Animated Kiddie Porn?

[kimmy]

We're building a society where people don't want to be Santa Claus at the mall because they're afraid that police officers will be kicking down their door because somebody's child said "Santa touched my special place."

We're building a society where the cute baby pictures your parents took of you getting a bath in the kitchen sink could probably land them in jail.

We're building a society where some classic works of literature just would not have been created today, because their authors would be scared shitless of being charged with criminal offense.

We're building a society where "protecting children" has apparently become such a crusade that it has caused people to take leave of their senses.

-k

[Oleg Bach]

We're building a society where people don't want to be Santa Claus at the mall because they're afraid that police officers will be kicking down their door because somebody's child said "Santa touched my special place."

We're building a society where the cute baby pictures your parents took of you getting a bath in the kitchen sink could probably land them in jail.

We're building a society where some classic works of literature just would not have been created today, because their authors would be scared shitless of being charged with criminal offense.

We're building a society where "protecting children" has apparently become such a crusade that it has caused people to take leave of their senses.

-k

You really have to carefully and quickly size up the parent pushing the stroller if you want to enjoy and say hello to the kids...Children have always been a great pride of the community and a joy - so it takes some skill before you behave in a normal human manner - skill that consists of knowing when you interact socially with children - that the parents is not nuts...You can tell by looking in the eye of the adult if they have taken leave of their senses....On my old street were some fine young families - and some very clever and entertaining children...it was great - It was a highly intelligent neighbourhood - and they knew who to trust - most people are afraid,conditioned and stupified..............when my children were small they ran about with their long blonde hair trailing ---wearing nothing - If someone now a days looked into my property and saw that - there would be these lunitic kinky minded social workers all over you - It's a shame that the joy of children has been replaced with fear.

[Rue]

We're building a society where people don't want to be Santa Claus at the mall because they're afraid that police officers will be kicking down their door because somebody's child said "Santa touched my special place."

We're building a society where the cute baby pictures your parents took of you getting a bath in the kitchen sink could probably land them in jail.

We're building a society where some classic works of literature just would not have been created today, because their authors would be scared shitless of being charged with criminal offense.

We're building a society where "protecting children" has apparently become such a crusade that it has caused people to take leave of their senses.

-k

Could be. Here is a problem for you to consider-exact same one they are faced with in the U.S. By the way our Charter of Rights and your U.S. constitution's doctrine on freedom of speech/ thought is pretty much the same with the difference that our federal government regulates the internet and airwaves and criminal laws while in the US while the feds do govern the internet and airwaves each state unlike in Canada creates its own criminal laws.

Also in the U.S. your feds have a residual power that allows them to pass "hate laws" while in Canada they pretty much will be drafted into our criminal code and not be stand alone legislation although it does get confusing with each province having its own human rights laws and codes.

The problem with child porn or sexually violent porn gets confused with an issue as to whether it causes or reduces people from engaging in acts of sexual violence or pedophilia.

Its not really the issue. What the issue is to make a long story short is that statistics from Interpol, the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, etc., show that child pornography provides a network for pedophiles to meet children. They use the distributors of porn for more then purchasing or downloading porn.

They use it for finding children through pedophile rings. They also will take that porn and use it as a method to lower the inhibitions of the children they molest. They will show these films to the children they have captured and will molest as foreplay.

More to the point the children in those child porn movies are victims. They are real. They are victims. People forget when you pay or down load a child porn video you provide a financial incentive for some sob to abduct a child and force sex on them.

The kind of organized syndicates that engage in child porn do not kid yourself they sell the same children to the highest bidding pedophile. They set up junkets to Sri Lanka and Thailand and yes they dispose of children they have no more use for.

Thousands of children are abducted by these sob's precisely because there is a price for them and a price for selling films mutilating and molesting them.

I repeat those same comments about snuff films and films that show violent sex.

Yes we can get into a debate as to whether someone who watches them is provided a release from acting out on them or is incited to do them. Its probably a bit of both. It desensitivizes some to violence and leads them to believe it is acceptable behaviour and for others it releases their urges.

