NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, there's been many discussions (read: fights) on this forum about the ACLU and their defending of NAMBLA members and NAMBLA's message. This post does not concern that situation (http://stoptheaclu.com/index.php/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell). This post focuses on the ACLU's stance on the production, distribution and posession of child pornography (http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/07/17/aclu-policy-to-legalize-child-porn-distribution).

The case in question is from 1982 and the decision was handed down from the New York Court of Appeals: New York vs Ferber (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html).The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit.”

The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be ” a gross violation of privacy.”

source (http://www.catholicleague.org/inventory/book7.htm) Since the ACLU thinks that child pornography should be legal, it is not surprising to read that it is against making it a felony to advertise, sell, purchase, barter, exchange, give, or receive child pornography. It is particularly distressed about the prohibition on advertisement, arguing that “the law cannot expect every publisher to decode every advertisment for some hidden and sinister meaning,” as if it took a technician-armed with a special decoding device-to ferret out pictures of children ludely exhibiting their genitals.

source (http://www.catholicleague.org/inventory/book7.htm) As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers’ ages was impermissible.

“If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or Star Wars,” he said, “there can be no such requirement for Hustler or Debbie Does Dallas.”

source (http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0010700.cfm) “Mere possession should not be a crime,” said John Roberts, executive director of the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.

source (http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?DOCID=1G1:56413342&num=1&ctrlInfo=Round9h%3AProd2%3ASR%3AResult&ao=) I don't know what else to say. Can ANYone truly defend the ACLU in this instance?

while i agree with the supreme court's decision making all aspects of the child porn business illegal i dont have a big problem with the ACLU contending that it should be legal to possess. after all, the possessor did not harm a child. its a civil libertarian point of view.

im glad they did not prevail with this arguement but it doesnt make them horrible in my eyes.

while i agree with the supreme court's decision making all aspects of the child porn business illegal i dont have a big problem with the ACLU contending that it should be legal to possess. after all, the possessor did not harm a child. its a civil libertarian point of view.
Supply and demand: if there weren't people buying/posessing child porn, the producers would have much less incentive to produce the vile filth. Buying/posessing child porn directly supports the production of child porn and the victimization of children and therefore should be criminal.

It is a bit of a tricky issue, especially with all of the social and emotional effects tied in with it. On one hand, can it truly be shown that possessing such material inherently causes demonstrable, tangible harm? Then again, on the other hand, consumption encourages production, and the production of such material is definitely unethical under our current social framework (although I'm not certain that the majority of child pornography is produced-for-profit). Another argument against would be similar to the prohibition of ownership of things like fissionable material: you can't show that my possession of a nuclear bomb inherently harms anyone, however... :) You also run into the problem of making possession of the material legal leading to 'legitimization' of the practice itself, which of course depends on the nature of our social ethics.

I think where I personally have a problem with anti child-pornography laws is when they start encroaching on true freedom of expression, such as artworks or drawings that are purely fantasy-based, as at no point do they have any ties to a real act of harm involving a real person. Laws at that level are akin to banning murder mystery novels because they depict an illegal act (murder) that is in no way related to a real event.

I for one do not understand the point in making production illegal, but making possession legal. Doesn't that make the whole damn thing moot?

There's a difference between legalization, and decriminalization; ie, making possession of child pornography a finable offence.

As much as I admire the ACLU, I'm gonna have to disagree with their stance here.

Oh, regarding the section there on advertising... it can be a lot more subtle than 'children lewdly displaying their genitals'. Take a look at our advertising culture, especially in the last 10 years. There is a lot of sexualization of children going on these days. This normally doesn't bother me so much (I don't believe that children are 'asexual' beings, but the collision between child and adult sexuality lends itself a bit too easily towards abuse in my opinion), but sometimes it'll give even me a pause and a shudder.

Take, for example, a juice vending machine where I once worked. The main splash on the front of it was a large close up of a very young girl's face (around 6-8) in profile, wearing deep red lipstick, sucking on a straw while glancing sideways (towards the viewer) with what struck me as an obvious 'come-hither' expression. Or more recently, the toy product line 'Bratz Babies'... yes, pre-teens dressed like prostitutes, wonderful. :)

Laws at that level are akin to banning murder mystery novels because they depict an illegal act (murder) that is in no way related to a real event.
Apples and oranges. If you want a true comparison, you'd have to ban picture books/videos portraying murder fantasies.

Apples and oranges. If you want a true comparison, you'd have to ban picture books/videos portraying murder fantasies.

