Michaelson

No, not at all. I'm basically just paraphrasing Mill's view, here. Censorship of ideas assumes infalibility on the part of the censor, and even should their idea be absolutely correct, there is no use in holding ideas without understanding their foundations. That equates to dogma. It is important to understand concepts which underpin accepted ideas. And only through the free expression of ideas will these problems be overcome.

This is why I disagree with hate speech laws.

What I was saying originally is that porn doesn't necessarily constitute an expression of ideas. My argument was essentially theoretical. I am not convinced that porn as I defined it earlier, for argument's sake let's say a 10 minute video of two people having sex, constitutes speech.

Just wanted to clear that up. I'm all for freedom of expression, but I think it's application has to be seriously thought through.

For instance, I'm curious as to whether US law would permit the publication of an article detailing the easiest way to make young children consent to sex, or anything of the type?

Similarly, would CGI KP pics which clearly depict actual children be allowed?

tronvillain

Oxymoron:
Well, there would be the loss of jobs, increased underground production, and most importantly it would be more difficult for me to watch porn.

Oh, and as has been pointed out, sex crimes could go up.

tronvillain

Michaelson:

Well, if by "speech" you mean spoken or written words, then a ten minute video of two people having sex is not speech., but then neither is music nor painting nor sculpture. Presumably you use some other definition of "speech", but even then examples of those things as well as conventional speech contain nothing accurately described as an "idea." My idea of free speech is that people can produce any audio-visual images they want, regardless of merit or the presence of an "idea."

Out of curiousity, would you also be in favour of banning a "how-to" guide to anything illegal or any depictions of something illegal in a positive light? I don't want to live in your world.

Michaelson

Why? Is there a reason that's the line you draw, or is that just it?

Apart from arguments about setting precedents and so one, why should something that doesn't express any ideas be covered by freedom of speech laws?

As for your question, you are refering to a question that I asked, and it was a sincere question. I was wondering what the limits are.

avalanche:ix

i said pedosexual, pedosexual does not equal child molester, it simply means a sexual desire for children. sexuality, like everything about our characters, is determined by our genes, outside influences can only hope to alter or contain existing urges and tendencies.



neither do i.




and that's a ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim. at least, if by some, you mean more than 1 out of say, a million people. if by some you mean more than the obviously insane. (note: being a pedosexual does not make you insane)


he's not immoral outside your opinion. (and mine), but anyway, that's besides your point. is this person completely devoid of imagination? if so, then i can believe he's never contemplated it. is he 100% impressionable? if so i can believe he might be brought on to such an idea by simple exposure to the idea.
if this is all the case, then clearly this person is highly disturbed in the first place, and should not be taken as a measure of the normal purvayors of CGI KP.


the paranoid always think their view to be the one of common sense. it's no more plausible than suggesting that a child may go to his school to shoot it up after playing a game of quake. sure, this is what the media hysterically portraits things as, but it's not what studies and logic show us.


because possibility does not inevitabilty make. i *could* kill a person. but that doesn't mean you can arrest me for it. i *could* kill someone if i got in my car drunk, that doesn't mean the penalty for the mere act of driving drunk should equal that of manslaughter. i *could* steal your money if you let me into your house, that does not mean i should be arrested.

what is possible, and what actually happens are two different things.





they based their opinion on the same that you do yours: emotion.

conclusions based on opinions are highly questionable by definition. you have your opinion because of emotional responses to the idea of KP, wether you're concious of it or not.



why is fiction which speaks straight to our sense of thrill or entertainment considered speech? what's the difference between the two? sex, entertainment. action sci-fi movie, entertainment. horror novel, entertainment.


free speech in this case involves the expression of whatever we please. emotions, ideas, concepts, entertainment. we're allowed to express ourselves in these ways as long as it doesn't harm others. wether you find it distasteful is really not relevant, i still have the right to make porn, make movies, make music, write horror, whatever i want, as long as it doesn't directly harm someone. this is a rather simple concept to grasp i would think.



then according to your definition (or implied definition) of free speech, you would indeed be banning speech. you don't seem to consider images, particularly pornographic images to fall under free speech, but surely writing, especially fiction, does?


if you did, you would have to deal with nationwide, possibly even planetwide riots. are you REALLY willing to censor things people don't want you to censor?



yes, some of us believe in freedom. must be hard to grasp.





yes.

imagine a person with enormous understanding of computers and networks. his understanding is so great that he can disrupt global economies. however, he does not use this knowledge to actual do anything illegal. he's not disrupting global economies, he's just learning *how* to do it.

presumably, in your society, he would be arrested either for having the *ability* to do it (and this has happened to people in the past, even the present), or because of the desire to learn *how* to do it.

however, in my society, he would be applauded for his desire for knowledge, and would only be arrested if they actually commited a crime, or were in the process of committing it.

in short, in your society, safety is more important than anything else, and individual rights would be trampled upon to prevent crime that hasn't happened yet. and in mine, freedom, is the highest principle, civil rights reign supreme and we're willing to deal with a little less safety, in order to not live in a police state.

which would you rather live in?

Oxymoron

Is there evidence for this? The argument that men choose to masturbate because rape is too much hassle seems rather specious, or at best simplistic. It could be argued that sex crimes might go down almost as easily, because porn has mythologised the sexual proclivities of women.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Michaelson
For instance, I'm curious as to whether US law would permit the publication of an article detailing the easiest way to make young children consent to sex, or anything of the type?

I can't see how it would be prohibited.

Similarly, would CGI KP pics which clearly depict actual children be allowed?

I still don't know what web technology has to do with this.

I think the state is reasonable in banning digital KP involving identifyable children even if the original picture was not sexual at all.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by tronvillain
Well, if by "speech" you mean spoken or written words, then a ten minute video of two people having sex is not speech., but then neither is music nor painting nor sculpture.

Perfect example--music. Where's the idea in instrumental music with no vocals??

...

Rape is an act of violence, not sex. The rapist is not so much thinking of sex per se, so much as he's thinking "I'm gonna hurt her* in the most humiliating way possible.". It's control, not sex. This really can't be done by masturbating to a picture, as there is no element of control there.

I do see your point, though - at least, I think I do. This will require a lot more thought on my part. For now, I'll just lurk this thread and see what others have to say.

*Yes, I am aware that men can be rape victims, as well. I use the feminine pronoun here because the majority of rape victims are women.

Loren Pechtel

The evidence is the other way around--increased porn availability means lower sex crimes. Furthermore, sex offenders have on average seen less porn than their peers.

It would be reasonable to assume that going back would restore the original situation but I doubt there's any evidence--there simply haven't been enough such situations to study and where they have happened studying would be hard. (ie, China/Cultural Revolution.)