mindseye: [quote author=Maximillian link=board=99;num=1068001982;start=40#58 date=11/05/03 at 18:57:52]While the Child Pornography Laws may be grey enough to supposedly allow fictional depictions of that subject, Federal laws dont, including the laws against Sexual Exploitation of Minors and others.[/quote]
Here we go again. If the depiction is fictional -- these are exactly your words, mind you -- then no one's been exploited. Because it didn't happen. It's fiction.
The rest of your argument is completely hollow. For every source you posted, you quoted an excerpt out of context that appeared to support your point, but conveniently omitted the context that distinguishes pictures from text. I'm pointing out these omissions so that other people aren't misled:
The very next sentence after the one you quoted on that page specifies that this applies to images. Pictures.
Read that again. The terminology is specific here: "involving the use of minors in producing pornography". If I shoot kids having sex on film, I have to use minors to do that. If I type a story by myself, on my keyboard -- even if the story were true -- I haven't used minors in the typing of the story.
Again, you omit the fact -- specified in paragraphs 1(a) and 2(a) from your own source -- that a minor has to be involved in the actual production. Taking a photograph, shooting film, having a kid pose for an oil painting -- all of these require that a minor be involved. Typing up a description of a dream I had doesn't require that a minor be involved.
And here, once again, you're ignoring the facts that don't fit your view of things. You only quoted part of the definition, which continues on to say, "where (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; ..."
Frankly, neither of us are lawyers, and it's childish of both of us (I'm big enough to admit I'm going overboard here, too) to argue the legal point.
So here's the bigger point that I want to raise. You wrote:
The way I see it, I am being part of the solution. As a card-carrying (they're white and blue, by the way) member of the ACLU, I get a lot of flak from people because the ACLU defends the low-life scum of the earth -- smut peddlers, Klansmen, paramilitary extremist wackos.
I believe that in order to be free, we have to remove the barriers that prevent the exchange of ideas. We have to accept as a consequence of that commitment to freedom, that the expression of some of these ideas will make us uncomfortable.
Does that mean I have to sit idly by, passive and helpless, while other people post dog-rapes-baby stories on line? Of course not -- I have to accept that they have the right to say disgusting and hurtful things, but I have the right to use my voice to object, to point out the ways in which this type of speech can negatively influence others, to elevate the dialogue by pointing out healthier alternatives to that kind of fantasy.
Banning the publication of offensive thoughts doesn't make those thoughts go away -- it doesn't solve any problem except our unwillingness to face them.
Here we go again. If the depiction is fictional -- these are exactly your words, mind you -- then no one's been exploited. Because it didn't happen. It's fiction.
The rest of your argument is completely hollow. For every source you posted, you quoted an excerpt out of context that appeared to support your point, but conveniently omitted the context that distinguishes pictures from text. I'm pointing out these omissions so that other people aren't misled:
The very next sentence after the one you quoted on that page specifies that this applies to images. Pictures.
Read that again. The terminology is specific here: "involving the use of minors in producing pornography". If I shoot kids having sex on film, I have to use minors to do that. If I type a story by myself, on my keyboard -- even if the story were true -- I haven't used minors in the typing of the story.
Again, you omit the fact -- specified in paragraphs 1(a) and 2(a) from your own source -- that a minor has to be involved in the actual production. Taking a photograph, shooting film, having a kid pose for an oil painting -- all of these require that a minor be involved. Typing up a description of a dream I had doesn't require that a minor be involved.
And here, once again, you're ignoring the facts that don't fit your view of things. You only quoted part of the definition, which continues on to say, "where (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; ..."
Frankly, neither of us are lawyers, and it's childish of both of us (I'm big enough to admit I'm going overboard here, too) to argue the legal point.
So here's the bigger point that I want to raise. You wrote:
The way I see it, I am being part of the solution. As a card-carrying (they're white and blue, by the way) member of the ACLU, I get a lot of flak from people because the ACLU defends the low-life scum of the earth -- smut peddlers, Klansmen, paramilitary extremist wackos.
I believe that in order to be free, we have to remove the barriers that prevent the exchange of ideas. We have to accept as a consequence of that commitment to freedom, that the expression of some of these ideas will make us uncomfortable.
Does that mean I have to sit idly by, passive and helpless, while other people post dog-rapes-baby stories on line? Of course not -- I have to accept that they have the right to say disgusting and hurtful things, but I have the right to use my voice to object, to point out the ways in which this type of speech can negatively influence others, to elevate the dialogue by pointing out healthier alternatives to that kind of fantasy.
Banning the publication of offensive thoughts doesn't make those thoughts go away -- it doesn't solve any problem except our unwillingness to face them.
Withdrawl can be a bitch, let me tell You!