Still, it was a good correlation. As such...

(gives Warrigal a Bolol Nuclear Cookie)

To really be constitutional it should be legal to publish but, its possesion would leave you open to charges of conspiracy and aiding and abetting.

I for one do not understand the point in making production illegal, but making possession legal. Doesn't that make the whole damn thing moot?

It's the idea that simple possession does not harm the child in any way, and while morally disgusting by some, what a person finds erotic in their own home is their own business, no one elses. Legalizing child pornography but banning its production would allow for erotica featuring children, or animated (via drawings or computers) child pornography. The production of live child pornography is what exploits children, not its possession. It's pretty much an arbitrary line in the sand, since I would imagine the ACLU understands that allowing its possession will encourage people to produce it, but like Ashmoria said, it's a civil libertarian point of view.

Supply and demand: if there weren't people buying/posessing child porn, the producers would have much less incentive to produce the vile filth. Buying/posessing child porn directly supports the production of child porn and the victimization of children and therefore should be criminal.
i agree with you, and the supreme court. the protection of children needs to come first and without making the whole thing illegal in all aspects (except for cartoon child porn inmyopinion) there is no real protection for children.

It is a bit of a tricky issue, especially with all of the social and emotional effects tied in with it. On one hand, can it truly be shown that possessing such material inherently causes demonstrable, tangible harm? Then again, on the other hand, consumption encourages production, and the production of such material is definitely unethical under our current social framework (although I'm not certain that the majority of child pornography is produced-for-profit). Another argument against would be similar to the prohibition of ownership of things like fissionable material: you can't show that my possession of a nuclear bomb inherently harms anyone, however... :) You also run into the problem of making possession of the material legal leading to 'legitimization' of the practice itself, which of course depends on the nature of our social ethics.

I think where I personally have a problem with anti child-pornography laws is when they start encroaching on true freedom of expression, such as artworks or drawings that are purely fantasy-based, as at no point do they have any ties to a real act of harm involving a real person. Laws at that level are akin to banning murder mystery novels because they depict an illegal act (murder) that is in no way related to a real event.
i think it can be shown that possessing pictures of the sexual exploitation of a child harms that child. just knowing that such pictures exist seems to me to be a form of mental torture. knowing that men are out there beating off to pictures of oneself being abused would cause mental anguish.

i think it can be shown that possessing pictures of the sexual exploitation of a child harms that child. just knowing that such pictures exist seems to me to be a form of mental torture. knowing that men are out there beating off to pictures of oneself being abused would cause mental anguish.

What about mere depictions? Drawings, 3D animations and such. Not trying to defend it, but what about that?

This is something disgusting and the ACLU ought to be ashamed of themselves defending psychotic trash like this. Anyone who would profit from distrubuting from the suffering and exploitation of young children this way is just as guilty as the psycho who needs this filth. The constitution allows for yours rights ending where mine begin. Where is the children's rights to be protected from this exploitation? They cant defend themselves and really have no say in this at all! I think anyone involved in molestation, production of child porno, anything to do with the willful torture and destruction of a child should be charged with a capital crime PERIOD! That kid is ruined FOREVER!! ANIMALS!!!

This is something disgusting and the ACLU ought to be ashamed of themselves defending psychotic trash like this. Anyone who would profit from distrubuting from the suffering and exploitation of young children this way is just as guilty as the psycho who needs this filth. The constitution allows for yours rights ending where mine begin. Where is the children's rights to be protected from this exploitation? They cant defend themselves and really have no say in this at all! I think anyone involved in molestation, production of child porno, anything to do with the willful torture and destruction of a child should be charged with a capital crime PERIOD! That kid is ruined FOREVER!! ANIMALS!!!
When they come running after you on some made up bullshit civil liberties charge, don't go calling for the ACLU.

This is something disgusting and the ACLU ought to be ashamed of themselves defending psychotic trash like this. Anyone who would profit from distrubuting from the suffering and exploitation of young children this way is just as guilty as the psycho who needs this filth. The constitution allows for yours rights ending where mine begin. Where is the children's rights to be protected from this exploitation? They cant defend themselves and really have no say in this at all! I think anyone involved in molestation, production of child porno, anything to do with the willful torture and destruction of a child should be charged with a capital crime PERIOD! That kid is ruined FOREVER!! ANIMALS!!!

A capital crime?

