Quote from: John MorrowDoing any sort of objective research on pedophiles is difficult for obvious reasons.  But I suggest looking at police profiles of pedophiles and their use of images of children such as this one.

OK, I just did.  The very first two sentences of the chapter you link to are this:
   It should be said from the very beginning that no one knows how many pedophiles exist in America since the overwhelming majority never fulfill their fantasies, nor do they come to the attention of law enforcement agents. They seem content to fantasize in the safety and comfort of their own homes.

Now, I would prefer it if people didn't find this stuff sexually exciting.  However, some people do, and if the article is to be believed, then most of them lead blameless lives in this respect.  I've seen very similar debates within feminist circles, with some people pointing out how bondage and even much of mainstream sexual imagery glorified women as passive victims.  Of particular note, I remember a friend of mine saying how that made logical sense to her, but she couldn't help that she found some of that stuff hot.  I know that a bunch of stuff that I find hot, other people would find twisted.  

So, to focus on the positive:

I would approach this first by aggressively tracking down and prosecuting violators (i.e. those who actually molest children).  As mentioned earlier, having such fictional material legal often makes it easier to identify suspects.  

I would also approach it by trying to push cultural change to eliminate the influences that make people find such material sexually attractive.  This would be things like critical articles, letter writing, or at the extreme picketing and/or boycotts of publishers involved in such.  That would likely be as much or more images in mass media and advertising (like Bratz) than in hard-to-find specialized venues (which people probably go to only once their tastes are set).  

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not simply that it makes things worse.  It's that it serves no other useful purpose.  There is no respectable use for the stuff.

I agree.  However, I really really don't want the government coming in and outlawing whatever it decides isn't "respectable".  That's not the governments job.  I especially don't want the government coming in and making judgements about which sexual fantasies are acceptable or not, legislating private sexual behavior.  I would note that the 1972 Miller vs. California decision that set the obscenity precedent was a controversial decision that was a 5-to-4 split, so it's not like I'm terribly radical in this.

Quote from: David RWhat exactly are these underlying issues if not people having messed up ideas about children?

Once you discuss the issues at that broad of a level, we can wind up talking about all sorts of things that really have nothing in common except that they broadly involve adults having messed up ideas about children.  It assumes that they all have the same root cause and I don't think that's true at all, even though they all manifest themselves in adult behavior toward children and have some possible connection to sexuality.  I think the causes and motives are quite different and it's not really beneficial to discuss them as if they were the same.

For example, I thing your comments about little girls and the hajib are are fascinating, but I don't think they have a lot to do with what's going on in Japan.  The same with those "beauty pageants" for young girls.

Quote from: David RLike I said, I don't think the goal is pedophilia. I do think from what we do know of pedophiles who function within very normal (mainstream) enviroments - sports activities, religious org etc - it's not illogical to assume that they would find an activity such as this, which does sexualize children, easy to operate in. The socially exceptable passtime of viewing these kids would provide an ideal cover for these predators.

To be honest, I don't want to crawl into the mind of a pedophile and speculate further so I'll simply say that I could be wrong and you could be right, especially based on your comments later on.

Quote from: David RJust to tie this up with these so called beauty pageants. It's funny, the feelings of "creepiness" that some (most hopefully) view these pageants is exactly the same kind of reaction you get with the majority of people who see kids wearing the hijab. I think this is telling. It's the imagery (and the follwing repulsion) of children as overt sexual objects.

But how does this then tie back to the Japanese issues?  While I think that both the pageants and hajib are parental control issues, if not wholly then primarily, the Japanese pornography seems to be, if not wholly then primarily, about sexual attraction toward the look of children.

Quote from: David RHonestly, be it kiddie beauty pageants or anime porn, the urgent problem for me is the lax enforcement of child pretection laws in various parts of the world and I'm including sentencing & release of pedophiles, child trafficking, child prostitution.

Agreed.  

