[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

What you've done is give a good reason for censoring kiddie porn--a reason with which I wholeheartedly agree. But it is still censorship.

It is perfectly legitimate for you to defend censorship of kiddie porn while rejecting censorship of other material, but censorship is still censorship. Remember that everyone who advocates censorship thinks there's a really, really good reason for it.

Of course, I recognize the inconvenience of admitting that censorship of which you approve is really censorship. That would mean that you couldn't engage in easy blanket condemnations of censorship, but would actually have to debate the issue of where the line is to be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable censorship.

[chriservative]

I'm sorry. I just don't see the illegalization of kiddie porn as censorship, just as I wouldn't view the illegalization of snuff films as censorship. Such images are documentations of actual crimes for unconventional (read sexual) use. That is the reason they are illegal. A dramatization of a murder, however, as we see on TV all the time is not a crime and although some may view that dramatization as offensive, it is not illegal. In my opinion, to equate the two is really inaccurate.

Nip/Tuck is a very promising show. Just as with "The Shield", it is shown at 10pm during core adult viewing hours. You may not like it because it offends your sensibilities, but its incredibly well written.

[KCmark]

While I see your point, kiddy porn doesn't make it to censership. It is illegal to create. (Although there are always gray areas, like America's Funniest Home Videos showing topless kids running around in a sprinkler.) Drawing the line at the nose/fist point is something we can all agree on, I would hope. Where the nose is, i.e. the age of consent, can be argued, but once established, ...

Kiddy porn is a straw man almost everytime it is used. But I'll give it to you. Yes we all censure, but it should be the last refuge, not the first line of defense.