Animated Kiddie Porn?

[Argus]

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

And yet that appears to be the core of the argument. People feel that if someone is looking at kiddy porn, they must want to have sex with kids, and that makes them more likely to actually try to have sex with kids. It isn't really bad logic, to be honest. The problem lies in not taking into consideration that sexual fantasies are wide-ranging and often very dark, and that for some reason many are drawn to fantasize about the forbidden. And men, in particular, fantasize nearly ALL THE TIME. Especially when younger. If you're a reasonably attractive young woman, for example, you can have a fair degree of confidence that every boy in every class you regularly attend school with has run at least a few pornographic movies in his head of him and you - and maybe a pirate or a dog or a hamster or whips and chains or something... If you're a beauty, your confidence should be certainty, not only for those at school, but the bus driver who saw you for five seconds that morning, the guy who sat across from you on the bus, the clerk you bought your cofee off of, your neighbour you passed in the hall, your uncle fred, who's still thinking about you in that bikini from last summer, and that fat boy with acne who cuts your grass.

Men fantasize constantly. Punishing them for fantasies takes us down a very dangerous path. Who among us hasn't had some fantasies on occasion which would horrify our wives/sisters/mothers/friends?

[kimmy]

If you're a reasonably attractive young woman, for example, you can have a fair degree of confidence that every boy in every class you regularly attend school with has run at least a few pornographic movies in his head of him and you - and maybe a pirate or a dog or a hamster or whips and chains or something...

I was on the side of liberty before, but now I'm kind of on the "jail 'em" side. Hamsters are a line than should never be crossed.

-k

[KeyStone]

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

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.

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

Hey, I'm agreeing with you. I am just trying to understand the rationalization for this witch hunt.

Generally, everyone seems to think that punishing deviant 'pedophiles' - and the definition of pedophile seems to keep expanding is heroic, whereas there are very few people willing to actively defend 'pedophiles'.

I can tell you right now that I would never publicly weigh in, on the side of the pedophile. There is too much hate towards them, and anyone who associates with them, or defends them.

[BigAl]

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

Kimmy, you are awesome. I'm all for the defense of the helpless, etc. etc. but you're quite right -- we're talking about fictional characters here. The precedent set up by this ruling is absurd in the truest sense of the word -- Bart Simpson is inherently un-fuckable because he does not exist. Same with Ariel the Mermaid or Spongebob Squarepants if you prefer. I've seen porn dedicated to all these subgenres, and I think they're hilarious.

There's such a thing as being too intent on the wrong thing -- another poster mentioned earlier on this thread that children right outside your door are starving to death and freezing and being abducted and whatnot, and you're sitting inside railing against the evils of somebody drawing infantile pictures of cartoon characters getting it on? Priorities, folks. Priorities.