And to that I'd add the fairly common but ignored problem in the United States of men in their 20s and 30s preying on minors.  In fact, some groups opposed to Planned Parenthood have had women pose as minor teenagers tell Planned Parenthood employees that their 20+ year-old boyfriends got them pregnant, only to have a Planned Parenthood employee tell them to lie about their or their boyfriend's age to avoid filing a statutory rape claim.  In this case, Planned Parenthood threatened to sue the 18 year-old who posed as a 15 year-old.  Here is a Dallas TV News report about a broader investigation that included a person posing as a 13 year-old girl calling over 800 clinics mentioning a 20+ year-old boyfriend and includes parts of some of the actual calls.

ADDED: Here is a paper that talks about adult males and their relationships with young teenaged girls that includes numbers from studies including these:

   In 1997, researcher Duberstein Lindberg and her colleagues examined data on teenage childbearing which found that "21% of births to unmarried minors are fathered by someone substantially older." The 15-year-old girls in the study were most likely to have partners five or more years older. In fact, Duberstein Lindberg found that 40% of 15-year-old mothers in her study "had a baby with a partner aged 20 or older." "Births to the youngest mothers were disproportionately fathered by much older men who had engaged in sex nine months earlier with 14- and 15-year-olds," she reported.

Also...

   New data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) reports that close to one-half of adolescents between 15 and 19 years old "reported that [in 1995] they had ever had intercourse." In addition, NCHS data reveal that, among all women surveyed (ages 15-44) who were under age 16 at first voluntary intercourse, 7.1% had a partner age 20-22, 2.1% had a partner age 23-24, and 4.0% had a partner age 25 or over.

(For those not keeping count at home, that's 13.2%)

Quote from: David RPedophiles are attracted to children. In the brothels in Bangkok and Russia or wherever children are abused for profit, most times they are made to wear make up. This is certainly true according to news images of abused children from Russia and Thailand. Now of course they want them to look like children, however I don't think these kids being made to look like adults repels them in any way.

Good point.

Of course the always the DS little-girl-touching video games too! Yeesh!

Japan is a sexually fucked up country, and I don't think it's right to be making animated child-porn, or other child porn based products.

I think it's worth it for the authorities to look into, and if there is a link between someone posessing child pornography or the animated movies and child based sexual offenses, then by all means make that shit illegal.

Quote from: John MorrowBut how does this then tie back to the Japanese issues?

Well the discussion drifted from being only about Japan, no doubt with some doing on my part. Also the issue of freedom of speech has cropped up. So yeah, you're right, these particular issues - beauty pageants/hajib - don't have much relevence to the Japanese discussion. Guess I'm done here. Back to calming shores of rpg Open....

Regards,
David R

See, I'm not so much in favour of making things illegal as much as I am in favour of making slapping people upside their heads and shouting "WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM!!!" legal in certain extreme cases.

Child beauty pagents and Bratz dolls being cases in point.  I predict in a few years young women will be getting head implants to match the body image created by their childhood playthings.

All in all, I don't think more rules solve the problems.  If they did, pedophilles would be rehabilitated when they got out.  In some part I think it's an artifact of the social breeding stock selection methods that exist in our society.  But laws requiring hot women to submist to sex with fat, sweaty losers four times a year for the greater good probably wouldn't fix the problem.

Quote from: jhkimOK, I just did.  The very first two sentences of the chapter you link to are this:
   It should be said from the very beginning that no one knows how many pedophiles exist in America since the overwhelming majority never fulfill their fantasies, nor do they come to the attention of law enforcement agents. They seem content to fantasize in the safety and comfort of their own homes.

The problem is that if we don't know how many exist, then we can't really know how many are harmless.  We can only guess.  But would you leave your child with a person with a large collection of anime pornography dealing with children and if not, why not?

Quote from: jhkimNow, I would prefer it if people didn't find this stuff sexually exciting.  However, some people do, and if the article is to be believed, then most of them lead blameless lives in this respect.  I've seen very similar debates within feminist circles, with some people pointing out how bondage and even much of mainstream sexual imagery glorified women as passive victims.  Of particular note, I remember a friend of mine saying how that made logical sense to her, but she couldn't help that she found some of that stuff hot.  I know that a bunch of stuff that I find hot, other people would find twisted.

It's that "I can't help myself" element that concerns me.  Sex is one of those things that people seem to have trouble controlling.  See a certain ex-NY governor for a good example.  So my concern, for reasons that Kyle has alluded to, is that the people who fantasize can reliably keep that genie in the bottle.