Look do not get me wrong. There are numerous sado-masochist sites but there is a reason the "professional" sex sites make it clear the people in their films are actors and in fact at the end of their sado-masochist fetish tapes have all the actors sit and tell the audience it was fantasy. Some porno producers believe it or not do not want to be mistaken as condoning real violence.

Yes I appreciate there is a difference between fantasy and role playing and the real thing but its hard to expect the law to make a clear cut difference.

There have been real films of women being mutilated, i.e., abducted prostitutes or run aways being actually killed and then those tapes sold. There are also very real tapes of people who have been abducted being beaten and raped.

Today's internet encourages sexual predators into posting real crimes.

So yes it may seem like Big Brother wants to censor everything.

Again I myself don't want people censored if we can help it, but yes we have to draw a line with child porn and sexual violence I think. I think there are limits to freedom yes. I also think when you limit freedom yes it can set a dangeous precedent and when you give up a right its hard to take it back.

I do think though we have to err on the side of protecting children and the vulnerable.

You know it was interesting you discussed Kimmy with good analysis the issues of drawing the line with sexual communications through literature, etc. Given our Charter of Rights I doubt we will ever see anyone censor words-but when we get to actual pictures of children, real children being molested or hurt or real humans being raped, beaten, mutilated, I think you will find Canadians like Americans or other Western nation citizens, want a line drawn-and so the debate becomes, where to draw that line.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Rue

[Oleg Bach]

Whether animated or real - it crosses the line. Of the few gay men that I have known since childhood - some were molested and disheartened in regards to sex and woman in general. This is phenomena of the creation of sexual dysfunctionals is rarely addressed. It is a case of "interference" - sexual interference in general should be dealt with swiftly and with the full force of existing laws. Sometimes I wonder what generates the deviant behavour in pediphiles? Maybe a treatment program that consists being confined with a highly skilled prostiute may be helpful .... I know of one former accociate who was attracted to woman who were not of age - I found out latter that he had been systemically molested by his female babysitter. He is afraid of mature woman. Pediphilia in my estimation is not just some quirk of nature - it's usually a result of being disempowered at a young age. In a type of misplace revenge perhaps the victim seeks to destroy the perpetrator by destroying themselves...the whole thing - seems to be about the abuse of power....for those that seek to lower the age of consent..............well - I would say they may have underlying motivations that come from a vacariousness that is born in hate.

[kimmy]

Rue, nobody here is arguing that pornography involving real children is despicable and that its creators, purveyors, and customers should be smote down with extreme prejudice.

However, we have been discussing fictional characters. They don't seem to need protection. Pedophiles the world over know that Lisa and Bart Simpson can be found at 742 Evergreen Terrace, in Springfield. Rod and Todd Flanders live right next door, yet there they are week after week. Haven't gone missing... haven't been telling Chief Wiggum that they were touched on their special place...

You know it was interesting you discussed Kimmy with good analysis the issues of drawing the line with sexual communications through literature, etc. Given our Charter of Rights I doubt we will ever see anyone censor words-

Argus indicates that we already censor words. Having the wrong words on your website, or your bookshelf, or your hard-drive could, apparently, get you in a lot of trouble.

but when we get to actual pictures of children, real children being molested or hurt or real humans being raped, beaten, mutilated, I think you will find Canadians like Americans or other Western nation citizens, want a line drawn-and so the debate becomes, where to draw that line.

There are any number of utterly horrific things that could be written about, or drawn, or made into television or film. Yet it seems as though the only one which is treated in this way is child pornography. Why is that? I can turn on my television any night of the week and find some murder mystery about some woman, usually a pretty young blonde, who has been snuffed in some horrific manner, and this doesn't raise an eyebrow. As long as she's over 18 years of age, at least.

-k

[M.Dancer]

While on the face of it, it seems absurd....on the otherhand, is creating a work of fiction about child sex or involving paedophilia absurd?

Is child pornography okay if it is fiction?

I lean towards no.

