No, he didn't ask a yes or no question. He asked for people's views and thoughts.
My view on CP will vary depending on what definition of it you're using. For example, I disagree with some moronic judges and a certain act.
Specifically:
it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.
And:
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).
This, in my opinion, is just stupid. I'd like to know who it is they're protecting when the minor doesn't exist. I think that this type of "child porn" (i.e., fictional) is perfectly okay. No children are being harmed. I can't see a valid reason for making this illegal.
When it comes to actual children, then I tend to lean more towards agreeing that it should generally stay illegal and it can be varying degrees of acceptability, depending on what kind of porn it is. Nudity, for example, I could see some children of a certain maturity and understanding possibly wanting to do, unlikely as it may be. Consensual sexual acts, if such a thing was to exist, is a little more iffy. Rape, on the other hand, is rape. It really doesn't matter how old someone is; porn depicting actual rape is horrible, and I don't think any sane person would disagree.
I find it disturbing that childeren under the age of 17 have been know to put theirselves out there on the web, making porn, showing everyone their bodies, knowing good and full that it is wrong. Some of which decide, of their own free will, to do that with older men/women. They post their smut all over the enternet with easy VIA webpages and other D/L share programs and some people think it is alright because it is of their own free will.
Apparently, the law doesn't think it's alright.
USATODAY.com - Teen girl charged with posting nude photos on Internet
She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.
Bet they were scratching their heads on that one.
Hottinger: Law didn't anticipate cell phone photo case (video) | newarkadvocate.com | The Newark Advocate
So, who's to blame? You said it yourself. They know what they're doing. They know that it's "wrong". (Is it really?) There's nobody to blame but the girls themselves.
Originally Posted by
Pete
Meier is a dad, and knowing that there are pedophiles out there who one day may target his son (God willing they don't), pisses him off to no end, and probably scares the hell out of him.
So what is the basis of this fear? That pedophiles are statistically more likely to hurt his son than other people? Because I'm pretty sure black people are statistically more likely to be involved with crime. I'm not going to start hating on them just because I fear that they might try to break into my house and hurt my family.
And last time I checked, Meier himself, as a parent, is statistically more likely to abuse his child than some stranger is. Now, I'm not saying he'd do such a horrible thing. But the chances of some pedophile targeting his son for sexual abuse is extremely small. Hell, the kid's more likely to drown in a pool or die in a car accident. There's something for you to fear. And sorry, I'm too lazy to look up those statistics right now.
Bookmarks