Quote from: jhkimI would approach this first by aggressively tracking down and prosecuting violators (i.e. those who actually molest children).  As mentioned earlier, having such fictional material legal often makes it easier to identify suspects.

How do you feel about the Planned Parenthood stings that I mentioned in an earlier reply?  

Quote from: jhkimI would also approach it by trying to push cultural change to eliminate the influences that make people find such material sexually attractive.  This would be things like critical articles, letter writing, or at the extreme picketing and/or boycotts of publishers involved in such.  That would likely be as much or more images in mass media and advertising (like Bratz) than in hard-to-find specialized venues (which people probably go to only once their tastes are set).

The problem is that people have tried that and it's difficult to reach critical mass and actually bring about change.  For example, Amazon was distributing a book that seemed to be a "how to" guide on molesting children and how to get away with it and conservative groups tried to persuade them to stop selling it and even tried a boycott and, to my knowledge, it didn't amount to anything.

Quote from: jhkimI agree.  However, I really really don't want the government coming in and outlawing whatever it decides isn't "respectable".  That's not the governments job.  I especially don't want the government coming in and making judgements about which sexual fantasies are acceptable or not, legislating private sexual behavior.  I would note that the 1972 Miller vs. California decision that set the obscenity precedent was a controversial decision that was a 5-to-4 split, so it's not like I'm terribly radical in this.

Have you read Brennan's dissent, joined by Stewart and Marshall?  Brennan writes, " I need not now decide whether a statute might be drawn to impose, within the requirements of the First Amendment, criminal penalties for the precise conduct at issue here. For it is clear that, under my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I, the statute under which the prosecution was brought is unconstitutionally overbroad, and therefore invalid on its face."  In other words, he's not saying that the activities in question couldn't be restricted by a properly written law but that the law in question was overly broad and thus unconstitutional.  

I think it's also important to point out that Miller has been upheld by the Supreme Court since.

Quote from: David RGuess I'm done here. Back to calming shores of rpg Open....

Probably a good idea.  I've been thinking the same thing myself.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not talking about writing about rape.  I'm talking about things that meet the legal definition of obscenity:

Well, now you've just changed the goalposts. A second ago you were talking about arresting some guy at a bar for drinking because he might theoretically get into a car and drunk drive.

Obscenity laws are a crock. Obscenity laws were used to persecute Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, countless musicians and artists, never mind producers of legal pornography.  They have been used by politicians to attack their political enemies, and religious leaders to attack their religious opponents. They've been used to persecute minorities of various sorts. They are, if anything, a PRIME example of why this sort of thinking is so dangerous.

This isn't some theoretical "slippery slope" argument, its a historical and verifiable case study that has occurred again and again over time. There's no reason to think that it won't happen again in the future, that somehow the people who are safeguarding the standards and holding the fort won't be as utter fuckheads as countless of those prior moral guardians have been.

QuoteNot my argument.  But let me put it this way.  What harm would it do to the people in such places who are not pedophiles if they are obliged to avoid such material because it's illegal?  Does it hurt those networks and the people on them that they are prohibited from posting or looking at real child pornography?

Well, frankly, its not a question of harming them or not. I couldn't give a fuck about them. Its a case of it being harmful first of all to society, and second to other individuals.
Its harmful to society in that by criminalizing and prosecuting people who might have images of furry fucking or pedobear on their computer browser cache, and dedicating millions of dollars and man-hours to hunting these violators of the public trust who've dared to cause terrible harm to... no one... we're wasting people's money and resources that could be used for countless other more noble causes; like say, addressing the vast majority of REAL child abuse cases that at present are never prosecuted, or treating the victims of the same.
This is throwing away money and valuable effort and time to be able to feel self-righteous, to pretend we're doing something useful, and mainly to punish people we suspect of thinking things we don't like.

Second, it means that people who never had and never would have done actual harm to other human beings might have their lives utterly destroyed by being criminalized with what is undoubtedly the most tainting mark society can place on a human being in this modern age.

QuoteDo those idiots manage to avoid real child pornography?  If they can manage that, then they could manage to avoid the animated stuff, too.

