Ex Stephen Harper advisor makes disturbing comments about Child Pornog

[TimG]

And that argument does not justify men watching children being violently raped.

A large amount of what is called 'child porn' under the law does not fall into that category yet no one can start reasonable discussion about what should be called 'child porn' without some yahoo screaming and accusing them of supporting child abusers. Don't you see a problem with that? Edited March 8, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

A large amount of what is called 'child porn' under the law does not fall into that category yet no one can start reasonable discussion about what should be called 'child porn' without some yahoo screaming and accusing them of supporting child abusers. Don't you see a problem with that?

I believe Flanagan was defending viewing child porn. He didn't take issue with what was defined as child porn.

You have a problem with the legal definitions?

[TimG]

I believe Flanagan was defending viewing child porn. He didn't take issue with what was defined as child porn.

That is a separate issue - but he should also be free to speak his mind. The public vilification is completely unacceptable in a society that values free speech.

You have a problem with the legal definitions?

I have a problem with any definition of a crime that is so broad that it includes activities that everyone agrees is not a crime. Edited March 8, 2013 by TimG

[hitops]

None of this changes my point: the people making the images are, for the very most part, as far as I understand it, participants in the acts being documented and they are going to want and try to participate in those acts whether or not there's a demand for the images. To the producers of the porn, the images are secondary to the act being imaged, not the other way around.

Your point was that viewing images already created does not do further harm. You did not address the reasons stated as to why that opinion is irredeemably wrong. Victims who know their suffering is continuously enjoyed by others, feel continuously victimized. The New York Times did an a very thorough piece on exactly this.

It also wrong that without pictures, the same amount of abuse would take place. Viewing the pictures creates the market for that abuse, just like advertising any activity enlarges the market for it. If you don't think so, I suppose you probably also believe that advertising on TV is not effective.

[hitops]

That is a separate issue - but he should also be free to speak his mind. The public vilification is completely unacceptable in a society that values free speech.

Public vilification is therefore also a form of free speech, your argument is self-defeating.

[TimG]

Public vilification is therefore also a form of free speech, your argument is self-defeating.

Yes you are correct. I take issue with the fact that the public vilification is completely irrational in this case and that prevents us from having a necessary debate. i.e. is the definition of child porn to broad?

[jacee]

That is a separate issue - but he should also be free to speak his mind. The public vilification is completely unacceptable in a society that values free speech.

I'm with hitops: "public vilification" is free speech.

Freedom of speech does not ever mean freedom from social consequences of speaking your mind.

I always find it extremely bizarre that those who most emphatically defend their own right to extreme free speech, seem to believe that right belongs solely to themselves.

Really bizarre ... and ... stupid logic.

People speak freely. People respond freely. That's life.

You would silence us?

I have a problem with any definition of a crime that is so broad that it includes activities that everyone agrees is not a crime.

"Everyone"?

Tell me ... What am I agreeing to here?

Specifically what is in the law that you disagree with?

We have to have that discussion, but so far no one has been specific about where there is 'injustice' in the legal definition of child pornography.

So go ahead ... dissect the definition for us.

Show us the 'injustice'.

Keeping in mind, of course, that we adults are first responsible for justice for children.

[jacee]

Yes you are correct. I take issue with the fact that the public vilification is completely irrational in this case and that prevents us from having a necessary debate. i.e. is the definition of child porn to broad?

So ... make your argument about how it's too broad. Be specific.

Could just be that we'll think your definition is "irrational" and deserves public vilification.

[TimG]

So ... make your argument about how it's too broad. Be specific.

Here is a specific example of how the law is too broad: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/05/girl_charged_with_child_porn/

This example shows how absurd your rhetoric is about 'locking people up to protect the children'.

BTW - your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The public vilification of Flanagan was not free speech - it was verbal assault and should be condemned. Basically, if someone wants to object the laws of the land then they are entitled to - people who seek to vilify such people are nothing but vigilantees.

Edited March 8, 2013 by TimG

[guyser]

.I have a problem with any definition of a crime that is so broad that it includes activities that everyone agrees is not a crime.

Not that I disagree but thats for the idiots who draft these laws to figure out and when they rush things, this is what happens.

The public vilification of Flanagan was not free speech

Oh balderdash.

The public spoke and vilified him. Free speech on display.

[TimG]

The public spoke and vilified him. Free speech on display.

Using speech to preventing others from exercising their right to free speech is not free speech. It is no different than people who block roads to protest and thereby deny others their right to use public roads. The people manning the blockades claim their are exercising their rights but the issue is when rights come into conflict.

Can you really say that you are fine with certain topics being so taboo that no one is allowed to speak of them? Is that really the kind of society you want to live in?

Edited March 8, 2013 by TimG

[guyser]

Using speech to preventing others from exercising their right to free speech is not free speech.

It most certainly is free speech. Was anyone physically or legally prohibited from speaking?