What about mere depictions? Drawings, 3D animations and such. Not trying to defend it, but what about that?
i dont think that cartoon porn of any kind should be illegal. (unless they find some way to exploit a child while making it)

it harms no one.

i know john ashcroft tried to have cartoon porn made as illegal as real porn but he didnt succeed did he?

A capital crime?
:mp5: :sniper: yes....a crime punishable by life in prison or death. Absolutely..... these pervs. have a high reoffending rate, psychiatrists admit they cant be cured, castration doesnt always work...if you want to have sex with a baby or a child you need to die or be taken away from society ...yes even if you just enjoy the pictures.

Apples and oranges. If you want a true comparison, you'd have to ban picture books/videos portraying murder fantasies.
Oh yeah? Take this!! (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/apporang.html) ;)

But yes... a better analogy would be say, movies depicting the act of murder, as I suppose we're discussing a visual medium. Though, personally, the medium is irrelevant, it's the 'creative aspect' direction I'm coming from.

Yes....a crime punishable by life in prison or death. Absolutely..... these pervs. have a high reoffending rate, psychiatrists admit they cant be cured, castration doesnt always work...if you want to have sex with a baby or a child you need to die or be taken away from society ...yes even if you just enjoy the pictures.


/signed

I don't care how they got the way they are either, born that way, nature or nurture, who cares?!

What's important is that once they are identified, they must be removed from the society that they prey upon. Once any of them have been convicted, if there is ever another victim of them thereafter, it's 'our' fault for letting it happen (if they escape, let free on parole, or serve out their sentence is irrelevant) if there is ever another victim of that pedophile, the child's abuse/murder/victimization etc., is on our hands for not having stopped that pedophile...

i dont think that cartoon porn of any kind should be illegal. (unless they find some way to exploit a child while making it)

it harms no one.

i know john ashcroft tried to have cartoon porn made as illegal as real porn but he didnt succeed did he?

Ashcroft also lost to a dead man in Missouri, which tells you how successful his is in life in general.

This is something disgusting and the ACLU ought to be ashamed of themselves defending psychotic trash like this.

On the contrary - they should be very proud that they extended their help in protecting the rights of even those most loathed by a society.

ACLU know what they're talking about. Damn it, civil rights libertarians make me all mushy inside.

:mp5: :sniper: yes....a crime punishable by life in prison or death. Absolutely..... these pervs. have a high reoffending rate, psychiatrists admit they cant be cured, castration doesnt always work...if you want to have sex with a baby or a child you need to die or be taken away from society ...yes even if you just enjoy the pictures.Edited for less flamery: I beg to differ, sir. *takes out glove and slaps face*

On the contrary - they should be very proud that they extended their help in protecting the rights of even those most loathed by a society.Indeed.

:mp5: :sniper: yes....a crime punishable by life in prison or death. Absolutely..... these pervs. have a high reoffending rate, psychiatrists admit they cant be cured, castration doesnt always work...if you want to have sex with a baby or a child you need to die or be taken away from society ...yes even if you just enjoy the pictures.
Then what's to stop the government from making porn in general illegal, and what's to stop them from going from there?

The ACLU defends this stuff not because it approves of it, but because the rights to free speech should apply to all, not just those who you agree with. They defended white supremists not because they are racist, but because if they can't march then the government can just ban protest all together.

Silencing people who you disagree with is a slippery slope.

I don't know what else to say. Can ANYone truly defend the ACLU in this instance?

The thing is, the ACLU isn't a group with a ideology or political porpose, they are an organization who's job it is to defend all encroachments on civil rights, and it's up to the courts to decide what's right. That's like hating public defenders because they defend murders and theives. Without them, the system wouldn't work.

while i agree with the supreme court's decision making all aspects of the child porn business illegal i dont have a big problem with the ACLU contending that it should be legal to possess. after all, the possessor did not harm a child. its a civil libertarian point of view.

I'm pretty much of the same mind

Supply and demand: if there weren't people buying/posessing child porn, the producers would have much less incentive to produce the vile filth. Buying/posessing child porn directly supports the production of child porn and the victimization of children and therefore should be criminal.

This is a good argument for the supreme court's decision

This is something disgusting and the ACLU ought to be ashamed of themselves defending psychotic trash like this.

They have to, it's their job. This is the side they have been assigned to advicate, and they must do so to the best of their ability.


My problem with certain kiddie porn laws, is that technically, right now, Romeo and Juliet is illigal to own or sell. It's just to general and restrictive, because people react emotionally. But emotions are subjective and fluid, and while they have their place, you can't make laws or govern other people's lives based on an emotional responce. You need to be rational.

