Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on December 6, 2010 at 1:08pm

I totally understand where you are coming from and couldn't agree more. Even if the pictures were computer generated there would be a world wide black market for the real thing. If we are going to be outraged when priests sexually abuse children we should be so when anyone does it.

Permalink Reply by The Big Blue Frog on December 6, 2010 at 1:14pm

I think the kind of "child pornography" they're describing here is the soft-focus coffee table book stuff like David Hamilton produces, the making of which could be and has been argued harmless. I mean, Hamilton's books were carried by Barnes & Noble! I don't believe they are referring to the hardcore stuff, which is unarguably harmful and should never be legalized.

Permalink Reply by Hidden in the crowd. on December 6, 2010 at 1:17pm

you can speculate all you want but that doesnt make it a fact, they don't tell us in the link so we won't know unless we contact them :P

Permalink Reply by The Big Blue Frog on December 6, 2010 at 2:47pm

It true, the article is vague on that point. I know from talking to people who have traveled to Amsterdam that in Holland the stores sell soft-core child pornography (along with every other kind) right out on the street, and it's the type I described above, where there is no sexual contact of any sort.

Even in the United States, this type of material is not generally prosecuted, otherwise it would set a precedent wherein every parent who took a candid photo of their kid in the bathtub would be in danger of being prosecuted and labeled as a sex offender.

Permalink Reply by Hidden in the crowd. on December 6, 2010 at 2:48pm

imagine that trial

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on December 6, 2010 at 3:17pm

I thought nowadays parents could possibly get in trouble for taking naked photos of their babies? Which I think is pretty overzealous.

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on December 6, 2010 at 1:23pm

I want to know what kid is going to WILLINGLY participate in the creation of child pornography! Presuming someone can deal with preteens who would fit the bill and be intelligent enough to understand what is being asked of them, then FURTHER presuming that such intelligent children would even WANT to do so rather goes beyond the pale, so far as I'm concerned. Then of course there's dealing with the demand for YOUNGER children who would likely NOT have the intellectual capacity to consent to what is going on.

Nope, sorry, nuhuh, don't buy this noise for a second!

Permalink Reply by Ian Mason on December 6, 2010 at 2:03pm

But this is in the Daily Mail! The number of complaints upheld by the Press Commision against that rag is 3 times higher than against any other paper. And that's even allowing for a rejection-rate of over 90% of all cases on "technicalities". The editors/owners even have a multi-million special bank-account for the purpose of settling in or out of court. Don't believe a word of it. I've lived in Denmark since 1986 and I've never heard of this study.

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on December 7, 2010 at 6:34am

There is a variable that at least the Czech Republic study did not consider. It is associated with the following statement per the article:

To make it legal, would suggest that inappropriate behaviour and violence towards children is acceptable.

Making the pornography legal would have the effect of making actual child molestation more tolerable. Therefore, it would result in a reduction in the reporting of actual child molestation thereby giving the false appearance that actual child molestation declined. At least the Czech study did not take this variable into account and, therefore, was scientifically flawed.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on December 7, 2010 at 7:01am

To make it legal, would suggest that inappropriate behaviour and violence towards children is acceptable.

That's exactly what I'm worried about. I'm worried that this is propaganda somehow orchestrated by some group similar to our idiots, NAMBLA. This could be some attempt at a public perception shift. You do these things in steps. Here's step one.

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on December 7, 2010 at 2:28pm

I know exactly what you mean.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page