[Oleg Bach]

We have become dysfuctional breeders. Children are considered a liablity by many. Slowly it's becoming more pervasive - the hate of children..If you look back about 20 years ago with the production of the "Excorsist" - It was the begining of modern child prono as we know it. Most people who have children don't care what happenes to the children of others..it's communal break down of sorts. There was a time when we all looked out for the other families children without the "it takes a village" idea. People admire dogs more than kids in some instances. If you were to find a site on the net where dogs were being tormented and killed - I am sure that millions suffering from speices dis-loyalty would put up millions to dislodge and remove such spectacles - People don't care about children like they use to - we are mutating as a species..and it's not a pretty sight when a dog is worth more than a human.

[kimmy]

While on the face of it, it seems absurd....on the otherhand, is creating a work of fiction about child sex or involving paedophilia absurd?

Is child pornography okay if it is fiction?

I lean towards no.

Is murder ok if it is fiction?

Wouldn't the same reasons lead one to say no as well?

Let me be clear, I am not advocating in favor of child porn in any incarnation. However, some distinction seems to be made here that is not made in regard to any other work of fiction... and I am hoping that somebody can articulate as to why that distinction is being made, because it eludes me.

-k

[M.Dancer]

Is murder ok if it is fiction?

Wouldn't the same reasons lead one to say no as well?

No because there are different reasons for consuming the two. I'm reading an Inspector Banks mystery right now, about the murder of an accountant....I like some types of mysteries, I'm anxious to find out who the killers are.

Child pornography however...I think the reason people would read it is for the same reason one would read mainstream erotica (is there any pornoraphy that is literature?) to get turned on...

Somehow I'm not comfortable with paedophiles exciting themselves over peadophile fcition anymmore than child pornography.

[Oleg Bach]

With years of intensified media overload, growing stronger by the day - the line that seperates fiction from reality is almost gone- most can not tell the difference because they literally have taken up residence inside a high def television. Before the advent of moving pictures - and now with high definition realism - what was on a page could be considered fantacy - and a type of mental animation that was internal - and we knew it was not real - You could think what you wanted - as long as it did not manifest itself into the real world...now - there is an artifical world that has blurred the line between real and fantastic...We give people to much credit on their abilty to distinguish - take a gang banging punk who shoots people in real life - he actually believes he is in a rap video - and after the crime is committed he walks away feeling as if he is part of some heroic fantacy - but someone actually died..but he does not appreciate that...welcome to the brave new world - lines must be drawn and enforced.

[guyser]

Child pornography however...I think the reason people would read it is for the same reason one would read mainstream erotica (is there any pornoraphy that is literature?) to get turned on...

Somehow I'm not comfortable with paedophiles exciting themselves over peadophile fcition anymmore than child pornography.

Where would one put the movie Pretty Baby ? Is it child porn, or merely art ?

[M.Dancer]

Where would one put the movie Pretty Baby ? Is it child porn, or merely art ?

Art. Tacky art. There was no explicit or somewhat explicit depiction of sex. We knew that Brooke was deflowered...but that was only implied and wasn't the central theme of the movie.

Saw it in Paris while itwas banned in Ontario...didn't even know it was an issue, as I lived in Montreal at the time.

[Oleg Bach]

How far are we to allow sensationalist movie or (art) producers to go as they continue to play us though our sensations? And to what low level of debauched sensationalism are we willing to be brought to - It's a case of degree. The line that will be a benchmark of sobriety in regards to pornoghaphy..must be one that clearly states - what encourages destruction or has the effect of MOVING the senses to the side of the line that should clearly state WRONG. Legislative decisions should not be conducted in some artsy fartsy manner by authorities...nor should they dwell in grey areas - someone has to step forward and state - this is permissable and this is WRONG. Modernist moral neutrality must be bypassed and old fashioned ethics must prevail. It's not a bad thing to go back in time and re-install old tried and true values . We wrongly assume that progression to futher areas is a good thing...sometimes its right and healthy to simply go back - to where it was safer for us and our children.

[Rue]

Excellent comments Kimmy and quite frankly the kind of tough questions and points that will unfold in future debates on the limits of freedom of speech if there are to be any.

