XPost: alt.politics.republicans, talk.politics.guns, alt.activism   
   XPost: talk.religion.newage   
   From: pol@nospam.com   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:1181428890.789258.244730@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...   
   > Forced pornography with sex is like forced child prostitution - even   
   > though in this case it would only be with other children of the same   
   > age - for legal adult pornography with sex is hardly different from   
   > prostitution in the first place.  And forced child prostitution, even   
   > with children of the same age, is rape.   
      
   It is true that almost all porno is really just prostitution. It's not the   
   best field to be in.  A single girl who needs money and has no other way to   
   earn it, perhaps could do it for a few months but then stop.  But most of   
   the girls who make porno do so only because they have hard drug addiction   
   problems, and they make the porno films to get money to buy the crack   
   cocaine or heroin they so badly need.   
      
   Since the American government hgas legalized porno and removed almost all   
   restrictions on it, it has basically also legalized prostitution, which is   
   not such a good thing.   
      
      
   > The different types of child pornography:   
   >   
   > Pictures of kids who just happened to be naked.   
   > Pictures of kids who were told or forced to be naked. - kids shouldn't   
   > be pressured.   
   > Pictures of kids who just happened to be having sex.   
   > Pictures of kids who were told or forced to have sex. - Could be just   
   > the same as rape.   
   > Pictures of kids having sex with adults or being abused. - Always   
   > rape, except if you believe that kids can sometimes consent to sex   
   > with adults.   
   >   
   > It's possible that mere pictures of kids naked could be legally sold,   
   > just like pictures of kids in clothes are sold.  However, if that's   
   > legal then next we will have kids naked in sexual positions, or   
   > simulated sex with other children - not actual sex, but close.  Is   
   > that rape or like it?  Kids forced to take off their clothes and   
   > perform sexual poses... it's not good to impose this on children.   
   > Again, on the other hand, some kids might very well want to be in   
   > porn, and consent, just like some kids want to be in Little League.   
   > It's possible.   
   >   
   > So if we decide that kids can't consent to selling intercourse photos,   
   > then selling them is a copyright violation.  However if one's argument   
   > is freedom of the press, then anyone would have a right to sell these   
   > photos and be subject only to a civil lawsuit.  In recent years it has   
   > been the law that it is illegal to sell copyrighted bootleg Hollywood   
   > motion pictures or bootleg music.  We see here the clash of two   
   > principles, of copyright security and freedom of the press.  One might   
   > argue that products such as Hollywood motion pictures and bootleg   
   > music which are widely available for sale should enjoy greater   
   > copyright protection.  On the other hand, maybe such infringement and   
   > sales should only be subject to civil lawsuits, for I see little   
   > reason to create more and more non violent crimes, which in this case   
   > do not factually steal from the victim, but merely hurts business   
   > profits.  In any case, the penalties for sale of child pornography far   
   > outweigh the crime, and are definitely disproportionate compared to   
   > the penalties for other crimes, and so constitute cruel and unusual   
   > punishment.  The photos and films are often evidence of a crime which   
   > could be used to convict people who actually commit the heinous acts   
   > of child sexual assault and rape of non-consenting children.   
   >   
   > To summarize, I have identified three strong Constitutional arguments   
   > affecting the current legal status of child pornography:   
   >   
   > The 9th Amendment which protects your unalienable freedom to see and   
   > hear.   
   > The 1st Amendment.  Which protects freedom of the press.   
   > The 8th Amendment.  Which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment -   
   > this should include disproportionate sentences.  In 1983, in the case   
   > of Solem v. Helm, the Supreme Court ruled that a sentence of life   
   > imprisonment for issuing a fraudulent check in the amount of $100   
   > constituted cruel and unusual punishment.   
   >   
   > Also I would note that pedophilia is not any more of a mental disorder   
   > than homosexuality, it is a perhaps tragic sexual orientation, and   
   > that just because someone is a pedophile or much less looks at a   
   > picture, does not mean that they will molest, rape, or force   
   > themselves on a child.   
   >   
   > For instance, I've seen gay porn once or twice and I am not gay, and   
   > I've seen tons of heterosexual porn and not raped or sexually   
   > assaulted any women, nor would I care to.  I have never seen any child   
   > porn, and would note that the current imbecilic laws make it a felony   
   > for Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen, and Senators, to review it,   
   > and come to any conclusion about it as voters.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)