Child Pornography: An Absolute Evil... ?

Hentai is a different story though. They seem to think that just because they are cartoons, and they are not real, that they can produce almost anythingt that they want (tentacle rape, underage sex etc). I think that the display of abuse to a child in hentai shouldn't be allowed either, because is that not child pornography? It's sending a horrible message, even if it is only a drawn picture.

It's not child pornography; there are no children involved at all. The same can be said of pornography involving people who look underaged. There are no children involved at all. Is it questionable? Sure. But it is not child pornography.

Banning loli in the States would be a horrible precedent to set; if we are to ban "inappropriate" forms of animation/art/etc, because they "encourage" illegal activities, where the hell would we draw the line? The government would be able to ban at least half of the movies released currently, and those actually involve real people! The first amendment protects the freedom of expression, no matter how much we disagree with it.

No. Loli should not be banned at all. I would much rather that it stay legal, if only because it would set a very dangerous precedent for the rest of the entertainment industry. As long as actual children are not involved, I say let them draw whatever the hell they want.

I don't think talking to "little kids" is something illegal... especially online where most services require you to be 13+.

Bro, the sort of "talking" that we're discussing here most certainly IS and SHOULD BE illegal.

You can't go up to a kid and say sexual pumpernickel. That's pineappleed up.

I mean jesus, children are being abducted every day by the bastards and most of them are never seen again. What does that tell you?

It tells me that you don't realize that most children who are abused are abused by an adult that they should be able to trust (such as a parent), and not a random stranger who abducts them.

Bro, the sort of "talking" that we're discussing here most certainly IS and SHOULD BE illegal.

I agree, free speech is one of America's biggest failings. We shouldn't be allowed to talk to anyone except about Jesus, saving the whales, and eating healthy Big Mac.


As I said already, if you don't like what someone is saying to you (especially on the internet) it is trivial to ignore them.

I agree, free speech is one of America's biggest failings. We shouldn't be allowed to talk to anyone except about Jesus, saving the whales, and eating healthy Big Mac.


As I said already, if you don't like what someone is saying to you (especially on the internet) it is trivial to ignore them.

Free speech is only applicable on public, government property which is run by tax money. People, especially on forums, misconstrue that to mean they're entitled to say whatever they want anywhere they want, including on forums. This is NOT the case. How would you feel if someone came in your house that you owned and started saying "whatever they liked?" You'd kick them out, because it's your house, and you set the rules. You have a right to blare anything with a megaphone on a crowded street during the daytime, but do that in a quiet residential area at 11:30 PM and you'll be arrested. If you threaten to kill the President, you'll be arrested. If you shout "BOMB" on a plane, you'll be sitting in a federal prison for the next 20 years. By the same token, exercise "free speech" in your place of employment, and you'll be fired; that by the way includes GOVERNMENT offices, because even the government needs to balance the needs inherent in the workplace against constitutional rights. Southperry is a PRIVATE forum, it is owned by Fiel. Fiel or his mods can come in here and delete/lock/ban, and they're within their rights because you're on his property. Actually, Fiel can make the word "green" illegal on Southperry if he wanted. Free speech on forums is not the same as free speech on government property. Members of the KKK here would be banned for what they clearly can say on public property, and so would the Westboro Baptist Church.

I agree, free speech is one of America's biggest failings. We shouldn't be allowed to talk to anyone except about Jesus, saving the whales, and eating healthy Big Mac.


As I said already, if you don't like what someone is saying to you (especially on the internet) it is trivial to ignore them.

It's a completely different case with children. In truth, they're functionally more like property of their parents or guardians than persons in their own right. They only even have rights on their own not by law defined perse, but because certain rights must reasonably be extended to minors as they exist in society.

You can't just do that to other people's children. If the parents don't want their children exposed to sexual material, you have no right discussing matters frankly with them.

Like, it's one thing to be talking in a public way about these sorts of things and the child happens to be a part of the audience, like say, on TV. Then it is on the parents to maintain control of their child and what they're exposed to, but private discussion between an adult and a child in regards to sexual things should not be allowed nor condoned.

How would you feel if you were a parent and you knew that while your daughter was chatting on AIM with friends from school, she was propositioned by a 30 year old spewing offensive sexual imagery that your daughter had up til then not been exposed to. Yes, she can just block the person, but that person shouldn't even be allowed to do that in the first place. Remember that your freedom of speech ends at my ears, at least in a private arena.

You have a right to blare anything with a megaphone on a crowded street during the daytime

That's called disturbing the peace and would likely end up with the cops coming and telling you to stop.

