Replies

You and Antonio...whatever must add up to a double negative for all the thought you put into this.

Involving "Kiddie-porn" in this argument has long been a conveniant straw-man used by so-called conservatives like yourself (and Falwell/Robertson/FCC) to prop up an argument that you know is destructive to personal liberties in America.

The main difference is, of course, coersion. You conveniantly fail to mention that a child who is forced to perform in porno is not at an age where they are mentally competant to know or truly UNDERSTAND what it is that they are doing. Therefore, they cannot agree to do porno, and anybody who exploits a child in such manners is FORCING that child to do something that they cannot possibly understand or agree to. The actual illegal act is the COERSION intrinsic to the very nature of child porn. There is absolutely NO REASONABLE connection between this conduct and anything practiced by two consenting adult human beings.

None at all, although I'm sure you'll huff and puff and try to tell us that our "being bad" (or demanding our personal freedoms be left alone by the federal jackboots) is contributing to the downfall of Western society, etc., yada, blah... Elvis is evil, Rock is the devil's music, they should bring back segregation, change your diaper...

Involving "Kiddie-porn" in this argument has long been a conveniant straw-man used by so-called conservatives like yourself (and Falwell/Robertson/FCC) to prop up an argument that you know is destructive to personal liberties in America.

It's not a straw man. It's simply a point that's devastating to your argument--so of course, it's convenient for you to create an artificial separation at the arbitrary age of 18.

The coercive aspect is only involved in the making of child porn. There is no coercive aspect involved in owning or viewing it. I, personally, am in favor of keeping it illegal to own or view. How about you? If so, you are limiting the freedom of many brave patriots to own and view child pornography. Does that make you the moral equivalent of the Taliban?

"You conveniantly fail to mention that a child who is forced to perform in porno is not at an age where they are mentally competant to know or truly UNDERSTAND what it is that they are doing."

But you're comfortable with the government setting that arbitrary age which sets the mental competency breakpoint (ie., 17, incompetent. 18, competent)?

I'd really be interested in your alternative to this "government intrusion". Maybe you agree with the Libertarians -- that this should be up to the individual child? That "children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood."? Is that what you want?