realistic. The type of images that when one looks at you have to ask yourself if it's real or not. I think "cartoonish" is fairly self-explanatory. Kind of like the silly stuff you see in Playboy. Or at least I'm assuming - can't say I've browsed a copy recently.

 

Think about something for a second. Computer-generated "virtual" graphics are getting more and more life-like these days and will only get more realistic. If virtual images are legal, but real images are illegal, think about the difficulties that places on law enforcement as to the investigations they conduct. They may spend many man hours on a potential child porn case only to find out the images are computer-generated and therefore legal. Or when they catch someone with real child porn images, how convenient is it for them to simply claim they thought they were looking at virtual (legal) images and didn't realize it was the real (illegal) thing. Make it all illegal. None of it has any value and only causes harm to our society. Seriously - of what value would be life-like, computer-generated virtual porn other than to the predators/molesters already involved in this crime and for which the specific laws were enacted that made "real" child porn images illegal?

 

If I'm not mistaken, I believe several years ago a law was passed that made "virtual" child porn illegal, but it was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. I truly believe - and hope - that this will one day be re-visited by the high court.

 

My point about adult pornography deals with your point that viewing it could cause impluses to take over and commit a crime. If that's the argument for child pornography would it not hold true for adult pornography as well ie I watch it over and over and then I decide to rape a woman?

 

Secondly, my point about cartoonish vs computer generated deals with the question of "where does it cross the line?"

 

I guess if I have to err I'd err on being too restrictive but I'm not sure that makes it right or consistent.

My point about adult pornography deals with your point that viewing it could cause impluses to take over and commit a crime. If that's the argument for child pornography would it not hold true for adult pornography as well ie I watch it over and over and then I decide to rape a woman?

 

Secondly, my point about cartoonish vs computer generated deals with the question of "where does it cross the line?"

 

I guess if I have to err I'd err on being too restrictive but I'm not sure that makes it right or consistent.

 

I still see it as something vastly different because child porn is in and of itself specifically promoting an illegal activity. By that I mean, there is absolutely no involvement you can have with any part of child porn that is legal. Adult porn does not, for the most part, promote any illegal activity. Offensive, yes, but illegal, no. I'm hardly an adult porn expert, but I don't think the purpose of it is to promote rape, or any other crime, or that it generally causes people to do so. I've never heard of any studies that show this correlation.

 

There's always a line drawn somewhere in our lives. Driving 65 is legal; driving 66 is illegal. Theft of something valued at $99.99 is a misdemeanor; one penny more and it's a felony. Income over $125K (or thereabouts) is taxed differently than $124,999. Hit .300 in your MLB career and you a a lock for the Hall; hit .299 and it's still a question. I don't have the background or knowledge to tell you exactly how or where the line should be drawn between cartoonish and "life-like", only that I believe it's possible to intelligently do so and benefit society.

I still see it as something vastly different because child porn is in and of itself specifically promoting an illegal activity. By that I mean, there is absolutely no involvement you can have with any part of child porn that is legal. Adult porn does not, for the most part, promote any illegal activity. Offensive, yes, but illegal, no. I'm hardly an adult porn expert, but I don't think the purpose of it is to promote rape, or any other crime, or that it generally causes people to do so. I've never heard of any studies that show this correlation.

 

There's always a line drawn somewhere in our lives. Driving 65 is legal; driving 66 is illegal. Theft of something valued at $99.99 is a misdemeanor; one penny more and it's a felony. Income over $125K (or thereabouts) is taxed differently than $124,999. Hit .300 in your MLB career and you a a lock for the Hall; hit .299 and it's still a question. I don't have the background or knowledge to tell you exactly how or where the line should be drawn between cartoonish and "life-like", only that I believe it's possible to intelligently do so and benefit society.

 

1. There are porn films where rape is the theme. I'm not an expert on law. Are those legal?

 

2. Agreed on the "lines drawn." Is there a numerical/quantifiable way of determining what crosses the line?

1. There are porn films where rape is the theme. I'm not an expert on law. Are those legal?

 

2. Agreed on the "lines drawn." Is there a numerical/quantifiable way of determining what crosses the line?

 

1. Nor am I. But I would think they are legal. I've never heard otherwise. But I'm sure you would agree that rape is not the primary subject matter of the adult porn industry and not even sure that you could say it glamorizes that subject.

 

2. Not as easily quantifiable as other "lines" drawn in our lives, but certainly possible IMO. Kind of like that somewhat nebulous line drawn between what is considered "art" and what is considered "obscene" material. And no matter how clearly you try to draw this line, you are still going to occasionally have "Mapplethorpe" type issues. But, in a matter involving something as serious as child porn, I believe it is worth the effort.

That you, me and mcpapa all own library cards, Borders Rewards cards, and shop the Amazon.com half-price link regularly?

 

Or...we're loopy, have no lives and spend our Saturday nights reading with our dogs? (Maybe that one is just me. :lol:)

 

Maybe we're well-read intelletuals.

You are correct on one, two (well not Saturday nights, but most weekdays it's me and the dog), and three!!!

 

Probably should add, "done paying overpriced cable bills so I cut it out", to that list.