You have yet to establish a reason why they should be forced to on pain of imprisonment.

QuoteWhere does any other legislation stop?  If you haven't noticed, the slippery slope has been tending toward less restrictions for decades

I certainly haven't seen this; certainly not when it comes to pornography. And I really have no problem with having strong restrictions toward child pornography; but to extend that to consensual adult pornography, or drawings or cartoons, or fiction or writings, or non-sexual non-nude images of children,etc.

Again, let's get into fucking specifics here: Do you think the makers of South Park, who have often shown their imaginary 8-year olds in "obscene" situations that, if it was a live action show with real children, would undoubtedly result in everyone involved being sent to prison, should be sent to prison for the things their animated characters have done?
Should Vince Baker be sent to prison for his pirate neck-rape RPG?

I mean come on, why don't you just admit the truth: That you really really hate pedophiles, which is a perfectly understandable sentiment; and that you think they should be punished just for existing, which is likewise an understandable feeling to have?
I mean, that's totally understandable; but it doesn't mean that this is the way we decide to do things in civilization.

QuoteSo, again, you think that people either are or aren't pedophiles, regardless of what sort of culture of visual material they are exposed to?

That they are or aren't? Yes, I'm almost entirely sure of that. From what little I know about the subject, I belive current psychological theory is that this is a deviant sexual compulsion that is the product of extremely early influences (if not from birth), and that its practically impossible to "fix".

If what you were meaning to ask was whether people just are or are not child abusers regardless of what they're exposed to, that's a different subject. I couldn't say that with certainty. I have no idea how many people with these tendencies end up acting on them or not, and whether something like pornography would reduce or enhance the likelihood of abuse, but I would imagine that whether actual abuse of a child would depend VASTLY more on something like opportunity, social pressures, environment, etc.

I mean shit, I really don't believe that someone who plays a lot of GTA is more likely to rob a car, I really don't. So I don't see why someone reading a harry potter slashfic or looking at japanese tentacle rape loli hentai would be more likely to go out and rape a child.

I mean shit, that's right up there with the suggestion that someone playing D&D is more likely to commit "witchcraft" or get into the occult. Its backward stupid specious logic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that if we don't know how many exist, then we can't really know how many are harmless.  We can only guess.  But would you leave your child with a person with a large collection of anime pornography dealing with children and if not, why not?

Dammit, where's a simpsons image with helen lovejoy or maude flanders screaming "Won't ANYONE think of the children?!" when you need it.

I mean shit, if I had kids, I wouldn't leave them unsupervised with a ton of people, for a ton of reasons.

That doesn't mean that because of this alone, those people should all go to prison for 10-25 years, and then be legally-authorized pariahs for the rest of their lives.

QuoteIt's that "I can't help myself" element that concerns me.  Sex is one of those things that people seem to have trouble controlling.  See a certain ex-NY governor for a good example.  So my concern, for reasons that Kyle has alluded to, is that the people who fantasize can reliably keep that genie in the bottle.

And arresting people who have a DVD of Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet on the suspicion that they might be getting off on an underaged leo di caprio and claire danes having fake sex would remedy this HOW?

Again, you're basically admitting here that you think that anyone you suspect of possibly being a pedophile should automatically be sent to jail just for that reason.

QuoteHow do you feel about the Planned Parenthood stings that I mentioned in an earlier reply?  

It feels to me like you're very intentionally muddying the waters with extremely controversial issues that don't add anything useful to the discussion.  I mean shit, obviously the people who did the sting on Planned Parenthood are the type of people who believe that if a 15 year olds 20 year old boyfriend had gotten her pregnant, she shouldn't be permitted by law to have an abortion, and maybe she should be sent to jail too just for asking, huh?

I mean where the fuck do you get off? You claim to be so concerned for the children that we should violate freedom of expression and send people to prison for their thoughts, words, or images; but if a 12 year old was impregnated by rape she can go fuck herself and the little baby machine should be forced to become a mommy rather than get an abortion?