If you shout over me, I cannot claim I am being denied my free speech rights, afterall, I could yell louder.

It is no different than people who block roads to protest and thereby deny others their right to use public roads. The people manning the blockades claim their are exercising their rights but the issue is when rights come into conflict.

Physically blocking ones mobility is an attack on the mobility rights ...ergo denial of rights.

Poor analogy and to be correlated would mean someone physically silenced someone from speaking.

Can you really say that you are fine with certain topics being so taboo that no one is allowed to speak of them? Is that really the kind of society you want to live in?

Where does this come from? Have I suggested I would? Edited March 8, 2013 by guyser

[cybercoma]

A large amount of what is called 'child porn' under the law does not fall into that category yet no one can start reasonable discussion about what should be called 'child porn' without some yahoo screaming and accusing them of supporting child abusers. Don't you see a problem with that?

I entirely disagree with illustrations being considered child pornography, but as it stands that's the way the law is written.

[TimG]

It most certainly is free speech. Was anyone physically or legally prohibited from speaking?

Semantics. The point is it is unacceptable to vilify someone for simply raising questions about the laws in the country.

[TimG]

I entirely disagree with illustrations being considered child pornography, but as it stands that's the way the law is written.

And how are we supposed to have a rational discussion on this point if public figures who question the status quo are publicly shamed and ostracized?

I guess what I am realizing is there needs to be more tolerance for speech when that speech is about what our laws should be. Tolerance that requires that people give up their right to shout someone down that they disagree with.

Edited March 8, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I don't know Flanagan's exact words or the context in which he was speaking, so I'm not going to speak on that.

[g_bambino]

A large amount of what is called 'child porn' under the law does not fall into that category yet no one can start reasonable discussion about what should be called 'child porn' without some yahoo screaming and accusing them of supporting child abusers. Don't you see a problem with that?

Given that she's one of the brainless screamers, I doubt she does.

[g_bambino]

Your point was that viewing images already created does not do further harm.

No. My theory was that incidents of sexual abuse of children wouldn't necessarily decline with the elimination of child pornography. The people producing child pornography are molesters first, pornographers second. You have to explain why most of the people who're clearly willing to act on their sexual urges would stop doing so just because there was no longer an audience for documentation of those acts.

[WWWTT]

Comment of the day:

Harper appointed Brazeau,Duffy, Wallin,Carson,Porter & his mentor? Tom Flanagan Maybe he's not such a brilliant strategist.

Maybe?

LOL

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I'm with hitops: "public vilification" is free speech.

Freedom of speech does not ever mean freedom from social consequences of speaking your mind.

I always find it extremely bizarre that those who most emphatically defend their own right to extreme free speech, seem to believe that right belongs solely to themselves.

Really bizarre ... and ... stupid logic.

People speak freely. People respond freely. That's life.

You would silence us?

And Harper is a champion against free speech!

Ironic that his staunch supporters don't realize this.

WWWTT

[Argus]

A large amount of what is called 'child porn' under the law does not fall into that category yet no one can start reasonable discussion about what should be called 'child porn' without some yahoo screaming and accusing them of supporting child abusers. Don't you see a problem with that?

You are speaking to one of the yahoos...

[Argus]

Your point was that viewing images already created does not do further harm. You did not address the reasons stated as to why that opinion is irredeemably wrong. Victims who know their suffering is continuously enjoyed by others, feel continuously victimized.

There is a continuing effort to suggest that child pornography = pictures of children being abused. My understanding is that less than 1% of what Canada defines as child pornography could be reasonably put into such a category. Most of it is simple naked pictures, often of teens taken by each other.

It also wrong that without pictures, the same amount of abuse would take place. Viewing the pictures creates the market for that abuse,

There is no evidence to support your belief. It's the same with porn. Despite many, many efforts to find a causal link between sexual violence and pornography, none has ever been determined to exist.

[Argus]

So ... make your argument about how it's too broad. Be specific.

Could just be that we'll think your definition is "irrational" and deserves public vilification.

I've already pointed out the broad nature of the law and what it covers. And your attempts to vilify me were pathetic, ignorant and reflected more on yourself.

[Argus]

Not that I disagree but thats for the idiots who draft these laws to figure out and when they rush things, this is what happens.

Oh balderdash.

The public spoke and vilified him. Free speech on display.

The "public" spoke? I seem to recall that within hours of the media coming out with the story he'd been fired by the CBC, dumped by the Wild Rose, and the next day he was 'retired' by his university. I don't remember any great groundswell of indignation from the actual public at large.

[Argus]

It most certainly is free speech. Was anyone physically or legally prohibited from speaking?

If you shout over me, I cannot claim I am being denied my free speech rights, afterall, I could yell louder.Physically blocking ones mobility is an attack on the mobility rights ...ergo denial of rights.

How about I don't like what you're saying here and SURPRISE, I'm actually your boss!

You're fired.