XPost: alt.politics.republicans, talk.politics.guns, alt.activism   
   XPost: talk.religion.newage   
   From: antikerry@go.com   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:1180905420.210333.137040@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...   
   > On May 26, 12:29 am, Jenny6833A  wrote:   
   > > On May 25, 11:29?pm, Stuffed Tiger  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:16:20 -0700, Bert Clanton    
   > > > wrote in part:   
   > >   
   > > > If age appropriate material and age appropriate behavior are the prime   
   > > > consideration in labeling and scheduling, that should guide what   
   > > > children are exposed to. There is no reason children should ever be   
   > > > exposed to age inappropriate materials.   
   > >   
   > > Who decides what's "age-inappropriate"?  What evidence is there that   
   > > legal (non-violent, unforced, legally consensual) sexual material   
   > > harms any child?   
   > >   
   > > > The truth is that kids get quickly bored with materials too old for   
   > > > them or too young for them.   
   > >   
   > > But what's too old or too young varies radically from child to child.   
   > >   
   > > > Children need guidance in these matters.   
   > >   
   > > Not really.  Instead, adults have an obsessive need to censor   
   > > children.   
   > >   
   > > > We can probably agree on that and that the government has no place   
   > > > guiding adults in what information an adult can view.   
   > >   
   > > I don't really think you mean that.  I doubt you'd include film of   
   > > some old perv screwing a baby then torturing the kid with a soldering   
   > > iron for fun, then using her as a pin cushion for ten-penny nails.   
   >   
   >   
   > But apparently such a film would be entirely legal if it didn't   
   > involve sex wouldn't it?  Have you seen faces of death?   Faces of   
   > death  is a perfectly legal film which can be found in many video   
   > stores which shows films of people dying for real. Getting mauled by   
   > bears, and eaten by crocodiles; jumping out of windows, etc.  What's   
   > more is they show films of people getting abused and beaten on   
   > national television - with good reason.  Take the Rodney King or   
   > Reginal Denny beating.  Apparently films and pictures of child abuse   
   > are not 'obscene' unless they involve sexual abuse.   
   >   
   > It's quite clear that restrictions on receiving, possessing, and   
   > buying child pornography are an exercise in prior restraint.  The   
   > courts have long ruled that a newspaper can not be prohibited from   
   > publishing things beforehand, and can only be pursued after the fact.   
   > Certainly prohibiting people from receiving, possessing or buying a   
   > newspaper violates this important principle of freedom of the press.   
   >   
   > However, this doesn't mean that children may just become porn stars.   
   > It's possibly a difficult decision, because just as some children want   
   > to be in Little League, or in fashion shows, or take piano lessons, it   
   > is quite possible that some children would consensually want to be in   
   > porn with other children of their own age (sex between minors and   
   > adults could still be illegal).  These minor's own parents may   
   > themselves be porn stars for instance, and could encourage them to   
   > enter the business.  However, if you think about it, on the other hand   
   > some children's parents strongly pressure and even force them to take   
   > piano lessons, be in Little League, or be in fashion shows.  And if a   
   > child is forced to be in a pornographic film and have sex, then that   
   > is no different from rape.  Adult pornographers and prostitutes choose   
   > their occupation.  Child pornographers and prostitutes may consent or   
   > be forced.  And if they are forced to have sex then that is the same   
   > as rape.  However some might want to be in porn and have sex, and   
   > consent, it's possible.   
   >   
   > Finally, to borrow from Shakespeare, "nothing's obscene but thinking   
   > makes it so."  A beautiful sunset could be made obscene, or a   
   > disgusting image could be made beautiful.  It is ultimately your or   
   > someone else's own qualitative subjective judgment and perception   
   > projected onto an image.  The image in and of itself is neutral.   
   >   
   > Laws against buying, possessing and receiving child pornography must   
   > be errors of legislation, and result in miscarriages of justice.   
   > Giving someone 200 years without parole sentence in Arizona for mere   
   > possession of child pornography, meanwhile rapist murderers get out of   
   > prison in 10-15 years to kill again.  It seems the government is the   
   > one committing the crime in this case.  Judges, juries and   
   > prosecutors, and have a responsibility to nulify unconstitutional and   
   > unjust laws in any case.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   Heck, if you're a Democrat, you can rape a 4 year old girl and get a slap on   
   th wrist.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)