Thanks for keeping this discussion pretty even-tempered. I realize it is a very volatile subject for people on both sides of this issue... and in my case, a guy in the middle trying to sort out the difference between the two.
quote:
I do not agree though that the legalization of the content we are discussing would not reflect acceptance of pedophillic behavior of people seeking sexual stimulation by viewing children participate in sexual acts.
Legality is tolerance and NOT acceptance. That distinction is at the heart of many cases regarding freedom of the press as well as for civil rights.
For example when the SC recently overturned sodomy laws as unconstitutional it was not a statement that gay sex was or should be viewed as acceptable to society at large nor was it an endorsement by the government.
The beauty (IMO) of the United States government, as envisioned by its founders, was a nation where the government kept its hands off the culture. It is society itself which must determine what it wants, unrestrained by the demands of any majority.
Thus the case you make should be made in the public sector of your church, your family, your neighborhood, or websites like this. Where it rightly stops is at your neighbor's yard.
The only time COMMUNICATION or PERSONAL ACTIONS are allowed to be limited is when they present something more than an offense to public sentiment (unless one is in public of course).
Without this distinction Protestants can wipe out Catholics because to not do so is to advocate Catholicism. Xians can wipe out Jews, because otherwise it is to advocate Judaism. Capitalists can wipe out Communists because otherwise.... whoops, see that already did happen. It was a witchhunt which like all witchhunts ended in theatres of the absurd and eventually tragedy.
quote:
I was unaware of the studys you have mentioned and will look into it only to satisfiy my own curiousity.
I have a link to some studies in one of the porn threads. I encourage you to look at them more than for curiosity's sake. This is an important issue and facts are imperative to temper emotions when figuring out how to handle the situation.
quote:
This is a very sensitive issue to me because of my Christian background I am not as insusient about pedophillia in any form.
This is not to be insulting or insensitive, but Xianity says NOTHING about pedophilia. You will not find one statement in the bible deriding sex between older and younger people, or between youths. In fact there are clear examples of what would be considered pedophilia according to current US standards within the Bible.
Ironically the strong version of the Child Protection Act would have labelled the Bible as childporn. Once again, Zero tolerance naturally leads to theatres of the absurd.
quote:
I am less likely to get alarmed if a 13 year old girl is married with parental consent than I would be for a middle aged man to commit henious acts with a 10 year old or younger victim.
Well you are not wrong in your feelings, or in stating them such as to deride middle aged men from doing so, as well as warning young people to beware of such situations. I would even go so far as agreeing with your assessment of the situation you outlined.
I guess I cannot go so far as to view as "heinous acts" ANY sexual contact just because it is an old man and a 10- younger person. The key element (to making it victimization) will be coercion, physical force, deception of the child and (IMO) the cultural beliefs/desires of the parents.
This translates to having the state give power to the individual youth AND the parents to fend off molesters, rapists, and killers.
But this is to digress into discussions of AOC laws, and not the use of material to fantasize about sexual encounters which might be counter to AOC.
I am uncertain, and would like to see an argument supported by evidence, why removing the rights of adults to manufacture or view literature in contravention to AOC laws, would have an impact on child molestation whatsoever?
quote:
I am no lawyer but if cutting the clitoris is legal in Africa and is cultrally acceptable I still feel the woman was exploited and harmed. Protitution is legal in Nevada, but that does not mean that some of those females are not exploited or harmed.
Heheheh... you just emphasized my point, instead of countering it. I said cultural taste regarding right and wrong are not adequate to define exploitation are harm. Well that includes what people think of as RIGHT just as much as wrong.
While society may view the forced removal of the clitoris as RIGHT, that does not mean there isn't a real physical and perhaps psychological harm from that procedure. It is actually pretty obvious that some amount of harm is part of this practice. The question then becomes how do you control this such that human freedom is maintained while protecting individuals from unwanted harm. In this case, since damage is permanent, perhaps laws could be made to ban clitorectomies until the age of majority... and be decided on by the individual.
Same goes for your prostitution example. I am a HUGE proponent for the legalization of prostitution. However I would be an IDIOT if I said that no prostitute was ever exploited. The interesting fact though, if you look into the evidence, is that in this case laws against prostitution actually do more harm and exacerbate exploitation. The real key is legalization with important regulations to protect the prostitutes.
quote:
But is it not a citizens responsibility to draw a line somewhere? Your thoughts?
You are exactly right. It is A CITIZEN'S responsibility to draw a line, and not the majority of citizen's responsibility to draw a line for the minorities, via legislation.
Is the majority to trap US culture in amber? That is the issue when we talk about the government having to make things illegal so as not to "accept" it. You are talking about not accepting the possibility of change, and removing that possibility through legal fiat. I think that is not really a good idea.
But let's move to less philosophical matters.
Let us say you have a child who, as all children do at some point when left alone with other children, plays "house" or "doctor" and ends up getting caught naked with another child in a sexual situation.
What used to happen, and still does outside the US, is the parents come in an scold the children, or talk to them to help guide their activities along the lines of their system of beliefs.
Under the zero tolerance policy you advocate, and the US currently employs, your child is a child molester (if (s)he instigated it) and can be sent to counseling or even juvie hall. You are robbed of the power to guide your child's development, and the state takes over, officially stamping your child a predator.
Does this sound like a function you wish the state to have over your family?
How about your child, playing around as children do, creates some sexual imagery or goes out and downloads some childporn, and worse still sends either to someone else. For some reason this imagery is found and reported to police.
Now on top of being labelled a sexual predator, your child is removed from your control by the state and labelled a child pornographer as well. By the way this has already happened to a child so it is quite possible it could happen to anyone.
Is zero tolerance making sense anymore? Or is it starting to look like the theatre of the absurd, and infringement on YOUR RIGHTS as a parent?
Worse still, being your computer, you could be prosecuted for possession of childporn that you never even new you had on your computer, much less tried to view. You would then be permanently labelled and tracked as a sexual predator.
This is also not a fantasy scenario. My lawyer is currently handling a case almost exactly like this.
Again, is this where you really believe citizen's should be drawing a line? Does zero tolerance (especially regarding possession) make sense when this is the result?
I would mention again that we have already seen the beginning of blackmailing schemes using zero tolerance laws, as childporn is installed through viruses or tampering with a computer while the victim is unaware. Since simple possession is enough to put a person away, it has become effective, even when it turns out no childporn was actually loaded on the computer.
Increasing technology is going to make all of these situations more and more common, not less so.
Does this give you reasons to rethink zero tolerance?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