QuoteHave you read Brennan's dissent, joined by Stewart and Marshall?  Brennan writes, " I need not now decide whether a statute might be drawn to impose, within the requirements of the First Amendment, criminal penalties for the precise conduct at issue here. For it is clear that, under my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I, the statute under which the prosecution was brought is unconstitutionally overbroad, and therefore invalid on its face."  In other words, he's not saying that the activities in question couldn't be restricted by a properly written law but that the law in question was overly broad and thus unconstitutional.  

I think it's also important to point out that Miller has been upheld by the Supreme Court since.

If that's very important to you, then it might be worth noting that in Ashcroft Vs. Free Speech Coalition, the SC ruled that the government cannot restrict freedom of expression by making images, art, or film illegal for depicting sexually explicit or erotic scenes involving children if no actual children were involved in its creation.  Speech that "records no crime and creates no victims by its production" cannot be considered the same as actual child pornography.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThis isn't some theoretical "slippery slope" argument, its a historical and verifiable case study that has occurred again and again over time. There's no reason to think that it won't happen again in the future, that somehow the people who are safeguarding the standards and holding the fort won't be as utter fuckheads as countless of those prior moral guardians have been.

The Miller test has been in place since 1972 in the United States.  Can you give me examples of where you think it has been abused?

Quote from: RPGPunditThis is throwing away money and valuable effort and time to be able to feel self-righteous, to pretend we're doing something useful, and mainly to punish people we suspect of thinking things we don't like.

Not entirely, no.  The problem is that what gets produced always pushes past what's legal.  Thus the failure to prosecute obscene pornography in the 1990s resulted in various companies pushing the envelope and producing pornography that involves the physical abuse and humiliation of women which they wouldn't have dreamed of producing in earlier years, despite no change in the law.

Quote from: RPGPunditSecond, it means that people who never had and never would have done actual harm to other human beings might have their lives utterly destroyed by being criminalized with what is undoubtedly the most tainting mark society can place on a human being in this modern age.

Fair enough.  Would you make a distinction, then, between possession and production, sale, and/or distribution?

Quote from: RPGPunditYou have yet to establish a reason why they should be forced to on pain of imprisonment.

For the same reason why you don't like obscenity laws.  I think it's bad for society and bad for the people who consume it.

Quote from: RPGPunditI certainly haven't seen this; certainly not when it comes to pornography.

The content of pornographic films got far more explicit than before during the Clinton administration.  There has been some shift back during the Bush administration, but it hasn't been a complete rollback.  And outside of the United States, Japan has eased restrictions on what it considers obscene when it comes to adults.  Exactly what kind of timeframe are you considering?

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd I really have no problem with having strong restrictions toward child pornography; but to extend that to consensual adult pornography, or drawings or cartoons, or fiction or writings, or non-sexual non-nude images of children,etc.

How do you ensure that pornography is consensual in a meaningful sense, especially given the large number of women (and men) involved in the sex trade that come from broken homes or worse?

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, let's get into fucking specifics here: Do you think the makers of South Park, who have often shown their imaginary 8-year olds in "obscene" situations that, if it was a live action show with real children, would undoubtedly result in everyone involved being sent to prison, should be sent to prison for the things their animated characters have done?

No, because the drawings are not realistic and I don't think it falls under the definition, given earlier, of obscenity.  It's not designed to appeal to prurient interests.

Quote from: RPGPunditShould Vince Baker be sent to prison for his pirate neck-rape RPG?

Apply the definition of obscenity.  Given that some of the games in question were apparently carried out in public spaces at the convention, I do think that there are circumstances that could have occurred where it might have qualified as illegal (e.g., a child overhearing the game).

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean come on, why don't you just admit the truth: That you really really hate pedophiles, which is a perfectly understandable sentiment; and that you think they should be punished just for existing, which is likewise an understandable feeling to have?
I mean, that's totally understandable; but it doesn't mean that this is the way we decide to do things in civilization.

I don't really hate pedophiles but I do hate pedophilia.  As such, I see no reason to treat it or material designed to cater to it as normal and acceptable, which is what leaving the animated movies designed to appeal to pedophiles does.  I also don't think helping a person feed and support an unhealthy attraction is a good thing.  And given the increasing realism of computer animation, it's only a matter of time before it becomes photorealistic, which probably won't help, either.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat they are or aren't? Yes, I'm almost entirely sure of that. From what little I know about the subject, I belive current psychological theory is that this is a deviant sexual compulsion that is the product of extremely early influences (if not from birth), and that its practically impossible to "fix".

