Child porn, sexual exploitation charges leveled against 3 operators (need poll voters now!)

MSNBC.com ^ | 07-11-02 | MSNBC.com

[Lazamataz]

You were adding editorial content. You were assuming "fully clothed" when you meant "had on some form of clothing". My child cannot go to school in a bikini because she is not "fully clothed" in my eyes.

But certainly she is able to go to the public swimming pool? Or are you unwilling to let her go there, on the chance a pedophile might get a charge by looking at her?

But your point about "fully clothed" is well-taken. Please amend my quote to say lawmakers [will] attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring [decently clothed] preteen and teen 'models'"

[Lazamataz]

There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children.

Ergo, there is no limit to the actions you would arrest people for, in the Quest to Eliminate Child Exploitation.

You should be working for Child Protective Services. They already think like this.

[AppyPappy]

How about "lawmakers attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring preteen and teen 'models'"?

[AppyPappy]

Ergo, there is no limit to the actions you would arrest people for, in the Quest to Eliminate Child Exploitation.

While you are stooping so low, how about tying my shoe?

[Lazamataz]

It is wise to include context in a given quote, so I stand by my contextually-sound "lawmakers [will] attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring [decently clothed] preteen and teen 'models'".

[Lazamataz]

I came to a reasonable conclusion based on the premise you offered, which was "There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children."

If there is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children, and if sexual exploitation of children should be vigorously prosecuted, then it follows that there is no limit to the actions that should be vigorously prosecuted.

[Redcloak]

...a conservative wants to stop crime BEFORE it happens...

Isn't that a Tom Cruise movie?

[Tis The Time''s Plague]

Get your Burqas. From birth to death - everyone wears a burqa. No exceptions.

[Demidog]

But Mariana Dunn, who has engaged in an undercover crusade over the past eight months to document the excesses of individual “model” sites, said her experience indicates that the sites are “as addictive, as haunting, as mesmerizing, and just as ... harmful to the children involved as the hard-core (child pornography sites).”

Sounds like this woman is attempting to diagnose everyone else with her affliction.

Clearly there is a difference between real porn and these "teen-model" sites and this article is irresponsibly written because it attempts to paint the innocuous (even though bizarre) sites with the real pornography sites.

At any rate, I seem to remember a prohibition on Congress about speech. If there are actual crimes being committed then lets prosecute the perps. Otherwise, let's not pretend that there's some huge conspiracy here to market pedophilia as acceptable behavior.

Pedophiles will not rely on teen sites on the internet to get their jollies. They would presumably be just as satisfied with the child underwear section of the Sears catalogue. And they would have alot more privacy since they wouldn't be subjecting their surfing habits to the FBI.

Pedophilia is NOT NORMAL. To assume that people not posessed with the sick urge to molest children would find anything "erotic" about a 12 year old dancing in a bikini (or even naked) is absurd. Most normal people would either find such pictures cute, or might find them distasteful given that 12 year old girls and boys shouldn't be so foucused on outward appearances, but they certainly wouldn't suddenly get the urge to have sex with children.

[Demidog]

It may not qualify legally as porn, but the purpose it serves is the same: To produce a feeling of sexual excitement while viewing a child in a sexual situation.

Really? And what normal person is going to be sexually aroused by a 12 year old?

[Demidog]

However, having said that, I do think that DHS should be investigating every single family that allows their children to be treated in this fashion.

I think they'd be far more likely to catch criminals if they simply scanned this thread for people claiming that fully clothed 12 year olds were able to arouse them sexually.

[Demidog]

It sometimes helps to read the article.

Looks like you didn't read the rest of the article. It certainly did list one site which looked to be selling sex. However it wasn't the topic of the legislation and one wonders why the editor didn't balk at including it.

[Demidog]

There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children. It should not be done.

So then you would advocate laws against child acting, using children in underwear ads in catalogues or any public display?

[GreenEggsHam]

Demidog, you're grossly misinterpreting my statement. Nowhere did I say that normal people are going to be sexually aroused by a 12 year old. Read again.

[GreenEggsHam]

However, having said that, I do think that DHS should be investigating every single family that allows their children to be treated in this fashion.
I think they'd be far more likely to catch criminals if they simply scanned this thread for people claiming that fully clothed 12 year olds were able to arouse them sexually.
++++++
Bite me, dog - Now you're grossly misquoting me. I suggest you go back outside and play hide and go **** yourself.

[Demidog]

I haven't misquoted you. I wasn't even directing it at you personally. But if I was, perhaps you'd know how the families feel whom you've decided should be investigated by some authoritarian agency simply because you think they're out of line.

If, as you've now admitted, only pedophiles will be aroused by these sites, then what in the world is any legislation going to prevent or remedy?

[GreenEggsHam]

I haven't misquoted you. I wasn't even directing it at you personally. But if I was, perhaps you'd know how the families feel whom you've decided should be investigated by some authoritarian agency simply because you think they're out of line.
If, as you've now admitted, only pedophiles will be aroused by these sites, then what in the world is any legislation going to prevent or remedy?
+++++
Ok, then to whom "in this thread" were you directing your comment? I think you're doing a little dodging here. If you'll read the entire thread instead of jumping on one post in a *discussion* you'll see that I'm not in favor of the legislation advocated by the original article. That doesn't mean that I like the sexploitation of the children, though.

[GreenEggsHam]

Further, investigation in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. If more families who are abusing children were reported...blah blah blah. if there's no abuse going on, nothing further needs to be done. I believe it's everybody's responsibility to protect children from abuse. If you're so govophobic that you're willing to sacrifice the lives of children so that you don't feel like the big bad man is gonna come knocking on your door...eh, nevermind. (but I bet you wouldn't mind getting to "decide" who the FBI/CIA investigate right about now, would you?)

[Demidog]

Further, investigation in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. If more families who are abusing children were reported...blah blah blah.

Since CPS was enacted in 1974, the number of abuse reports has skyrocketed. Unfortunately, 70% of those reports by the most conservative standards were unsubstantiated. The mere report of a crime is not beneficial to anyone concerned if there was no crime committed.

I believe it's everybody's responsibility to protect children from abuse.

Not at the expense of privacy and civil liberties for the entire nation. "He that would give up security for safety blah blah blah."

If you're so govophobic that you're willing to sacrifice the lives of children so that you don't feel like the big bad man is gonna come knocking on your door...eh, nevermind. (but I bet you wouldn't mind getting to "decide" who the FBI/CIA investigate right about now, would you?)

If it were up to me both agencies would be abolished since both are patently unconsitutional. Hope that answers your question.

[Demidog]

Ok, then to whom "in this thread" were you directing your comment?

Anyone who claimed they'd get aroused by a 12 year old in a bikini. Was that you? If so, I didn't see you say so. And if you did then I'll apologize for claiming not to direct my comments at you once I see the quote.