Yes I know we started off discussing fictional characters, i.e., cartoons. But that is the very point. Today's computer animation is no different then cartoon animation-it does not use real humans however it will soon become impossible to know that. The law is going to have a very hard time drawing a line between obvious animated charictatures and such realistic holograms that the human eye will not be able to tell the difference.

That is the point I am making-that technology has now brought us to a new dimension of depictures and the law has to struggle to keep up with new technology and it will not be easy to tell fiction from non fiction, real from unreal.

You stated;

"Argus indicates that we already censor words. Having the wrong words on your website, or your bookshelf, or your hard-drive could, apparently, get you in a lot of trouble."

Hold up a bit on the last comment-it is not as black and white as you suggest. Its not actually the words that may be subject to regulation or criminal law-what we are really talking about is the context in which they are being used.

That is the key-the context of their use-not the words themselves.

That is why when you ask;

"There are any number of utterly horrific things that could be written about, or drawn, or made into television or film. Yet it seems as though the only one which is treated in this way is child pornography. Why is that?"

I would answer by stating the reason why you are detecting what appear to be conflicting signals or inconsistencies or what appear to you to be artificial or arbitrary definitions of acceptability or moral decency is precisely because of how people interpret the CONTEXT of how the words are being used, not the words themselves or how they see the CONTEXT for the use of the images being shown on t.v.

Yes you make a good argument. In one sense, when we watch let us say, CSI and look at mutilated bodies or watch shows where people beat others and rape them-the question becomes how is that any different then the real thing?

All I can tell you is this-society defines what they will find acceptable. They find violence on t.v. and depictions of mutilation or death acceptable but of course not frontal nudity. Today there is more swearing on t.v. and in the past the standards were such that there was no swearing or for that matter you would have the Dick Van Dyke Show showing Dick and Mary Tyler Moore with two seperate beds and always going to bed in their pajamas, today showing people having sex, and being partially nude is acceptable.

Moral values change as the people in the society change and some would argue become desensitivized to certain things. All I can tell you is it is felt that the context for violence on t.v. is "different" then with real snuff films because people assume people know on t.v. it is not real.

That may be an absurd argument for you but that is what in fact is behind the reasoning process for the broadcasting regulations you see and of course those regulations change as the public lobbies sponsors to put pressure on the powers that be to censor certain things.

Here is another argument that would be raised Kimmy in response to your point. You can turn off the t.v. You can refuse to go see certain movies or buy certain magazines but children or victims of crime can not say no-they are forced into what they do. There is no turn off button.

[Oleg Bach]

It's Christmas - let the children have their joy. As for those that remove the joy of childhood - let them suffer in horrific self reflection.

[Argus]

No because there are different reasons for consuming the two. I'm reading an Inspector Banks mystery right now, about the murder of an accountant....I like some types of mysteries, I'm anxious to find out who the killers are.

Child pornography however...I think the reason people would read it is for the same reason one would read mainstream erotica (is there any pornoraphy that is literature?) to get turned on...

Ever seen a slasher movie? The whole idea is to lovingly set up a shot where someone - usually a half naked teenage girl - is slaughtered - and I use the term with care - in the most brutal, savage, and bloodilly outrageous fashion imaginable. Why? It's not as part of an intricate mystery. It's designed to appeal to the voyeuristic sadism of those watching.

There are similar works of fiction in the form of writing wherein the writer graphically and almost lovingly - if not erotically - describes in intimate detail what bloody works of torture and murder are being conducted on the victim. Those are sold at Chapters without any official censure so far as I'm aware.

Somehow I'm not comfortable with paedophiles exciting themselves over peadophile fcition anymmore than child pornography.

I don't think it's for us to judge what fantasies people have. Someone once said that if women ever got a glimpse into the fevered imaginations of their husbands/brothers/fathers/boyfriends they'd run screaming into the night. Who among us does not have a dark fantasy or two which many people would shink from in disgust if not horror? As long as they don't do anything in real life with real children I really don't care what turns them on in their own homes.

And quite honestly I find this massive focus on kiddy porn to be a distraction from the real life issues of child abuse, neglect and molestion - none of which are being addressed with anything like the same fervour.

