Posted on 04/17/2002 8:45:48 AM PDT by KMC1
I'm not a computer scientist, so I can't dispute that directly. I can tell you, though, that there are lots of computer consulting companies out there which charge lawyers a lot of money for telling whether an image is genuine or has been altered by, or generated on, a computer. If they've been scamming my law firm (and the courts in which they testify as expert witnesses), I'd love to know about it.
Most people are not gifted in the use of these tools, yet. And it is usually pretty easy to tell amateurish digital images. However, these consultants should start branching into different areas of expertise, because sometimes (and it is becoming more often) you really can't tell the difference.
You've got that right - and the poster got it exactly wrong. What does that tell you about the thread?
Be he a Baptist, Scientologist or Zoroastrian, in the heat of battle Deacon will call down Divine retribution on all net sinners, and will never miss an opportunity to tell everyone about his personal savior. Deacon is fervent and earnest, but never has anything of interest or substance to contribute to a discussion. Occasionally Tireless Rebutter or Philosopher will engage Deacon in battle, but mostly he is ignored.
So? Satisfying the desire virtually is 100% better than not satisfying the desire until innocent children become injured in the process.
Thus we have a precedence of abandoning one level of adult-child sex for a more realistic version.
No, we have a precedence of abandoning adult-child sex for a substitution that is NOT adult-child sex.
It's highly likely the system will diverge. He will need more. Reality is the best virtual reality.
So I suppose you support a ban on simulated violence in movies and video games, including assault/battery, murder, rape, etc.? Or do you see these issues differently simply because of the lack of "virtual children"?
Will someone who plays a video game that depicts murder automatically be more prone to actually murdering someone? Not necessarily. In fact, I've "killed" thousands of "people" during my lifetime of video game play. I have yet to kill an actual person.
Some slopes are slippery. To deny that, is a logical fallacy in itself.
You're right about that. Making something illegal simply because it looks like something else is indeed a very slippery slope. Already, the thumb-and-forefinger in the shape of a gun is a violation of many school "No Tolerance" policies. That is just as absurd as a ban on any other type of simulation.
I cannot help but point out that this hardly answers my question as asked, unless it is your intention to indicate that you see no negatives at all in banning such things. And I must also point out that the laws held to be constitutional have always been anti-obscenity laws, not simply anti-pornography laws. In any case, let me try to address your points individually.
There is absolutely no compelling reason why anyone ought to have access to child pornography, virtual or otherwise.
There are few things on this earth that there is a "compelling reason" for anyone to have. There is no particular compelling reason that you ought to have access to chewing gum, yet we allow you to obtain it and use it, even if it is bad for your teeth. Simply saying that there is no compelling reason to have it is not enough - people want it, and in the absence of any serious and compelling reason for them not to have it, they should.
It is a fairly simple thing to specifically prohibit such "speech" (and I use that term loosely) while having absolutely no impact on political, religous, or other speech which is, and forever ought to be, protected under the First Amendment.
I think not. This claim is often advanced, but I submit that the difference between political and non-political speech is much less clear than is implied.
There is plenty of historical precedent for this, in the anti-pornography laws which were held to be Constitutional until the 1970s.
As I said, the statutes that have been in force, and continue to be in force, are anti-obscenity, not anti-pornography. If I may be permitted to quote myself from post #117, "You may be of the opinion that there is no difference, and that pornography is obscenity by definition. However, neither the law nor public opinion support you in that position." Roth discussed the difference between obscenity and simple indecency, and that was 1957.
Nobody is suggesting that we ban all pornography, but there is no reason to not ban any imagery which depicts unlawful sexual activity with minors.
I think you mean to say that there is no reason that you find compelling. Needless to say, I disagree. The reason that child pornography has been banned in this country is because the production and dissemination of it is a direct result of the abuse of children. "Virtual" pornography needs no such harm to be produced, by definition - the people depicted aren't real, and cannot be harmed. and...
Why do you believe that this narrowly defined class of speech ought to be protected?
...there's more. I have little use for such material. I neither consume it nor produce it, as I have no interest in it whatsoever. What I object to most strenuously, however, is the precedent set in banning such material. It is, as Nick Danger so insightfully pointed out, the proverbial camel's nose under the flap of the tent.
The people/children depicted in such virtual pornography are not real. They are not real. They cannot be injured. They cannot be killed. They cannot be humiliated, degraded, insulted, or offended. They are not real. The only existence they have is as a result of someone's twisted imagination. They are an idea, a thought, as intangible and fleeting as smoke on the wind. They exist only in the minds of their creators, on a sheet of paper, on a computer monitor, on a videotape.
This is thought, in virtually its purest essence. No one is harmed in creating it, just as no one is harmed by you simply saying "kill the Jews," or whatever. Saying it hurts no one, even though doing it would.
