Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Gurdur
Plus the "actual harm caused" ideological line is terribly easy to reductio ab absurdum; assume a child porno film using real children; the makers get sent off to jail.
Yet years later you could show the film claiming no more harm is involved; any harm was already done, and simply showing the film cannot cause more harm.
You see my point ?

What's so absurd? Even before the digital art reached the point that good fakes were possible I was saying that such stuff should be legal providing:

1) The perpetrator has been punished or is dead.

2) Distribution is handled by the government so there's no profit motive.

3) The children involved can't be identified by viewing the film, or else they are now adults and give consent.

Loren Pechtel

Actually, I think the risk of idea promotion is not the theme of the story, which people will recognize as entertainment and not reality.

What I see as dangerous is the assumptions that fly below the radar.

If I was rating movies the act of smoking by anyone portrayed in a positive light would draw an R rating.

Michaelson

avalanche:ix: Actually, no. That may be the basis of some democracies, but liberal rights are not inherent to democracy.

avalanche:ix:That is just silly. A show such as Jackass probably made a whole bunch of kids go out and try to do stupid stuff. When I was young I'd practise karate moves I learnt from Mortal Kombat on my brother. When I watch porn I usually wish I'm having sex. I'm not saying it's clear cut, and films, books, video games etc are always bad influences and innevitably lead to mimicry, but to just deny the possibility flat out seems insane to me.

Does the US have laws against sedition? I would have assumed so. Can a man stand up at a KKK meeting, in front of a violent mob, and tell every member to go out and kill a nigger? Such laws would acknowledge the possibility speech can lead people to act in a certain way.

As for CGI child porn, I guess my biggest problem with banning it would be working out where the line is to be drawn. I am personally undecided as to whether porn in its purest form (i.e. materials designed for no other purpose but to arouse the viewer) should be assigned the same protection other forms of speech are. There's no actual exchange of ideas where porn is involved, and the principles on which I defend free speech are all linked innextricably from the free expresseion of ideas.

Plus I think there are other complications with the child porn case. What about pictures which are an absolutely convincing portraits of actuals children? Would that come under slander laws?

I guess there'd actually be a provision for that somewhere, wouldn't there? Is it legal to take a celebrity of your choice, say, Anna Kournikova, and then produce picture after picture of hardcore CGI porn? I'm curious. Isn't that what The People Vs. Larry Flynt was all about, though? And his case was upheld...

I just don't know...

Anyway, in summation: 1) I don't think you can discount the possibility of convincing CGI KP putting ideas in minds that may otherwise not have strayed down that path.
2) Is porn in general speech? I think there's a case to be made that it's not.
3) There are still problems in distinguishing between what is speech and what is porn, though, which will quite likely result in innapropriate censorship.
3) What happened in The People Vs. Larry Flynt again?

beastmaster

Slander and libel are not "illegal." They are not crimes.

Nor is there any *censorship* of defamatory statements. A tabloid is free to defame someone every week if it wants to. The authorities will never shut The Sun down or remove any defamatory copies from newsstands.

All the laws permit is for a victim of slander or libel to recover compensatory damages from the defamer for harm to his or her reputation through a civil lawsuit.

Such liability may encourage newspapers to fact-check before publishing, but it is hardly censorship.

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of civil liability for defamation time and again.

But, the Court has already held that the ban on digital kiddie porn that you propose is far too overbroad to pass constitutional muster.

avalanche:ix

doing stupid stuff isn't illegal or immoral, big difference, analogy doesn't apply.



so did i, but it was fake, we never hurt each other.




possibly, any such precedent would probably be created in a case involving digitally created images of actors however.





i most certainly can, your analogies cover completely unrelated subjects. we're talking about things that are *illegal*, sane people do not go out and abuse other people because they see it on their pc or television, if you are suggesting that they do, then you should probably just volunteer for the voluntary human extinction program because your view of humanity has to be pretty damn bleak.



nonsense, such a case would be based on irrelevant personal opinions and morality, and not on actual logical arguments. if i have the freedom to take nude pictures of women (with their consent) in certain poses and call it art, then i have the freedom also to take nude pictures of them in pornographic poses (with their consent) and sell it as porn.


some religious whacko's tried to ban shopkeepers from selling hustler, and larry won a big victory for freedom of speech, incidentally, those religious whacko's lawyer's case included that porn was not speech/free speech, so think again about your point.

Oxymoron

I was wondering: aside from the censorship/freedom of expression issues that are involved, what exactly would be the loss to humanity of banning pornography?

Note: I am not anti-porn; I advocate control, not censorship. What I am asking is 'in what way would our lives suffer and/or benefit if porn were simply not available'?

Grad Student Humanist

Are the people on this thread who are in favor of banning virtual child pron also going to attempt to ban the thousands and thousands of erotic stories on the internet which involve children in heterosexual, homosexual and incestual action?

If not, why not?

...

I'm equally interested in the response. I can't help but wonder if the OP knows the impact that his proposal would have on literature, the arts, etc.

Really, avalanche:ix put it best. Really think these things through, mmmkay?

avalanche:ix

obviously you have never been single and male.

Loren Pechtel

Sex crimes would go up.