View Single Post
Old 03-08-2011, 04:32 PM   #29 (permalink)
myq
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brooklyn, Boston, other.
Posts: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkenstein View Post
allow me to add that my love for the awesomeness that is Myq Kaplan continues to grow.
Allowable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzgal View Post
From what I've read on Gawker, the kiddie porn book included explicit photos of the author touching children. It was NOT just "words."

It's also why I do not accept the rationalization that viewing kiddie porn images is a victimless crime. Real children are assaulted to create the images that other pedophiles share. So frankly I don't give a shit if guy A only looks at pictures on the internet. He is creating a market in which guy B exploits and assaults children to provide the product that guy A wants.
Two things...

1) If there are pictures of naked kids in the book, agreed that that is worse and more worthy of being illegal than just words. (But then I would still say, why is it "obscenity laws," and not "child pornography laws," unless that is indeed what it is, in which case I'm on board.)

2) What do you think about the idea of computer-generated pictures of naked kids? Where real children are NOT assaulted. (Sort of the opposite of an organic, free range, locally grown situation--all artificial, no children were harmed in the making of this porn.) I believe that stuff exists and that there have been legal battles over whether it should be allowable. (It would probably be easy for me to google it in the time it takes for me to say how easy it would be, but I didn't. Thoughts or facts, anyone?)
(Offline)   Reply With Quote