[Oleg Bach]

If we as a society really cared - we would know whose wardship our children are in. It appears that like wolves we want to maul the pediphiles - It's easier to attack the end result then nip the problem in the bud. It's just a lack of care in general...and a lack of political will to solve the problem. "So what if the poor and middle class are damaging a future generation - they are not my kids - and besides - its all the poor unwashed that are doing it" - that' may be the mind set.

[Melanie_]

Is murder ok if it is fiction?

Wouldn't the same reasons lead one to say no as well?

Let me be clear, I am not advocating in favor of child porn in any incarnation. However, some distinction seems to be made here that is not made in regard to any other work of fiction... and I am hoping that somebody can articulate as to why that distinction is being made, because it eludes me.

-k

I have to agree with you, Kimmy. Some of the violence you can see any day on regular TV programming is far more offensive, and more easily accessible, than this cartoon porn. How is it “entertainment” to watch young women get raped and mutilated week after week on these shows? I’ve also seen an episode of Law and Order (I think – I get all those shows mixed up) that had children taking the stand to describe their sexual abuse – those were actual child actors saying those graphic lines, which in my opinion verged on child porn. I’m not saying I like the idea of cartoon porn, but its just a small drop in a big bucket of what has come to be seen as “entertainment” in our culture. Any kid can turn on their TV day or night, find an episode of CSI on multiple channels, and see the bloody corpse of a young woman in the trunk of a car.

[Argus]

However, we have been discussing fictional characters. They don't seem to need protection. Pedophiles the world over know that Lisa and Bart Simpson can be found at 742 Evergreen Terrace, in Springfield. Rod and Todd Flanders live right next door, yet there they are week after week. Haven't gone missing... haven't been telling Chief Wiggum that they were touched on their special place...

Let me go a bit philosophical for a moment. Suppose we didn't attach so much importance to our "special places", would there still be any trauma if they were innapropriately touched? In other words, if it was our elbows we had decided were shocking, shameful and secret, would we be aghast whenever anyone touched our elbows? It's all purely psychological because we have placed a bizarre degree of social and psychological importance on several particular body parts.

Argus indicates that we already censor words. Having the wrong words on your website, or your bookshelf, or your hard-drive could, apparently, get you in a lot of trouble.

The law is somewhat absurd on this point. For example, an adult can quite legally have sex with a 16 year old, can have sex repeatedly, and brag about it to all and sundry without any official notice being taken. If he writes his exploits down on paper, though, he can be imprisoned for several years. Does this actually make sense to anyone? Even more bizarrely, a predatory adult, say a perverted lothario, can stalk, seduce, and have wild animal sex with hundreds of virginal 16 year olds (presuming he can find that many virginal 16 year olds) without any legal problem. But if on the other hand he writes down a sexual fantasy of him having sex with a fictional 16 year old he can go to jail.

[Argus]

Where would one put the movie Pretty Baby ? Is it child porn, or merely art ?

It could now technically be called child porn. In fact, movies as disparate as The Lover, and Porkies could be prosecuted under the child porn laws.

How exactly would you excuse The Lover? There was a lot of hot and heavy sex in that movie, and the main female star was 17 at the time, and playing an even younger role. Because it's art? Didn't the government eliminate that exemption?

[Rue]

Sorry I was so late responding Argus. I just read your comments. While I have disagreed with you on some of this discussion in other threads I took the time to read your comments and I see the points you are making and appreciate what you are saying in fact I found them easier to follow then some earlier positions you presented.

I understand the civil liberties type arguments you are trying to be consistent in making.

I guess the only thing I can say to you and Kimmy is that for me as a lawyer, I am not suprised the law can be quite arbitrary to the point of being absurd precisely because of its inherent weakness which comes from reflecting ever changing moral values.

Yes a law should be consistent and logical but if you expect me to tell you with a straight face that the law is logical and consistent, uh sorry not today, I need a few Stellas in me before I could try pull that one off on you.

Me personally I just want kids protected from adults and the world less violent for them. I also am one of those old fashioned romantics that prefers Humphrey Bogart movies to chainsaw mutilation ones when it comes to foreplay with women.