So you don't believe, for example, that exposure to deviant sexual content later in life will have any influence on people?  How do you explain, for example, Bob Crane, then?

Quote from: RPGPunditIf what you were meaning to ask was whether people just are or are not child abusers regardless of what they're exposed to, that's a different subject. I couldn't say that with certainty. I have no idea how many people with these tendencies end up acting on them or not, and whether something like pornography would reduce or enhance the likelihood of abuse, but I would imagine that whether actual abuse of a child would depend VASTLY more on something like opportunity, social pressures, environment, etc.

I'm sure that all of those play a roll but don't you think that immersion in material supporting their attraction to children would contribute?

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean shit, I really don't believe that someone who plays a lot of GTA is more likely to rob a car, I really don't. So I don't see why someone reading a harry potter slashfic or looking at japanese tentacle rape loli hentai would be more likely to go out and rape a child.

I think it depends on the person and it's not easy to anticipate who will have a problem and who won't.  Plenty of people can drink alcohol without becoming alcoholics but some who do will.  If they never have any alcohol, they won't become alcoholics and the way that they treat alcoholics is to stop them from drinking completely, not by reducing or managing their intake of alcohol.  

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean shit, that's right up there with the suggestion that someone playing D&D is more likely to commit "witchcraft" or get into the occult. Its backward stupid specious logic.

There are, in fact, people who are into the occult who will freely tell you that role-playing got them interested in it and neopagans are over-represented in the hobby.

I just think it's really odd to argue that the material and ideas that people are exposed to have no bearing on their thoughts or behavior, regardless of what we are talking about.  If that's true, then we can't really do anything to change anyone.

Quote from: John MorrowI think it depends on the person and it's not easy to anticipate who will have a problem and who won't.  Plenty of people can drink alcohol without becoming alcoholics but some who do will.  If they never have any alcohol, they won't become alcoholics and the way that they treat alcoholics is to stop them from drinking completely, not by reducing or managing their intake of alcohol.  

Again, the problem with your logic is that your argument is essentially that anyone who has a drink, who's purpose after all is to get you drunk, should likewise be not only prohibited from being allowed to drink legally, but they should also be arrested and tried on the basis of being "potential" drunk drivers.

QuoteI just think it's really odd to argue that the material and ideas that people are exposed to have no bearing on their thoughts or behavior, regardless of what we are talking about.  If that's true, then we can't really do anything to change anyone.

Sure, ideas can influence. But in the end the influence depends on the adult person's choice. You can't forbid naughty thought just because those thoughts might lead to naughty deeds. Someone might look at those images a million times and never do a thing, someone else might never look at them and do stuff anyways; to punish someone for what they might "potentially" do is a grotesquerie of the worst order.

The idea that there is such a thing as a thought so dangerous that it must be destroyed or punished just for being thought is so utterly reprehensible to me that I'd rather have a world filled with otakus and furry fans galore than have to live in a world run by the likes of John Ashcroft and company; or, apparently, you.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat doesn't mean that because of this alone, those people should all go to prison for 10-25 years, and then be legally-authorized pariahs for the rest of their lives.

I haven't advocated any particular punishment.  I think that's a legitimate concern but somewhat independent of the overall issue.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd arresting people who have a DVD of Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet on the suspicion that they might be getting off on an underaged leo di caprio and claire danes having fake sex would remedy this HOW?

The Zeffirelli Romeo and Juliet actually has underaged nudity in it but, again, I bring you back to the definition of obscenity posted earlier.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, you're basically admitting here that you think that anyone you suspect of possibly being a pedophile should automatically be sent to jail just for that reason.

Not at all.  If they can abstain from collecting pornography dealing with children, that demonstrates a substantial amount of self-control.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt feels to me like you're very intentionally muddying the waters with extremely controversial issues that don't add anything useful to the discussion.  I mean shit, obviously the people who did the sting on Planned Parenthood are the type of people who believe that if a 15 year olds 20 year old boyfriend had gotten her pregnant, she shouldn't be permitted by law to have an abortion, and maybe she should be sent to jail too just for asking, huh?

