Subject:
|
Re: What is spam? (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:19:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
853 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I know this was a troll, but I thought I'd bite.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > I think he was referring to your efforts to veer the debate
> > > in an attempt to make First Amendment = Child Pornography.
> > > Granted, there's room for a .debate there, but that's not the
> > > crux of the matter (nor, technically, is it a problem with
> > > the First Amendment--child porn is *illegal* in every state
> > > of the US, and just because people still do it doesn't mean
> > > that the First Amendment is to blame).
> >
> > Why is it illegal? Is it because the majority find it offensive, or because
> > of the exploitation/harm to children? Perhaps both?
>
> Certainly we tell ourselves that the children involved are deeply damaged by
> the experience. I'm not so sure that it's just our squicky puritanical
> knee-jerk doing that rationalizing sometimes. But of course it depends on what
> you mean. Child pornography, as I understand it -- in the US, can mean a
> snapshot of a naken six year old playing in the sprinkler or it can mean movies
> of nine year olds being raped, or of fourteen year olds having consensual sex.
> So what do _you_ mean? Or what do _we_ mean?
A good question. If it is publically avaible it could include all 3. But I
see your point. But lets leave the marginal side of kiddy porn aside for now.
>
> > If no exploitation/harm
> > to childrenwas involved in any way, should it be available in a free
> > society?
>
> I think so. Further, I think that even _some_ degree of exploitation needs to
> be tolerated.
My view would be that individuals who use this material may need help in
some way. *I expect*, that making the material available only justifies
their condition. I recognised your rights based outlook on this, but I think
a mature democracy should be able to make a decisions and ban such material.
> One could make a case that prostitutes are being exploited, but
> I encourage our society to legalize prostitution. Heck, I'm being exploited by
> my company, right? Or am I exploiting them? Or both?
Symbiosis.
> So we'd need some
> deeper definition of exploitation too.
>
> > Should the market be allowed to decide?
>
> Maybe. If there is no victim, there is no crime.
Flatulence has many victims, but it is not a crime. If there is now law,
there is no crime. :)
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