That's called disturbing the peace and would likely end up with the cops coming and telling you to stop.

Trust me, it's allowed. If you walk through downtown of a major city, you'll sometimes see street preachers with megaphones ranting or PETA protesting, etc. A Ku Klux Klan rally or a picket outside of a courthouse falls into the same category. Now, if you do something like push someone, or scream directly into someone's face while violating their personal space, etc., then you can be arrested. Just blaring out your message in public in broad daylight does not count. That is the difference between "speech" (that is, things that you SAY) and "conduct" (which is things that you DO.) Sometimes words count as conduct. If you shout "BOMB" on a plane, you will throw the whole airport into disorder for a long time and severely frighten many people, so that's not just you "saying" what you want. Shouting for people downtown to embrace the Lord Jesus simply does not have that effect, or anywhere near it.

How would you feel if you were a parent and you knew that while your daughter was chatting on AIM with friends from school, she was propositioned by a 30 year old spewing offensive sexual imagery that your daughter had up til then not been exposed to. Yes, she can just block the person, but that person shouldn't even be allowed to do that in the first place. Remember that your freedom of speech ends at my ears, at least in a private arena.

If I let my kids use the internet alone, it would be because I believe they're ready for it. I don't believe in content filters or making certain conversations illegal as a substitute for parenting, I wouldn't let my 6 year old browse the web without me watching what they do (so they don't visit on.nimp.org or whatever). And really, by the age of 11 or 12 I was seeking out that kind of sexual content on my own, it wasn't being forced on me by any means. How many sites lack that "you must be 18+ to view this site due to content of an adult nature"? If a kid sees it, it's cause they were looking for it.

Kids are curious, and trying to shelter them just makes them more vulnerable to predators and people who will take advantage of them.

Is it really in the kids best interest to leave their parents in charge of all their rights? Most child molestation is done by immediate family members. Who can they turn to if the people who own them aren't acting in their best interest?

If I let my kids use the internet alone, it would be because I believe they're ready for it. I don't believe in content filters or making certain conversations illegal as a substitute for parenting, I wouldn't let my 6 year old browse the web without me watching what they do (so they don't visit on.nimp.org or whatever). And really, by the age of 11 or 12 I was seeking out that kind of sexual content on my own, it wasn't being forced on me by any means. How many sites lack that "you must be 18+ to view this site due to content of an adult nature"? If a kid sees it, it's cause they were looking for it.

Kids are curious, and trying to shelter them just makes them more vulnerable to predators and people who will take advantage of them.

Is it really in the kids best interest to leave their parents in charge of all their rights? Most child molestation is done by immediate family members. Who can they turn to if the people who own them aren't acting in their best interest?

I actually stumbled onto adult content when I was researching in grade 7. But like you said, I was curious, so I had a look. It didn't do much harm to me, I kept my virginity until I was 20, and I don't sleep around.

I agree with Stereo with the parenting part. In my personal experience, the more the parents force on their children, the more reluctant the child is likely to submit. If you forbid them to something, they are still gonna do it, just not in front of you. Sheltering children from danger in a sense is disabling their sense of alerting danger. When I was in primary school in Taiwan, the schools give us lessons on the danger there could be outside home and schools, or even inside the schools. The primary school I went to in NZ did not tell us anything about that, although I am not sure because I only attended for 1 year, but no material of that nature was seen by me during my course of education outside Taiwan. I am not sure if they have that sort of materials anywhere else in the world, but I think it's only fair to arm the children with awareness of the dangers that could be out there, and if they ever came to that sort of situations, what they can do to get out of it. I think it's a very good idea to expose that sort of ideas to children, and thanks to that education as a child, I was able to get away from an attempt of sexual assult on me recently.

As for child pornography, it could be a type of fetish, but it's unavoidable. Where do you draw the line, really? For a pedophile, a mere picture of a child could be fit as porn for them. I can't help but bring this up, in recent years, the design of childrens clothing is sickening. Bikini, crop top, mini skirts, tank tops for girls as little as 3 years old. Its the parents that are dressing up their children as bait for pedos. When they can't dress their children in something more appropriate for their age, like T-shirts and knee length skirts or pants, if there is the need, 1 piece swim suits would suffice, instead they dress them in something they'll probably wear themselves.

 Like this?

I think in the end it comes back to the parents. But in this day and age, it's hard to bring up a child in a "safe enviroment" like they all say they'd like to.

