kimmy

I don't disagree. However, there are lots of things that would be horrifying, upsetting, disturbing, or potentially damaging for a child to see. Typically we don't forbid people from having or creating such things, we instead prohibit them from being displayed to children. I don't see the clarification on the link you provided. However, Mr Whorley's convictions for cartoon porn under section 1466A were upheld in 2008, so it still seems current. From what I have been trying to read, an earlier (1996) stab at addressing digital pornography had been defeated in court for being overly vague and lacking credible tests of what qualifies as obscene. It appears that the 2003 P.R.O.T.E.C.T. Act (why do they have to make acronyms?) was an attempt to close the loopholes in the earlier legislation, to make it easier to prosecute digital pornography, not more difficult. That's not accurate. First off, if you read the legal decision I linked to, you'll see that the convictions specific to cartoons and text *were* upheld. The appeal specifically challenged the idea that a guy can be convicted of having obscene cartoons, and the ruling specifically says yes, he can. So yes, he could have been put in prison even had his stash contained only cartoons. As for the idea that the cartoons were a minor portion of those charges, that's not true either. Earlier you wrote... ...but the decision on the appeal shows that that's not the case. Whorley was charged with 75 indictments. He had 20 obscene cartoons, but was charged and convicted for 2 indictments for each cartoon. A further 20 indictments were for 20 obscene emails. Of the 75 indictments, 15 involved actual photographs, and one of those indictments was dropped because there was no evidence that the subject was a minor. And reading over the summary of events involving his arrest and subsequent investigation, it is clear that the cartoons were what got him in trouble in the first place. The photographs were not discovered until later. Of course not everyone agrees. However, the law is the law, and clearly the law can be used to punish people for having icky cartoons. I'm not sure how a law against pornographic cartoons actually protects children, unless one counts Lisa Simpson and Meg Griffin as children. I think the rationale behind the section allowing someone to be imprisoned for obtaining obscene cartoons is not about protecting children, but rather about the idea that somebody who is interested in this sort of material is a dangerous deviant. -k

Yeah, but protecting them from physical danger is quite different from protecting them from shock and outrage. The latter sounds suspiciously close to the sort of overprotective limitations on free speech that you and Dick have chided us Canadians for in the past. It's two different sections... you noticed the one but missed the one that does specifically target cartoons and so-forth. I am reading through the legal decision on his challenge to the conviction (link to PDF) and Mr Whorley challenged all of the convictions against him. The convictions were under 3 different sections of 18 U.S.C. (1466A, 1462, and 2256). His challenge includes specific challenges to the portions of 1466A and 1462 under which he was convicted, the portions relating to charges regarding the cartoons and regarding text-only pornography he was convicted under. The text of the decision makes it clear that the convictions relating to cartoons and to text-only pornography have been upheld. It is fair to say that we don't know for sure whether he *would* have been charged had his collection of porn only contained cartoons and text. However, it is clear that he *could* have been charged and convicted if his collection had only contained cartoons and text. So, again, not sold on the idea that this is strictly about protecting children. Even in the land of the free, someone was mad enough about the idea of somebody jerking off to cartoon kiddy-porn to create a law against it. -k

I engage the best and brightest minds on this forum as an equal, and hold my own at the very least. You on the other hand... can't even hit reply in the right thread. -k

My gift of prophecy tells me that you are the one who will soon be destroyed. The signs are clear... your future is short indeed. -madame k the mystic

Except we've gone from trying to protect children from being sexually exploited to trying to protect them from shock or offense. I'm not in favor of either, of course, but they're not the same thing. Looking at the link you provided earlier... And it appears that this section was used to charge a man for possessing Japanese cartoon porn. He was convicted and the conviction has been upheld. So it appears that the US might not be much different after all. -k

I haven't read anything either way. I'm not discussing this case in particularly, I'm pointing out that the explanation that "we have to protect children from exploitation" doesn't seem applicable to some of the situations where child pornography charges have been applied. So, if I'm reading this correctly, it doesn't matter if a real child was involved in creating pornography, it only needs to look realistic. To me that kind of disputes the claim that protecting children is the intention. And that's in the US, which from your citations appears to have less restrictive laws than we in Canada. Some of the claims being made in this thread are generalizations that go beyond this specific incident, and deserve a response. -k

