UK wants to ban computer generated child pr0n

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by motivez

Are they talking like cartoons? Drawings? CGI stuff?

If it's not a real person I'm not sure why there should be a law against it? If no one is harmed in the process, what real reason is there to ban things like that (other than people find it rightfully sickening, etc..)

if no one is harmed i dont see hte issue.

what is the difference of a novel describing the sexual act between two people? is that not the same style of imagery?

[Diamond Cross]

So what about harming themselves? By immersing themselves in this crap they're certainly not getting they help they need.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So what about harming themselves? By immersing themselves in this crap they're certainly not getting they help they need.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So what about harming themselves? By immersing themselves in this crap they're certainly not getting they help they need.

If they are harming no one else, then what is the issue?

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I agree, but I meant sexual fantasy images of their favorite TV or movie star. If it is not an actual image, and their images are in the public domain (South Park and other parodies), what could they do if it was not an actual image but a computer simulation?

Hopefully, nothing. See, that's the price of the popularity they crave. Actors and actresses already have this problem today with the tabloids spilling all kinds of half-truth bullshit about their lives. Also, photochopped nudes aren't anything new.

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yeah, thats right out of George Orwell. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and stop people from watching simulated child porn! Now you have total society control!

Well, 'morality' is almost always the excuse used to restrict expression. Today it's CG porn and depictions of sex and violence 'for-the-children,' tomorrow it's the right to oppose the views and actions of powerful interests who can co-opt corrupt government. It's not so much that I want this particular form protected from censorship, I want ALL forms protected. That's the only way to effectively preempt the problem. Allowing 'exceptions' just gets the snowball rolling..

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So what about harming themselves? By immersing themselves in this crap they're certainly not getting they help they need.

Explain how viewing pictures could ever be 'harmful.' One must have a REALLY weak mind if watching a video freaks them out to the point of permanent psychosis. People like that would probably be best off in special homes. Even if that were the case, then ALL pornography is harmful in the same way and should also be banned. If anything, this CG porn is a net positive because it provides an outlet for these people that doesn't harm anyone else.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So what about harming themselves? By immersing themselves in this crap they're certainly not getting they help they need.

Then we should ban drinking, gambling, eating, shopping, extreme sports and smoking.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

Are they talking like cartoons? Drawings? CGI stuff?

If it's not a real person I'm not sure why there should be a law against it? If no one is harmed in the process, what real reason is there to ban things like that (other than people find it rightfully sickening, etc..)

Funny how the left are the first people to point out social and psychological causes for any anti-social and/or criminal behavior. "It is not my fault syndrome." I named that! But now we have "no one is harmed in the process" of fake child porn?

Damn our founders for their lack of insight! When they meant "speech" not censored by the government I would suggest they meant political "speech" directed against the government. That is what is suggested by the history of censorship at the time. But lo I am wrong. It is about any and all visual (not speech or print) obcentity aimed at child perverts and perhaps even children as free speech. What were they thinking!

Are these the same people who wanted to take Right-Wing Talk radio off the air durring the Clinton years because of the Oklahoma City bombing? And don't forget lets have a University Riot over any non PC accepted politcal viewpoints.....

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Then we should ban drinking, gambling, eating, shopping, extreme sports and smoking.

Not eating but obesity and unhealthy eating/drinking.

Hey, people have got to take responsibility for their lives.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Well, 'morality' is almost always the excuse used to restrict expression. Today it's CG porn and depictions of sex and violence 'for-the-children,' tomorrow it's the right to oppose the views and actions of powerful interests who can co-opt corrupt government. It's not so much that I want this particular form protected from censorship, I want ALL forms protected. That's the only way to effectively preempt the problem. Allowing 'exceptions' just gets the snowball rolling..

Sorry, this libertarian leaning poster does not buy the slipery slope argument of the modern anarchist. That we need virtually no laws to protect the public from oppressive laws. If you realy think that the problem of child predators is a moral problem and not a serious legal and social one then lets scap the whole bundle. Your opinion suggests that society with a open legal system cannot make a value judgement about what is a valid protection and what is an oppessive route to government takeover? If that is the case we truly have no freedom of thought and expression and don't deserve the consideration!

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Not eating but obesity and unhealthy eating/drinking.

Hey, people have got to take responsibility for their lives.

Nothing says "Take responsibility for your life" like passing legislation that forces them to or pay the penalty.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Not eating but obesity and unhealthy eating/drinking.

Hey, people have got to take responsibility for their lives.