Making kiddie porn, concentual or not, is illegal because it harms children, who are not yet of age to make such decisions for themselves and are easily preyed on. Agreed.

Posession of film kiddie porn is illegal because someone suffered to make it, and it being legal would increase the demand for it to be made, thus increasing the number of offences. I can see some problems with this line of logic, but agreed.

Making, distibuting, and having cartoon or literary kiddie porn hurts no one, and thus it is not justifiable to make it illegal.

So basiclly, the only test should be did someone suffer for it, did it hurt someone. No emotion or opinion should come into it. As someone said, your rights end where someone else's begin, but *no sooner*!

Making kiddie porn, concentual or not, is illegal because it harms children, who are not yet of age to make such decisions for themselves and are easily preyed on. Agreed.
Why does concentual kiddie porn harm children?

By your logic, children should not be allowed to do anything comercial as they are easily prayed on. No movies, no pictures, no singing. I mean, think of the children!

What about the mentally retarded? What about Corky? WHY DO YOU HATE CORKY? :P
Posession of film kiddie porn is illegal because someone suffered to make it, and it being legal would increase the demand for it to be made, thus increasing the number of offences. I can see some problems with this line of logic, but agreed. Why must someone suffer to make it?

Oil from Iraq is sure killing a lot of people, using a car should be banned as someone had to suffer to make oil.

On the contrary - they should be very proud that they extended their help in protecting the rights of even those most loathed by a society.



But the thing of it is, these aren't rights.

You are seriously damaged in your brain if you think looking at pictures\having a fantasy is punishable by death.

Indeed.



The first sentenced could be construed as a flame, watch it.

The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.

Basically that is saying -make child pornography legal period-. Since it has and will continue to be produced illegally and those that make this pornography are unlikely to be known of and caught in the first place and more unlikely to brought to justice. So... if this law were to come to pass.. "older" productions of kiddie porn could be distributed beside Playboy, Hustler or Penthouse magazines/videos/web sites because they were made before this law passed? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be ” a gross violation of privacy.”

Whose privacy? The producers? Well I can see why they want that privacy, since they will be breaking the law by producing kiddie porn and using minors in their adult fliks, web sites and magazines. As for "of age" performers.. Ok you willingly perform in a pornography film, literally showing your ass to the world and you worry that claiming your age is an invasion of privacy? :rolleyes: Whatever. This law isn't desired to protect the performer it is to protect the producers. What a crock.

Why does concentual kiddie porn harm children?

By your logic, children should not be allowed to do anything comercial as they are easily prayed on. No movies, no pictures, no singing. I mean, think of the children!

What about the mentally retarded? What about Corky? WHY DO YOU HATE CORKY? :P
Why must someone suffer to make it?

Oil from Iraq is sure killing a lot of people, using a car should be banned as someone had to suffer to make oil.



1. There is no such thing as "consensual" kiddie porn. Children (and some adults, IMO >.>) are not mentally mature enough to consent.

2. Don't turn this into an Iraq thread, it's a very poor analogy....in fact, it's not even an analogy at all.

Whose privacy? The producers? Well I can see why they want that privacy, since they will be breaking the law by producing kiddie porn and using minors in their adult fliks, web sites and magazines. As for "of age" performers.. Ok you willingly perform in a pornography film, literally showing your ass to the world and you worry that claiming your age is an invasion of privacy? :rolleyes: Whatever. This law isn't desired to protect the performer it is to protect the producers. What a crock.
So, you're old enough to have sex, but not old enough to video-tape it? Why is sex consentual at 16 (in most states) but not consentual infron of a videocamera?

So, you're old enough to have sex, but not old enough to video-tape it? Why is sex consentual at 16 (in most states) but not consentual infron of a videocamera?



Try asking the legislators. Truth be told, the age of consent should be raised to 18 at the least, but that's just the opinion of Ms. Moral :p

1. There is no such thing as "consensual" kiddie porn. Children (and some adults, IMO >.>) are not mentally mature enough to consent.
Wait, so it's okay to have sex (age of consent 16) but not okay if you video tape it? You don't get to decide who's mentally mature. If an 29 year old woman is really immature, should she not be allowed to have a loan\car\do porn?

2. Don't turn this into an Iraq thread, it's a very poor analogy....in fact, it's not even an analogy at all.
Sorry, I didn't mean to derail. It was the only analogy I could think of. My point was, many things that are not kiddieporn, leads to people suffering for you to eat\drive\do it. But it's not banned. See where I'm going?