But we find this thought, this expression of thought to be offensive, just as many find the statement about the Jews to be offensive. And rightly so - it is offensive. So the cry goes up to Ban It, And Right Quick Too.
But the price is too high. We are not criminalizing actions when we ban this - abusing children is already illegal, as it should be. Instead, we have criminalized a simple idea, criminalized a thought, by punishing its expression.
We have already crossed the line into the creation of thoughtcrime in this country once, with the liberal's abortion that is a "hate crime" law, where those who do bad things are punished, but those who do bad things and have bad thoughts get a little extra turn of the screw from the state. And I have no desire to see conservatives try to one-up liberals in criminalizing "bad" thoughts, in an orgy of eventual self-destruction.
And that's my fear. People who commit "hate crimes" are a tiny minority of retrograde mouth-breathers, that everyone feels good about reviling. And the same is true of those who would consume and produce such trash - they are a tiny minority of perverts that everyone feels good about reviling. But what thoughts will be illegal tomorrow? And the day after that?
You see, you and I are a minority too. Simply by virtue of being reasonably conservative, we have marginalized ourselves - we are outnumbered, even if we are not outgunned. And we are giving them, those who hate us and feel good about reviling us, a tool to use against us. We are outvoted, when push comes to shove. What will happen when FreeRepublic is illegal, because our thoughts and ideas are hurtful and hateful to the dummies over at DU?
Ashcroft and W will not be in power forever. The Republicans will not control Capitol Hill forever. Someday someone who hates you and hates me for what we believe in will be in power up there, and we will have thoughtfully given him everything he needs to simply wish us out of existence.
And that means blood in the streets, and on the sidewalks. I do not want that, and I will avoid it by accepting what others say, even though I find it offensive and perverse. Because, you see, if I accept what they say, I will have set the stage for some measure of reciprocity.
"I hate what you say, and I find it sick," I will say. "But I will protect your right to say it, and you will protect my right to say what I think, no matter how hateful and sick you find it to be, because we are both better for it." And this is the very essence of the social compact.
Mark it well - some odious and disgusting fraction of society's underbelly will find its thoughts criminalized today. But it will be yours tomorrow. And you will have helped them to do it.
Honestly though, Which is worse, sex or murder? If murder is worse then how can you justify having virtual murder legal and virtual sex illegal. This seems analagous to wanting to ban violent video games. I thought the conservative position was to hold individuals responsible for their own actions and not to blame it on TV or video games. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Their are quite a few actions and behaviors that are abhorrent to a civil society that we absolutely can not criminalize. You have already put forth reasons why that must be so I won't go into that. Your mistake is confusing the right of others to take part in uncivilized behavior with suppressing my choice to criticize those acts.
My post was criticizing your belief that increased access to a type of child porn would not be detrimental to children and society as a whole. I stated my reason for that and I believe it was sound. But my solution to the dilemma is not to enact more laws!
A civil society can not be simply defined as all those behaviors allowable within the boundary of a finite set of rules. A wise man by the name of Godel( sorry I don't know how to do those funny dot thingys above the "o") would tell you why if he were still alive.
Suffice it to say, combating child porn requires speaking out against it. Being outspoken against the vices that lead to it. Laws are often too blunt of a weapon. Causing lots of collateral damage. Like I've seen in many other matters the best weapon is my own personal vigilance.
I swear I didn't even plan that!
That is definitely the weirdest thing I've ever seen on FreeRepublic!
The biblical purpose of government is not to steer people to the pearly gates. It is to keep order on earth.
Honestly though, Which is worse, sex or murder? If murder is worse then how can you justify having virtual murder legal and virtual sex illegal. -clip
Child porn takes a human urge and twists it and explores in hideous detail all kinds of different sexual activities with children. Once one is exposed, because of the inborn sexual drive, it is like a drug. It creates an addict that is harder to satiate as time goes on.
The need to commit murders is not inborn in every human being, and is therefore not an appropriate comparison
LOL, that is pretty hilarious.. I'm not nearly as wise as the original Kurt Gödel but I try ;)
BTW, ö = ö
History would seem to disprove that assertion.
I've worked in photography and digital imaging for years. Even using the best technology available today, one would have a difficult time creating an image of a virtual child that would pass the forensic scrutiny of digital imaging experts. To create images that even come close on a scale of hundreds or thousands of images would be so time consuming as to make this a purely hypothetical argument! That's a fact.
the police must prove that it is an actual child. The perp does not have to prove he has the skill to create a digital image.
Surely you realize yourself what a ridiculous statement this is. Of course a defendant doesn't have to prove he has the skill to create a digital image. But if he's on trial, it would certainly be in his best interest to demonstrate that. Were you just not thinking in your haste to make a response?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.