Posted on 07/11/2002 9:37:26 AM PDT by press
If you're referring to the ilk of Jon Benet Ramsey and the myriad of kiddie beauty pageants, you're right. However, as for the matter of older, post-pubescent adult-sized youngsters, I'll refer you to the Final Examination, posted here in FR that I'm sure SOMEONE will provide the URL to, that all graduates of secondary education were expected to pass at age 13 back around the turn of the 20th century in this country. Compare that with what the educators now call "an elementary education" in TODAY'S schools.
We used to let our young grow up at their own paces. Today, we force everyone to grow up at the pace of the slowest - and then stupidly call ALL of them "children."
Just another example of dumbing-down.
Michael
Not true. How far are you, as a conservative, willing to go to stop crime before it happens? Because, you know, guns in the hands of the wrong people are used in a lot of crimes, and taking those guns away would stop those crimes, correct? Alcohol causes a lot of people to drink and drive, and taking away alcohol from all adults would stop most DUI crimes, correct?
Look, the fact that there are adult men who find the sight of a thirteen-year-old girl in a bikini sexually arousing absolutely disgusts me. But taking that disgust to the next level, i.e. passing a law stating that pictures of thirteen-year-old girls in bikinis are not allowed to be posted on the internet, will cause more problems than it solves. Just wait until the first wife presents an online photo album her husband keeps with one or two photos of their preteen daughter and her friends in swimwear to a divorce-court judge, claiming "child pornography".
Child pornography - still or video images of children under the age of eighteen nude or in sexually explicit situations - is a crime, and there are existing laws that deal with this crime. Making arguments on an individual basis that certain images that do not strictly fall under that definition (children in wet t-shirts, children posed in sexually implicit positions) is absolutely valid. Creating new laws that make a blanket statement that all such images are illegal is not, because invariably, law-abiding citizens will be prosecuted under those laws.
There is no justifiable reason for charging people to look at scantily-dressed young teens. You can twist it using justification but in the end, we all know what is happening. We need new laws when the pedophiles use loopholes to escape the old laws. The problem in this country is NOT too LITTLE pedophilia. It is too much. Allowing children to be used for ANY sexual purposes including sexual modeling is only going to increase sexual crimes against them.
Exactly. And pictures of scantily-clad young teens do not CAUSE crime, either. They are, perhaps, a contributing factor, although I somehow doubt that:
(a) an otherwise normal citizen with no history of pedophilia will suddenly decide to molest a child because he sees a provocative photo, or
(b) a pedophile will decide NOT to molest a child because he can't look at provocative photos of children online anymore.
In fact, the incredibly unlikelihood of option (b) is why I see no reason for a law here. Stopping this admittedly disgusting practice will do absolutely nothing to stop violent pedophiles from harming children.
It will slow the need for more pictures of exploited children to be displayed. These children are being USED for sex and the people doing it should be punished. The web site owners are selling children and sex.
You cannot convince me that the legal need for these websites is more compelling than the need to stop sexually exploiting these children.
But I can see how they were thought to have been guilty. After all, they had a magic room, ate elephants, had robots running across the room chasing children, and put a butchers knife in a little girls vagina.
So are amusement parks, water parks, public beaches, shopping malls, etc...
I don't need to search for a specific phrase, since I scored rather high on my reading-comprehension scores in school.
"wearing revealing attire"
Swim suits, form fitting clothing. aka Fully clothed.
WELL BY G-D MAN! WE NEED TO ARREST EVERY ADULT THAT GOES THERE AS A PEDOPHILE!
Translation: I don't need to search for a specific phrase, since I made it up.
And are you channeling Kevin Curry?
Please search for the phrase "wearing revealing attire".
An apology for your claim I made it up will be appreciated when it is received, so thanks in advance.
Here is what you said QUOTE "lawmakers [will] attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring [fully clothed] preteen and teen 'models'"
You made up the quote. Now you want me to apologize because you made up a quote. You are channeling Porndog.
Agreed. But what is your limit for the definition of sexual exploitation of children? So far, you have told me you do not limit it to pictures of fully-clothed children. Thusly, by your own definition, you are a child pornographer.
You are being purposefully inane. There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children. It should not be done. There is a difference between posting a picture of your kid in a bathing suit and creating a website that has hundreds of pictures of kids in bathing suits that you charge people $39 to see. If you can't see that, I can't help you.
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.