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 17:03:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
923 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Child pornography, as I understand it -- in the US, can mean a
> > snapshot of a naked 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.
But what is marginal? And I disagree that all three could be included. I can
envision a gallery selling 20x24" matted prints of a naked six year old and his
dog playing in a sprinkler. Would that under any reasonable set of
circumstances be kiddie porn? _I_ wouldn't count the fourteen year olds having
sex as kiddie porn either. But I know lots of people would.
> 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.
And as always, I'm frightened of your 'mature democracy.' An unfettered
democracy is potentially as bad as any dictatorship. Heck, with a dictatorship
at least you have some chance of a cluefull guy at the top.
> > Maybe. If there is no victim, there is no crime.
>
> Flatulence has many victims, but it is not a crime. If there is no law,
> there is no crime. :)
Good point! Let's do away with most of them. :-)
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
