XPost: alt.politics.republicans, talk.politics.guns, alt.activism   
   XPost: talk.religion.newage   
   From: @comcast.net   
      
   "Morton Davis"  wrote in   
   news:_xH8i.84998$n_.19345@attbi_s21:   
      
   >   
   >  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.   
      
   Bullshit.   
      
   RD   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)