It has nothing to do with her getting sent to jail and everything to do with him getting sent to jail.  So you don't think there is anything wrong with a 22 year-old getting a 13 year-old pregnant and have no problem with Planned Parenthood helping him cover it up?

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean where the fuck do you get off? You claim to be so concerned for the children that we should violate freedom of expression and send people to prison for their thoughts, words, or images; but if a 12 year old was impregnated by rape she can go fuck herself and the little baby machine should be forced to become a mommy rather than get an abortion?

Where do you get off?  So Planned Parenthood should just give the 12 year-old an abortion and not even tell her parents or the authorities about it?  How about, "I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn't think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way."  That's a testimony that San Francisco Planned Parenthood pulled from their web site (and had deleted from Wayback) because they were called on it.  Do you think that was a good way to handle it?  How about the girl who is suing Planned Parenthood in Ohio because, upon seeking an abortion in 2004 at 16, she told them that the baby's father was her father and he'd been raping her since 2000 and they didn't report it?  Her lawsuit claims that their failure to report the rape led to another year and a half of abuse.  Are you fine with that, too?

Quote from: RPGPunditIf that's very important to you, then it might be worth noting that in Ashcroft Vs. Free Speech Coalition, the SC ruled that the government cannot restrict freedom of expression by making images, art, or film illegal for depicting sexually explicit or erotic scenes involving children if no actual children were involved in its creation.  Speech that "records no crime and creates no victims by its production" cannot be considered the same as actual child pornography.

Correct, because the law, as worded, "prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."  That does not mean that the government can't prohibit those things where the material otherwise meets the definition of obscenity.  That is, that it's made to appeal to prurient interests and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.  Child pornography can be prohibited regardless of whether it has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value because of the children it victimizes.  Since fake child pornography doesn't create victims, it can't take that shortcut, and I'm fine with that.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, the problem with your logic is that your argument is essentially that anyone who has a drink, who's purpose after all is to get you drunk, should likewise be not only prohibited from being allowed to drink legally, but they should also be arrested and tried on the basis of being "potential" drunk drivers.

And, again, I have discussed no particular punishment or penalties.  I think you have legitimate concerns about that but I don't think they are impossible to address.

Quote from: RPGPunditSure, ideas can influence. But in the end the influence depends on the adult person's choice. You can't forbid naughty thought just because those thoughts might lead to naughty deeds. Someone might look at those images a million times and never do a thing, someone else might never look at them and do stuff anyways; to punish someone for what they might "potentially" do is a grotesquerie of the worst order.

Isn't that what punishing a drunk driver who has not gotten into an accident does?  Isn't that punishing them because they might get into an accident?  Plenty of people drive while legally drunk without getting in to accidents.  Why should they be punished for what they might "potentially" do?

You'll also notice that bars are encouraged to cut people off who might drive while drunk or who have had too much to drink because they can be held legally liable if they go out and hurt someone.  

So given your concern over punishment and hurting people who casually look at the stuff, one could make a distinction between the person with a few images in their cache or downloaded carelessly as opposed to the person with a huge collection of the stuff.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe idea that there is such a thing as a thought so dangerous that it must be destroyed or punished just for being thought is so utterly reprehensible to me that I'd rather have a world filled with otakus and furry fans galore than have to live in a world run by the likes of John Ashcroft and company; or, apparently, you.

I'm not talking about punishing thoughts.  I'm talking about punishing actions.

Quote from: jhkimWe are entitled by the principle of free speech.  That means I support others' right to write or draw works that are offensive to people including myself.  And yes, this includes real neo-nazis writing, drawing, or programming works in defense of Hitler; or Klu Klux Klan members making their own works; or NAMBLA making works advocating reducing the age of consent for that matter.

Yes yes it's very cool to support Nazi free speach but how does that work exactly? You support their speaches obviously but do you support their burning Jews-in-effagy? Support their violent demonstrations? Support their tank building? All the cool-kidz support Nazi free speach but the question is to what degree?