Try asking the legislators. Truth be told, the age of consent should be raised to 18 at the least, but that's just the opinion of Ms. Moral :p
That would lead to an awful lot of "rapes" and rape (pun+5) the legalsystem.

So, you're old enough to have sex, but not old enough to video-tape it? Why is sex consentual at 16 (in most states) but not consentual infron of a videocamera?


Thought the consent age was 18 in most states.

That would lead to an awful lot of "rapes" and rape (pun+5) the legalsystem.



Speeding is common, yet still illegal. You can't decriminalize or fail to criminalize something using the premise that it would overwhelm the legal system.

Try asking the legislators. Truth be told, the age of consent should be raised to 18 at the least, but that's just the opinion of Ms. Moral :p

Imo alot of "legal ages" should be raised to 21. But like in another thread.. I couldn't agree with that law if it was still allowed for 18 year olds to be drafted or allowed to join the military and not be able to drink a beer legally at 18.

Wait, so it's okay to have sex (age of consent 16) but not okay if you video tape it? You don't get to decide who's mentally mature. If an 29 year old woman is really immature, should she not be allowed to have a loan\car\do porn?


Sorry, I didn't mean to derail. It was the only analogy I could think of. My point was, many things that are not kiddieporn, leads to people suffering for you to eat\drive\do it. But it's not banned. See where I'm going?



1. No, those who are incapable of displaying wisdom should have certain privileges revoked, at least in my opinion.

2. There is a major difference between the situations though: Driving a car is not intended to further illegal means, nor is it inherently wrong. Any wrecks that occur are purely accidental. You can't say that any children molested are accidental.

Thought the consent age was 18 in most states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Americas

Speeding is common, yet still illegal. You can't decriminalize or fail to criminalize something using the premise that it would overwhelm the legal system.
You misunderstood me. I meant to say that moving the age of consent would create a morass "rapes" as in consentual sex but parents screaming "He\she raped my baby".

It would be completely pointless as it is completely natural for underaged people to have sex.

1. No, those who are incapable of displaying wisdom should have certain privileges revoked, at least in my opinion.

2. There is a major difference between the situations though: Driving a car is not intended to further illegal means, nor is it inherently wrong. Any wrecks that occur are purely accidental. You can't say that any children molested are accidental.
Well, in facist land you may require a standard IQ test to allow people to vote but in the USA you wont.

Underage sex is not inherently wrong.
All wrecks are not purely accidental.
All children in kiddie-porn are not molested. I am talking about consentual underage pornography.

Tell me why it's okay to have sex when you're 16 (assuming that is age of consent) but not in front of a videocamera.

Let's not debate what the age of consent is okay? In the west the median is around 16 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Americas


You misunderstood me. I meant to say that moving the age of consent would create a morass "rapes" as in consentual sex but parents screaming "He\she raped my baby".

It would be completely pointless as it is completely natural for underaged people to have sex.



Many illegal things are perfectly natural, however it doesn't make them right. If I killed someone and took their possessions, it would be perfectly natural (survival of the fittest, after all!) but would it be right? The same applies here.

Many illegal things are perfectly natural, however it doesn't make them right. If I killed someone and took their possessions, it would be perfectly natural (survival of the fittest, after all!) but would it be right? The same applies here.
You misunderstand me, but let's not debate the age of consent. For the sake of the discussion can we all assume it is 16? Which is about the median in the western world.

Well, in facist land you may require a standard IQ test to allow people to vote but in the USA you wont.

Underage sex is not inherently wrong.
All wrecks are not purely accidental.
All children in kiddie-porn are not molested. I am talking about consentual underage pornography.

Tell me why it's okay to have sex when you're 16 (assuming that is age of consent) but not in front of a videocamera.

Let's not debate what the age of consent is okay? In the west the median is around 16 years old.



1. I'm sure NAMBLA would agree, but tell that to the American Judicial System ;)

2. Well, in the rare case that someone intends to murder another person through vehicular means, that person should be tried for it. I never said they shouldn't.

3. No, you can't have a scientific age of consent, as intellectual maturity varies from individual to individual. You can only have a legal one, to prevent statutory rape.

Prevent statuatory rape?! Without those laws, there would be no such thing! Statuatory rape only exists if the age of consent does.

