i don't care what porn people look at.
are you saying it should be illegal to look at a drawing of a child or a nude baby pic? or only illegal if it gets you sexually excited?
( ,
Tue 2 Sep 2008, 3:50,
archived)
I think the idea is that pornography with children in is illegal to own, as it funds/endorses the creation and systematic sexual abuse of children.
That seems fairly logical to me, in the same way snuff porn and such would be illegal.
Though they do seem fairly content in pushing through with this stupid new law which would essentially cover everything from those ridiculous pictures they did in Brass Eye, to lolicon type hentai.
( ,
Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:02,
archived)
Though they do seem fairly content in pushing through with this stupid new law which would essentially cover everything from those ridiculous pictures they did in Brass Eye, to lolicon type hentai.
i can think of about two thousand pics i've seen on b3ta that would be covered, too.
we're in a place where it's not easy to draw a line, and, unfortunately, the people eager to draw that line tend to be people i don't want making any decisions for me.
( ,
Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:06,
archived)
I fail to see the difference between manipulated and drawn images, and using your own imagination.
Other than the fact that it's a tangiable thing, but ultimately it's still the same old thought policeism.
( ,
Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:09,
archived)
I can see what you are getting at but I'm talking more about the specifics of Glitters case...
"Glitter was arrested and charged with molesting two under-aged girls, aged 10 and 11."
( ,
Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:10,
archived)
prosecutors dropped the charges due to lack of evidence.
so, he had some 'porn', the nature of which is unknown to us.
( ,
Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:20,
archived)