[Argus]

Sorry I was so late responding Argus. I just read your comments. While I have disagreed with you on some of this discussion in other threads I took the time to read your comments and I see the points you are making and appreciate what you are saying in fact I found them easier to follow then some earlier positions you presented.

I understand the civil liberties type arguments you are trying to be consistent in making

The consistency in my anti-censorship arguments is that, lacking demonstrable harm, people should be able to write, film, or say anything they want, regardless of who is offended by it.

I guess the only thing I can say to you and Kimmy is that for me as a lawyer, I am not suprised the law can be quite arbitrary to the point of being absurd precisely because of its inherent weakness which comes from reflecting ever changing moral values.

Generally. However, the "kiddy porn" law did not arise out of changing social or moral values. It was created as a poison pill by the Mulroney Tories prior to an election. There was no demonstrable need for it. Police had not been crying for it, and there was very little child porn to be found anywhere. It was deliberately made wildly overbroad in order to entice the Liberals and NDP to vote against it. The point was not to outlaw the possession of child porn, but to be able to claim in the following election that the Liberals and NDP supported child pornography!

That was the entire purpose of the bill.

The Ontario and Quebec bar associations strongly opposed the law, as did the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, of which I am a member. All artists groups, so far as I know, strongly opposed the law. All these people decried it as unnecessary and far too broad in that it would catch all manner of legitimate artists and serve no real purpose. Child porn was already illegal to distribute, after all (not to mention to create), and what there was of it was deeply underground.

Anyway, because of their love of artists and writers and such the Tories thought the Left, ie, the Liberals and NDP, would oppose the law. But sensing the electoral problems that would cause, both parties held their collective noses and voted for the bill. Since then it has become something of a cause celebre' among the Left - which is more anti-porn nowadays than the Right ever was. The bluenoses of the Right who used to rant against porn because it was "dirty" have given way to the bluer noses of the Left who rant about it being "degrading" to women and "objectifying" women (unless it's women enjoying the porn, and then it's empowering). The culture of these people strongly embraced the vindictive nature of the anti-child-porn law because it let them punish the consumers of porn in the way they wanted to punish all men for consuming any kind of porn.

Over the years the political bluenoses of the Left and the political bluenoses of the Right have tried to outdo each other in their "protection of children" and have strengthened and broadened the law considerably simply because it's good for cheap votes (We are second to none in our determination to protect children!), and because no one dares to argue against it - well, except for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Now it includes any kind of drawing or cartoon, any kind of writing, including fiction, even video and pictures of people over 18 who "appear to be under 18" ie, pictures which appeal to that age-old male lust for Catholic schoolgirls in their uniforms.

I saw a news item the other day about some promising college student, roundabout 20ish, who had just been sentenced to a year in prison - the mandatory minimum now in the law - for possession of a half dozen pictures of child porn found on his laptop when he crossed the border. No previous convictions, no suggestion he had ever molested a child, but it doesn't matter. His life is ruined, he's been expelled from school, and he's going to jail. Meanwhile, the people who actually molest children? Well hey, guess what? There is NO mandatory minimum for them! LOL. Yes, if you have sex with a 10 year old you might go to jail, or you might not, depending on your record and all those other things judges take into consideration.

Me personally I just want kids protected from adults and the world less violent for them. I also am one of those old fashioned romantics that prefers Humphrey Bogart movies to chainsaw mutilation ones when it comes to foreplay with women.

I detest slasher movies myself, and have since I was a teenager and had a kind of epiphany where I went from thrilling over them to feeling saddened by them almost all at once. Dunno why. In any event, I'm all for protecting children, too, but I think we do that by prosecuting those who abuse or molest children, not by launching a massive, and massively expensive search for any evidence of unacceptable fantasies on the part of people who have never actually caused anyone any harm - and then setting about to destroy them.

[Rue]

The consistency in my anti-censorship arguments is that, lacking demonstrable harm, people should be able to write, film, or say anything they want, regardless of who is offended by it.

Generally. However, the "kiddy porn" law did not arise out of changing social or moral values. It was created as a poison pill by the Mulroney Tories prior to an election.

That was the entire purpose of the bill.