If I let my kids use the internet alone, it would be because I believe they're ready for it. I don't believe in content filters or making certain conversations illegal as a substitute for parenting, I wouldn't let my 6 year old browse the web without me watching what they do (so they don't visit on.nimp.org or whatever). And really, by the age of 11 or 12 I was seeking out that kind of sexual content on my own, it wasn't being forced on me by any means. How many sites lack that "you must be 18+ to view this site due to content of an adult nature"? If a kid sees it, it's cause they were looking for it.

Kids are curious, and trying to shelter them just makes them more vulnerable to predators and people who will take advantage of them.

Is it really in the kids best interest to leave their parents in charge of all their rights? Most child molestation is done by immediate family members. Who can they turn to if the people who own them aren't acting in their best interest?

That's a whole other thing. A child going out of their way to come across adult material is not the same thing as an adult propositioning a child.

Replace "IMing with friends from school" in my previous example to "waiting outside of school for a ride home". Would you appreciate an adult coming up to your child and making sexual propositions?

I agree that the parent must be responsible for maintaining safety of their children, but there are simply some things which shouldn't be allowed regardless. For example, hardcore pornography over the air during the day is something you will never see. This is because it's impossible to maintain safety of exposure without cutting off all ties altogether otherwise. Would you want to homeschool your child to protect them, or would you rather just have what you're protecting them from be illegal? The only reason said thing would even be legal is on the ideals of freedom of speech, but again, like I said, "your" freedom of speech ends at "my" ears when private matters are concerned.

But yeah, a child deciding to look at pornography is a VASTLY different thing than an adult hunting out a child and attempting to engage them in an illicit affair.

Sheltering children from danger in a sense is disabling their sense of alerting danger.

It is entirely possible to make children aware of dangerous situations without putting them into said situations. For example, you don't need to take a child on an interstate doing 100 MPH weaving through traffic for them to know that it is dangerous to do so.

And no, you can't blame it on the style of dress little girls wear these days. That's the classic blame-the-victim ideal... i.e., it's not rape because she was "begging for it". It's disappointing that parents would do that to their children, but still, they're not the ones doing wrong here-- those who would molest/rape those children are.

Replace "IMing with friends from school" in my previous example to "waiting outside of school for a ride home". Would you appreciate an adult coming up to your child and making sexual propositions?

Yes, and replace "child" with "giant cougar" because that's totally the same thing.



Plus I like sleeping with cougars


If they're using their adult stature to coerce a child, then arrest them for it. Not just for talking.

ugh

The thing you seem to be avoiding is the fact that "talking to a child" and "talking about sexual matters or attempting to engage the child in that way" are two VERY different things. An adult can have a totally innocent talk with a child, even without knowing each other. That's not the problem. It's when they talk about sexual things or frankly proposition them.

You seem to be arguing that it should be OK to walk up to a little girl at an elementary school and ask them to have sex with you on the guise of free speech. That's not right.

You seem to be arguing that it should be OK to walk up to a little girl at an elementary school and ask them to have sex with you on the guise of free speech. That's not right.

I disagree with you.

I disagree with you.

Well then you are wrong. You can go to jail for that. It's called sexual harassment.

I'm not going to repeat my argument just because people can't read it. Sorry.

It is entirely possible to make children aware of dangerous situations without putting them into said situations. For example, you don't need to take a child on an interstate doing 100 MPH weaving through traffic for them to know that it is dangerous to do so.

Obviously you didn't read what else I said, maybe out here the idea is to let children learn what's dangerous or not on their own, but sometimes not teling them how to get out of dangerous situations could prove to be harmful. What I said was, you TEACH them what's dangerous, and HOW to get out of the dangerous situations. I did not say you have to PUT them into dangerous situations so they to learn. I don't think it takes much brain capacity to figure that out. Put the materials into comics, make the children intrested to read them. I think it's the most effective method.

As for style of dressing, I am not saying that I am blaming the victims either, I am saying that parents these days are oh so afraid for their childs safety, yet still dress their kids up as jail baits. The odds of them getting harrassed in the streets is far less than getting molested by someone they actually know and trust. The statistics says it all, and I am not ignoring the facts, the victims speak for themselves. Teachers, relatives, siblings even. There is no stop to it. The only solution is to arm the children with knowledge of how to defend themselves if they ever come into situations where they are forced into doing something they don't like.

I'm not saying my side in the argument, and I hardly read this.

However, I'm noticing the point that

Child pornography/raping/molestions is wrong since children obviously can't reproduce.

I would like to know if those people like or dislike homosexual people.

I disagree with you.

Australia disagrees with you.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0...62,00.html

If you like little boys and girls, and wanna see their parts for pleasure, you needa be shot.

PS: not a hypocrite cause I have pedobear as my avatar. k thnx bai