You are about to join the
Discussion : Man faces 5 years, child porn case
Discussion is closed !1-15 > 16-30 > 31-45 > 46-60> Total 55 comments
2005-08-25 02:10:44 - John Karenton
Let's rebuttle.
2005-08-25 02:08:50 - Cythia Gordon
That is an awful last statement John, We should not be feeding people (mainly men's) revolting obbsession - even through childrens movies.
2005-08-25 02:08:40 - John Karenton
Maybe not, but these "guys" need an escape. Two words, Home Alone.
2005-08-25 02:05:08 - John Karenton
I agree with Cynthia, however child porn is a sad inevitability, because some people get off on it, but I think firmer punishments need to be given, for the sake of the children being statutorially violated. Is statutorially a word? I hope so. Anyway, if guys want to whack off to kids, go see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
2005-08-25 02:03:29 - Cynthia Gordon
What is society going to do about it? Exploiting innocent children is disgusting and unfair to the poor kids and their families. We need to stop it TODAY as they are our future.
2005-08-24 02:15:44 - matt
i agree with voyager
2005-08-20 21:54:25 - Voyager 548
Jose, you're partly incorrect.. almost every country in Europe including Austria, the Netherlands, and Sweden, to name but a few, makes it illegal to own sex pictures of children, with varying sorts of penalties ranging from fines to short jail time to longer jail time, and the European Union is asking all new member states to create the same sort of laws including Latvia and Lithuania. And, the same trend is in East Asia and South Asia where the United Nations and child welfare organisations want to bring the same idea to Japan and the Philippines.
But, there _is_ some truth to what you say. An aspect of totalitarianism comes into effect when e.g., agencies trouble people about long-ago deleted files, and about nudity that doesn't involve sex, and about morphed images, and other things which are really not anybody's business because no abuse occurred. And, maybe add to that, when police try to sting someone by the internet who wants to meet a child, but there is no real child, but only a police officer.
But how can you justify the distribution of imagery of sex acts of young children? On what grounds is that a right that should be preserved? I am more concerned about the plight of people who get arrested for owning a book or film where the persons involved got paid and had valid contracts and permission from parents, than for people like this deviant. A sharp delineation is necessary between these two things or else indeed the totalitarianism you fear will come about.
You may also want to explore how many states are making possession of kiddy porn, without participation in an actual sex act, a registrable "sex offense". Well, that _is_ wrong for them to do that...
Relatedly, I read yesterday that during the 1950's in the United States it was against the law in many places to own "obscene" materials of people of any age. And it was only in the early 1970's that ownership of visual and written materials involving adults was protected from police action, by a wise decision of the Supreme Court. But the Court said several times abusive sex acts against children are not protected free speech. Nor is libel or making a public threat against certain elected officials.
2005-08-20 13:09:58 -
Another example of the totalitarian state in action.
There are people who have gotten less time for child
molestation. Maybe the defendant would have gotten less time had he committed child molestation?
No other county does this other than the mother country, Great Britain. There is something about the Anglo Saxon legal system that loves to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate by making almost ever act a
violation of the law. We are in a totalitarian state that will get worse and time goes by.
2005-08-20 02:37:25 - Voyager 548
I agree with Matthew Carpenter's remark. It is sick for someone to watch young children engaged in sex with adults and sado/masochistic acts, which are the things this man is alleged to deliberately keep. And that should remain illegal for sure. As long as it is distinguished from pictures where there is nude posing but no sex act with another person, I am fully in favor of the prosecution of this material.
2005-08-19 02:36:07 - matthew carpenter
thats distugusting
1-15 > 16-30 > 31-45 > 46-60>
Total 55 comments