The Ontario and Quebec bar associations strongly opposed the law, as did the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, of which I am a member. All artists groups, so far as I know, strongly opposed the law. All these people decried it as unnecessary and far too broad in that it would catch all manner of legitimate artists and serve no real purpose. Child porn was already illegal to distribute, after all (not to mention to create), and what there was of it was deeply underground.

Yes I recognize your arguements are the classic civil liberty ones that have been advanced by te CCLA and yes I confirm all the comments you made above. I am not so sure about your take on Mulroney's political motives, I will leave that for others. Although I am I guess an extreme middle of the road I guess blue liberal red tory kind of Canadian and no fan of Mulroney's I will just say, I will not touch that one because it may not be fair. But then I concede my knowledge is limited many times.

That said, the cultural community struggles with this issue as do we all precisely because of the many issues raised before and some of them well summarized by Kimmy earlier.

I think on the one hand, all of us know censorship is a slippery slope and once you start it, it is hard to stop from snowballing and growing in scope to censor things it was never originally intended to censor and so could be an extremely dangerous and coercive tool to limit freedom of expression a crucial condition that must exist if a democratic state is to exist. I think we all agree on that no matter what side of the debate we are on.

In my case I see censorship as something that should be used sparingly and with great care but for me obviously I feel it should be used to prevent the dissemination of child pornography or sexual pornography that uses humans or is diligatilized to such a degree the human eye can no longer realize its fabricated and not a real human and shows people being tortured or killed for sexual pleasure.

I appreciate trying to draw that line when it may be depicted in movies that are not intended to exploit it would be a difficult one but I think ultimately a society has a right to constantly change or decide what its moral values are in terms of tolerance for such things and certainly those kinds of values wing back and forth between total acceptance to total rejection.

Its why as flawed as our present system is I think its the best we have and we have to try work with it.

[KeyStone]

Interesting article out of Australia. Is a fictional character the same as real people?

http://tvguide.sympatico.msn.ca/TVNews/Art...s_child_porn_DW

There are a number of different ways to look at this.

Firstly, I think everyone agrees that anyone who causes children to be harmed through expoitation, either direct or indirect is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

In this particular case though, no one is being harmed. Is the government then essentially ruling on what are appropriate thoughts and desires to have, and what are not? Because if so, this brings us into the realm of 'thought police'. I don't blame people for having sick thoughts, I blame them for not being able to repress them, such that no one comes to harm.

The other consideration is that since we have recognized a deviant desire in these individuals, perhaps a jail sentence is simply a way to protect our children, because it seems more likely that these individuals will be potential abusers.

[kimmy]

There are a number of different ways to look at this.

Firstly, I think everyone agrees that anyone who causes children to be harmed through expoitation, either direct or indirect is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I think that we are all in complete agreement on this much.

In this particular case though, no one is being harmed. Is the government then essentially ruling on what are appropriate thoughts and desires to have, and what are not? Because if so, this brings us into the realm of 'thought police'. I don't blame people for having sick thoughts, I blame them for not being able to repress them, such that no one comes to harm.

Until our legal system has good, reliable telepathy in its investigative arsenal, punishing people for what they're thinking, or even presuming to know what they're thinking, is an impossibility.

Personally, I am extremely worried by the idea that people should be punished for what they think rather than what they do. As I spend about half of my waking hours thinking about punching people in the face, I would probably be locked up for life. Luckily for everyone, I actually punch very few faces... I save it up and pummel my heavy bag when I get home.

And regarding the case in the original post... I don't think it's clear at all that possessing a "Lisa Simpson" porn video can reasonably be interpreted as an expression of desire to have sex with an actual human 8-year-old.

The other consideration is that since we have recognized a deviant desire in these individuals, perhaps a jail sentence is simply a way to protect our children, because it seems more likely that these individuals will be potential abusers.

And this is an extremely worrying concept. To jail people on the grounds that they seem more likely to commit some form of violence would have nightmarish implications. You could say, for example, that the prevalence of clinical depression in murder-suicide slayings might justify arbitrarily imprisoning someone who is being treated for depression.

-k