The "found footage" concept goes back a lot longer. Perhaps not in movies, but certainly in fiction. H.P. Lovecraft wrote lots of stories where the only testimony of some terrible event is the written statement of a doomed author. (The part in The Lord of the Rings where Gandalf reads from the book containing the last words of the doomed dwarves is another example.) It's an effective "frame" for a writer to use, because it creates instant foreboding... the reader knows that the person who wrote the words isn't around to tell their story, and that probably means things didn't end happily for them. The short story "Notebook Found in an Abandoned House" by Robert Bloch is a good example of how this frame can be used effectively in horror. -k

That's certainly true (and deservedly so) for pornography created using real children. However, it's much harder to rationalize when material under consideration is less cut-and-dried. We had a thread here a while back where the topic of discussion was someone charged with child pornography offenses for having pornographic cartoons of the Simpsons characters on their computer. As well, I believe there have been incidents where written fiction has been deemed to be child pornography for purposes of laying charges. As well, I believe there have been many incidents where photos of children that were not exploitive in nature were nonetheless considered child pornography in the opinion of law enforcement officials. One that was mentioned here the last time a child pornography topic was discussed was where a cheerleader got a visit from the police for having photos of her team-mates goofing around in their underwear on her facebook page. I believe that child pornography prosecution has also been mentioned as possible way to stop the trend of "sexting" (sending sexual photos by cell-phone) among teenagers. It's entirely possible that the sort of naked-kid-pictures that just about every parent has in their family photo albums could be considered child pornography if a particularly nasty prosecutor were so inclined. Obviously there is great concern that real children could be victimized in creating child pornography, and deservedly so. However, what about completely innocent photographs of children? If somebody had a large collection of the kinds of photos that most parents have of their kids, should they be prosecuted for child porn? Does it only become pornography once somebody thinks its erotic? And what about drawings or computer art or cartoons or written fiction where no children were involved at all? Should possessing that be against the law as well? I am certainly in favor of protecting real children from being victimized. However, I am far less convinced that someone possessing drawings or written stories or an unusually large stash of kids-in-the-bathtub pictures should be prosecuted. -k

Yeah, mouthing off to tough drunk-guys in a bar probably isn't smart. Or there's the "wearing a short skirt in a dark alley..." thing, probably not smart either. The thing is, Parker and Stone aren't in a bar full of tough drunk-guys, or in a dark alley. It is offensive to me that some people are attempting to turn our society into that dark alley by invoking the threat of violence in this way. This isn't actually new. We've had this before. Canada's vocal moderate-Muslim activist Tarek Fatah has received death threats. Or how about the York University incident where a pro-Israel group was unable to have an event because they were unable to pay for security measures that the university decided were necessary because of the possibility of violence from anti-Israel activists? "This *might* be a dark alley," the university decided, "so you have to pay for security." I can't stand it. People can chose to use or not use their freedoms as they see fit, but to limit our freedoms to the standard of what's prudent in a dark alley or a bar full of mean drunks is unacceptable. -k

The original poster is a monolith of stupidity. He is an idiot of such immense calibre that he doesn't even understand what he's arguing about. It is amusing that this moron has somehow yet again set off a discussion of what atheism means when he himself thinks it's a synonym for "skeptic". From his outrage over the termination of the James Randi Challenge to his ravings about Nostradamus to the claims about how Depeche Mode predicted 9/11, it is clear that the guy isn't interested in religion at all, he's obsessed with fortune-teller fantasy drivel. Your problem, Mr Mabus, is not with atheists, because most religious people also believe that the stuff you believe in is a bunch of dog crap. Your war isn't against atheists, your war is against people who have functioning brains in their heads. You clearly don't, and are clearly jealous. -k

I think that is a good analysis. On a semi-related note, the majority (if not most) of shows are centered on male characters. In action or drama shows, you tend to have the show centered on a male character with a number of highly positive characteristics, and often a few flaws as well. For sit-coms, the show is still centered on male characters... but the character tends to be flawed in ways that the viewer is intended to find amusing. Sit-com writers aren't trying to shape people's views of humanity. They're trying to create characters that people will laugh at and watch again next week. I don't actually watch sit-coms anymore, and I haven't seen any that revolve around a female character because there just haven't been very many. But I doubt that those that do are centered on women who are smarter and wiser and more perfect than everybody else: how can you write funny material about a character like that? -k