QuoteI think the view is expressed fairly well in Justice Douglas' dissent of the 1973 "Miller vs. California" ruling, where the censorship of offensive pornographic materials was upheld.  

Expressed well if being "offended" and "angry" is the worst thing that can happen. I personaly see a distinction between being offended and being raped in effagy.

QuoteApropos of tabletop RPGs, I think a good case is "Racial Holy War" by Rev. Kenneth Molyneaux, which is an utterly represensible work.  Yet I do not think that the government should be allowed to ban it.

Well lets say for the sake of argument that the governement should never do anything. Government = Bad. Could a private individual make a rule like "I won't allow any "white warriors slaugher enemies of the white race" RPGs. It's my house, my rules." Could a group of people make the same rule for their synagogue? What about a city, nation, or world?

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's fairly disingenuous of you, and a tactical blunder on your part, you should have known that I would point out that there are plenty of violent video games about running over old ladies in the street or mindless slaughter that have no such noble goals as "freeing france from the nazis".

Is it the kind of tactical blunder where I lose, or the one where you blow smoke because you've got nothing?

QuoteClearly. Now what's your fucking point?

Because if its that we should publically chastize those human losers who fantasize about raping kids, or say, those game designers who design RPGs that fantasize about neck-raping cabin boys, as you'll recall I DID publically chastize, then I'm all on board with you.

If you think that Vince Baker is a fucking idiot for designing an RPG about raping cabin boys, I'm with you, 100%.
If you think Vince Baker should not be allowed the right to design an RPG about raping cabin boys; then you and I no longer agree.
If you think Vince Baker should be put in prison for writing an RPG about raping cabin boys, which is indeed what you appear to be suggesting here, then I think you're a fucking idiot.

I haven't read Vince Baker, but for the sake of argument lets say that theres a child porn rpg, purient without any redeeming value etc. etc. What do I think of that? Throw the hypotetical author in the brig. I choose the third option, which means that you exercise the first option on me, you think I'm a fucking idiot. ...so now what? Are your 'fucking idiot' thoughts supposed to affect my behavior somehow? What about this Vince Baker dude? Are your 'fucking idiot' thoughts twisting his nose or picking his pocket? Perhaps it makes you happy to imagine that your brain is some sort of Grand Archetect Buddism hatred raygun?

QuoteUnfortunately, because its uncomfortable for us, every single fucking one of them, so long as they do not directly incite to real life rape; and even in that case I would think that would be more of a civil issue than a criminal one.

But that seems exceptionaly lenient. Would you permit people to fire into a crowd legaly until they directly killed someone?

QuoteAh, now here's where we see the fundamental issue: you don't really believe we have an inalienable right to free speech do you? You're a fanatical catholic, and one of Catholicism's fundamental principles is that human beings do NOT have a right to say or express anything they want to; that's why they spent a good 500 years fighting against the rise of democracy tooth and fucking nail, seeing the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason as the worst disaster to befall mankind (or really, them) since the dawn of christendom.  Because Catholic dogma is all about the control of ideas, isn't it? You can't really be a Catholic and believe in absolute freedom of speech. You aren't free to speak heresy, after all.

Yay! :emot-flowers: Pundy affirmed my Catholic identity! Oh what a happy Palm Sunday this is turning out to be.  

Anyway, you are correct to say that Catholics do not believe in absolute freedom of speach, 'lying' is 'bad' for example. And the Catholic church is still against misrule. Democracy is permissable only so long as it is enslaved by good. Injustice remains injust even if more than 50% of the watery tarts lob their semitars the other way round.

QuoteYes, I can see that you've got some very strong emotionally-driven opinions about the subject. Now, do you also want people to be able to put you in prison for writing catholic tracts? Because this is fundamentally the exact same liberty we're talking about: the freedom of expression. You can't take it away in certain cases and not weaken it as a whole.

We are the knights who say: NI!

QuoteIts an fucking INALIENABLE right; I may despise what some people choose to do with it, but for the sake of society as a whole, we have to defend everyone's right to do it. Or we all end up back in the days of the motherfucking "Holy" Inquisition.

Oops! I meant: We are the knights who say: Nox!