Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography 
> involves sexual abuse as well.  Like you said the world isn't black and 
> white.

Yep. While the community is filtering the internet, it should make a
double-effort to protect the real life.

> Jim


-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:55:27 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 
>> Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography
>> involves sexual abuse as well.  Like you said the world isn't black and
>> white.
> 
> Yep. While the community is filtering the internet, it should make a
> double-effort to protect the real life.

100% agreed.  One could argue that the content being available on the 
'net might make it easier to catch the *real* criminals - and those 
aren't the ones distributing the content, but those *creating* it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:20:58 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:

>
>No he doesn't have a valid point,

Oh! Yes he does.

> there is a totally logical reason why 
>childporn.info should be blocked. 

Yes I can see that but I don't agree with your logic.

> If you can't see why then I guess there's 
>no point in discussing it further.

But you will though. See below.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > For the record, as sick as it sounds, the world is not black'n'white.
> > Those sick, pervert bastards will finds childs to see from somewhere -
> > and I'd feel more secure, if they were home alone, by the computer
> > instead of sneaking at playgrounds etc. No, I don't mean childporn
> > should be leagalized, but even less I want pedophiles near living
> > children.

> Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography 
> involves sexual abuse as well.

  Except that nowadays CGI can be used to produce almost anything that
doesn't involve real people. Even that is illegal in most countries,
though.

  Some people have argued that, even though a disgustingly sick form
of CGI, it could prevent some sick people from committing actual crimes
by giving them an outlet. However, even simulated childporn is illegal
to produce and to own in most countries, with severe penalties. This
may be too discouraging for many of these people, who don't dare to take
the risk. Then, when they have no outlet for their sickness, and it
stresses them long enough...
  (Of course the best thing they should do is to seek help for their
problem, but the current society makes sure that they won't. If their
problem leaks out, the witch-hunt will never stop for the rest of their
lives. That probably discourages most.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:19:11 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > For the record, as sick as it sounds, the world is not black'n'white.
>> > Those sick, pervert bastards will finds childs to see from somewhere
>> > - and I'd feel more secure, if they were home alone, by the computer
>> > instead of sneaking at playgrounds etc. No, I don't mean childporn
>> > should be leagalized, but even less I want pedophiles near living
>> > children.
> 
>> Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography
>> involves sexual abuse as well.
> 
>   Except that nowadays CGI can be used to produce almost anything that
> doesn't involve real people. Even that is illegal in most countries,
> though.

True, but at the same time, it's still fairly easy to spot CG vs. real.  
I've yet to see human CG effects that I looked at and went "is that real, 
or is it CG?".

>   Some people have argued that, even though a disgustingly sick form
> of CGI, it could prevent some sick people from committing actual crimes
> by giving them an outlet. However, even simulated childporn is illegal
> to produce and to own in most countries, with severe penalties. This may
> be too discouraging for many of these people, who don't dare to take the
> risk. Then, when they have no outlet for their sickness, and it stresses
> them long enough...

I can't argue that.

>   (Of course the best thing they should do is to seek help for their
> problem, but the current society makes sure that they won't. If their
> problem leaks out, the witch-hunt will never stop for the rest of their
> lives. That probably discourages most.)

I also can't argue with that.  There are definitely people who need help, 
and many who would probably seek help if there wasn't such a stigma 
associated with their disorder.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:20:58 +0100, scott wrote:

> No he doesn't have a valid point, there is a totally logical reason why
> childporn.info should be blocked.  

Yes, actually, he does.  The site name is not and should not be the 
reason for blocking it - the content should be.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>> Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography 
>> involves sexual abuse as well.
> 
>   Except that nowadays CGI can be used to produce almost anything that
> doesn't involve real people. Even that is illegal in most countries,
> though.

Even softcore nudity of real minors is classed under CP, which afaik 
isn't necessarily sexual abuse.  The argument is something along the 
lines of "creepy pedo will masturbate to this image at some point, that 
is sexual abuse"...even if the model never even knows the pedo in 
question exists, let alone meets.  It's pretty bizarre, imo.

As far as the argument of money/whatever payment being coercion so it's 
all abuse even if all that happens is photography...how is it any 
different for "adults" who do the same thing?  It's not even a matter of 
maturity, since all the twenty-somethings *I* know are still in the 
'woohoo, I'mma kid out from under the thumbs of my parents!" phase.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> If someone totally unrelated 
> had been blocked, like say amazon.com or some general news website, then 
> that would have been a better example to use - but I doubt any sites like 
> that are actually blocked.

  Here's another criticism of the censorship, with good examples of
censored sites which have absolutely nothing to with porn and have
absolutely nothing illegal. How these sites have ended up into the
censorship list is a complete mystery.

http://www.effi.org/blog/kai-2008-02-18.html

  May I again remind that censoring completely legal information is
illegal in Finland, yet they are doing it with impunity.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I believe in the US they are much stricter about respecting people's
> constitutional rights than here. In the US the constitution is something
> officials *must* obey.

Supposedly. The most recent president has made a mess of that, simply 
ignoring the constitution, and then ignoring the legislative branch 
telling him not to ignore the constitution.

About the only "teeth" in the laws are when (for example) the police 
arrest someone, break the rules, and the court says that the evidence 
the police gathered illegally can't be used in the court case.

> Here the constitution is little more than just a
> set of suggested recommendations.

Oddly, our president has said pretty much that.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Why not?  Some idiot is deliberately trying to provoke the system and 
> then complains when his site gets blocked.  I have no sympathy for him.

In the USA, we call that "civil disobedience."

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message