Yes, yet the new laws about trans fat in New York City are such a good thing. I heard very little protest!

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Nothing says "Take responsibility for your life" like passing legislation that forces them to or pay the penalty.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Sorry, this libertarian leaning poster does not buy the slipery slope argument of the modern anarchist. That we need virtually no laws to protect the public from oppressive laws. If you realy think that the problem of child predators is a moral problem and not a serious legal and social one then lets scap the whole bundle. Your opinion suggests that society with a open legal system cannot make a value judgement about what is a valid protection and what is an oppessive route to government takeover? If that is the case we truly have no freedom of thought and expression and don't deserve the consideration!

It's not a 'problem' at all. It is a fact of natural existence: Some people are sexually attracted to children. The question is how society deals with it. Currently, we demonize the hell out of it, which is completely counter-productive and makes things worse. It is this mentality that forces these people to become the 'predators' society is being told to fear.

Legality is just a list of rules and consequences that can be changed. Since CG porn gives these people an outlet that does not harm children, I think that banning it out of some kind of moral subjectivity just makes the situation WORSE for children not better. This fact is telling because these lawmakers, claiming to act for the children, are actually placing their own petty moral prudery ahead of childrens' interests.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Nothing says "Take responsibility for your life" like passing legislation that forces them to or pay the penalty.

Like seatbelts!

Seatbelts save lives!

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Not eating but obesity and unhealthy eating/drinking.

Hey, people have got to take responsibility for their lives.

Because transfats are being used systemically by all major restaurants and chains, they are almost impossible to avoid. how can people take responsibility if they don't have a choice? No restaurant posts their ingredient lists on their menus...and I guarantee 99% of entrees use something that has transfat in it. They were brought in because they reduced cost and allowed food to have a longer shelf life, and at the time, no one knew they were bad. Now we know they are. If you want to think in economic terms, imagine how this might affect health care costs 5-10 years down the road. We know that consumers will not stop eating out, so this regulation is the next best thing. I think public health should take precedence over the few cents lost per meal by the food industry. Current events (eg Taco Bell) already show us what happens when we don't have stringent enough checks on food production.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Most places have obscenity laws. Why should this be any different? I don't think it should even be thought of in terms of "child porn" because there is no child. It's simply a matter of community standards. If I make a porn about S&M midgets shitting on each other and and gangbanging a retarded girl in a coma, I'll probably be prosecuted even if everything is staged. That shouldn't have anything to do with anti-midget-exploitation law or no-fucking-retarded-girls laws. It should be a simple obscenity issue decided at the community level.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Explain how viewing pictures could ever be 'harmful.' One must have a REALLY weak mind if watching a video freaks them out to the point of permanent psychosis. People like that would probably be best off in special homes. Even if that were the case, then ALL pornography is harmful in the same way and should also be banned. If anything, this CG porn is a net positive because it provides an outlet for these people that doesn't harm anyone else.

All pornography is harmful, to both men and women.

It's harmful because it doesn't do a thing to help these people overcome their illness and only reinforces it. These people should be seeking help not encouragement.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

All pornography is harmful, to both men and women.

It's harmful because it doesn't do a thing to help these people overcome their illness and only reinforces it. These people should be seeking help not encouragement.

Harmful? I fail to see how. It's just a movie. If one is permanently damaged from viewing a movie, then there's something far more serious wrong. Sex is normal and natural. There is nothing 'unhealthy' about it. The only reason it's considered otherwise is due to longstanding religious bias.

Define 'sick.' Society used to think that of scientists, scholars, homosexuals and other 'misfits' who would not tow the party line (ie religion), but thankfully that is changing. I suppose it's emotionally satisfying to define some behavior you find repulsive as a 'sickness' in need of a 'cure,' but that's not productive nor does it help solve any possible objective problems with it. In fact, by doing this, you become part of the problem. Demonizing pedophiles or subjecting them to lives of drug induced stupors in some mental ward does not undo who they are. It's one thing to protect the vulnerable from unwanted advances, but this law does not do that. It simply denies a safe outlet for these fetishes, and that will only lead to more misery for all involved. Unlike adults who wish sex with adults, pedophiles can never get legally (and arguably morally) what they want. Give them the CG porn and be happy there are fewer of them prowling the streets for the real thing.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

All pornography is harmful, to both men and women.

It's harmful because it doesn't do a thing to help these people overcome their illness and only reinforces it. These people should be seeking help not encouragement.

Illness? What are you talking about?