I'd like to be on the jury when you use "it's bad taste, at most" as a defence for your collection of kiddy porn
Looking at a cracking set of norks on the beach doesn't require anyone to be abused first.

For child pornography to exist, a child has to have been abused. Ergo, deriving pleasure from child pornography makes one culpable in the abuse, albeit at one remove.
( flake has nothing against your right leg, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 23:55, 2 replies)

err...
...you know that most 'child porn' arrests are for nude pictures, not abuse pictures, right?

And what about someone who owns a picture of an adult being raped, or beaten, or shot, or beheaded by Iraqi insurgents? Are they any less jailworthy than the Glitters of this world? If so, why?

...and yeah, obviously it'd fail in front of a jury - that's because people are idiots, not because there's any sensible principle going on.
(stalinism, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 18:18, closed)

Look up the doctrine of relative evil.
And then think again about your post.
( flake has nothing against your right leg, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 23:31, closed)

OK, lets try that road.
it's not a cracking set of norks, it's a few kids running around starkers. The kids are totally unaware that some bloke is getting off on watching them.

Just as bad?

Not condoning it, merely pointing out that the abuse angle is detracting from the point being made.
(bblgoose, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 19:07, closed)