Varies from state to state, usually 18; some states formerly forbade homosexual acts entirely, however such laws have been declared unconstitutional in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas). Federal law forbids crossing state lines or international borders with a person who is under 18, or any sex with a person who is under 16 and at least 4 years younger than the perpetrator (18 U.S.C. 2243, 18 U.S.C. 2423). In the US it is illegal to produce pornography featuring those under 18 and prosecutions have been commenced for cases where both partners are over the age of consent and under 18 years old, where they were making material solely for their own consumption or that of their lawful partner. The constitutionality of these cases is uncertain. Some laws are standing in some states such as California that age of consent to marry is not limited by age but requires parents consent. This means consent to sex and consent to marry are not equal in the USA. In Alabama, recently, a 12 year old girl was married, but records show the youngest man to be married that same year was 15. It is not known who or how old the partner was.


Thanks for the link.

What does that mean exactly? The "and at least 4 years younger than the perpetrator" confuses me. Does that mean that a 20 year old would get in trouble for having sex with a 16 year old.. or a 24 year old with a 20 year old? They can't be talking about persons under 16.. cuz the 4 year difference wouldn't matter.. since 16 is the age of consent in that matter.


Oh.. I think I get it.. So if an 18 yr old had sex with a 14 yr old the 18 yr old broke the law cause he/she was 4 years older than the 14 yr old? Bah .. still doenst make since.. the 14 yr old was under 16! :headbang:

1. I'm sure NAMBLA would agree, but tell that to the American Judicial System ;) Are you saying underage sex is inherently wrong?

2. Well, in the rare case that someone intends to murder another person through vehicular means, that person should be tried for it. I never said they shouldn't. You said, and I quote "Any wrecks that occur are purely accidental." which is a pretty strong statement. I never said you didn't say car murderes shouldn't be tried.

3. No, you can't have a scientific age of consent, as intellectual maturity varies from individual to individual. You can only have a legal one, to prevent statutory rape.
And your point is?


Tell me why it's okay to have sex when you're mentally mature but still underage, but not in front of a video camera.

ug, I have stuff to say, but my brain hurts too much rght now. ::lays down::
Thanks for letting us know. ;)

ug, I have stuff to say, but my brain hurts too much rght now. ::lays down::

Are you saying underage sex is inherently wrong?

You said, and I quote "Any wrecks that occur are purely accidental." which is a pretty strong statement. I never said you didn't say car murderes shouldn't be tried.


And your point is?


Tell me why it's okay to have sex when you're mentally mature but still underage, but not in front of a video camera.



1. Yes, as does our legal system.

2. It's not an "accident" if it's intentional. You're including deliberate acts into the definition of "accident", which is not legitimate.

3. It's not, when did I say it was? Underage sex is called statutory rape.

1. Yes, as does our legal system. 1. Why is underage sex wrong if it's consentual?
2. Our legal system says nothing about the "wrongness" of underage sex.

2. It's not an "accident" if it's intentional. You're including deliberate acts into the definition of "accident", which is not legitimate. I don't know what you're talking about. You said and I quote "Any wrecks that occur are purely accidental" and I said they were not.

3. It's not, when did I say it was? Underage sex is called statutory rape.
Underage sex is not called statutory rape.
Underage sex is when one or more of the participants are underage.

Oh wait, I messed up. Wikipedia definition: Statutory rape therefore refers to the crime of sexual intercourse with someone under the local age of consent but older than the maximum age for the act to be considered child molestation.

I just renewed my aclu membership today, actually.

While i think child pornography is repulsive, and its production certainly a crime, it is important for precedent that simple posession not be criminal in itself.

I could accept laws againt selling it, perhaps.

I just renewed my aclu membership today, actually.

While i think child pornography is repulsive, and its production certainly a crime, it is important for precedent that simple posession not be criminal in itself.

I could accept laws againt selling it, perhaps.
Why is child pornography repulsive? I'm ofcourse talking about pornography with consensual minors. You can be aroused by a 18 year old nude shot but not by a 17 year old because some socially constructed arbitrary rule says you can't?

Not talking about child pornography which is not consensual.

Edit: When I think about it I'd be pretty repulsed myself if I saw 7-year-old kiddie porn. So lets assume minors who are over the age of consent.

Why is child pornography repulsive? I'm ofcourse talking about pornography with consensual minors. You can be aroused by a 18 year old nude shot but not by a 17 year old because some socially constructed arbitrary rule says you can't?

Not talking about child pornography which is not consensual.


I dont consider 17 year olds to be children, to be honest.

I'm referring to children, not technical minors in the US.