I dunno, I survived growing up with Kelli Bundy on TV... I think you guys can live through whoever the current bumbler-du-jour is. -k

Indeed. My recollection of most news reports about charges being laid is that while photos are sometimes provided, I don't recall such reports providing detailed information on how to find the accused. I wonder what the decision making process was. -k

See? I told you I have the gift of prophecy. Kimmydamus vindicated again. -k

It won't happen because nobody will ever be that stupid again. haha, sure. What's that? Schreiber? -k

And, if one wanted to compare Harper's ethics to those of his predecessors, I think it would be very appropriate to compare how Harper has dealt with Guergis to the way that Chretien dealt with the cabinet minister who leaned on the BDC to secure a loan for the Auberge Grand-Mere. -k

Quit saying I'm trying to downplay influence peddling. I'm not. I'm trying to point out that the sponsorship scandal was in a completely different galaxy from influence peddling. And you yourself seem to recognize that. Finding a Conservative analogue to Adscam is a holy grail for you guys, a futile quest that'll never find fruition. Comparing the allegations against Guergis to the sponsorship scandal is stupid. It makes Liberal supporters look desperate and foolish. You guys would be wise to give up that line and just stick to the influence peddling allegations. -k

I'm not minimizing influence peddling. I'm trying to point out the difference in scale that you seem completely blind to. To put it in perspective: If the worst of the allegations against Guergis are true, it's very similar to a certain cabinet minister phoning the Business Development Bank of Canada to lobby on behalf of a friend who wanted a loan for a friend who wanted to develop a hotel near Shawinigan. The guy who did that remained in cabinet for many years afterward and was re-elected repeatedly by Canadians, and it is little more than a footnote in his career because in comparison to the sponsorship scandal, it is almost insignificant in scale. -k

Maclean's magazine had an article that expressed what I think was the real secret to this movie's success. Like many other immensely successful movies, Avatar appealed to escapism. -k

Either you lack information about the full scope of the sponsorship scandal, or your bias has warped your sense of perspective. -k

Not at all. Alec Baldwin's list of credits prior to Working Girl contains a secondary role in Beetlejuice, a role as "the dead guy" in Married to the Mob, and some TV movies and soap operas. Kevin Spacey's resume prior to Working Girl is extremely short and contains nothing of note. Nobody knew much about Kevin Spacey before The Usual Suspects. Joan Cusack was a member of SNL before Working Girl, and of the three of them was probably the most recognizable. I have always liked Joan Cusack and have wondered why she never achieved a higher profile. -k

I've not bothered to participate in the Guergis threads of late, and the reason for that is that so much of the rhetoric has become ridiculous. I don't know how many times I've read the Liberal supporters here trying to equate this Guergis/Jaffer stuff to the sponsorship scandal. How utterly ludicrous that is. What can you say to somebody who thinks they're the same? Why even bother talking to somebody who argues that they are. The Liberal supporters here have been trying to find a Conservative equivalent to the sponsorship scandal for years, and failing miserably. This is it in a nutshell. There is an old principle in law that goes something like "justice must be done, and justice must be seen to be done." I think there's an unstated but corresponding idea in government that would go something like "propriety must be maintained, and propriety must be seen to be maintained." Harper gets that... Chretien never did. Whether she has provably done anything that's against the letter of the law or not, the possibility that she may have assisted Jaffer's lobbying efforts is enough to warrant her removal from cabinet. -k

What a huge disappointment. I was hoping this was about actual Apaches. -k

Michael Ignatieff feels terrible: And then he strapped his party hat back on, poured himself a Screwdriver, and resumed -k

This column from Don Martin indicates that Jaffer may have used her government e-mail address and phone to do business. If that's the case, then that's extremely bad: the only possible reason for Jaffer to do that would be as an attempt to convince his clients that he's "in" with the government. If Guergis knew he was doing that, then she's either a complete moron or a complete doormat, or maybe some of both. -k