Atty. General Ashcroft's new bullshit..Someone kill this guy

[Burning_Inside]

Here's the deal..This dickhead wants to start cracking down on "virtual" (meaning not real but similar) kiddie porn. This means that a picture like the one below would be illegal. Actually since 1996 it has been illegal, but the supreme court struck it down stating that it violates first ammendment rights. They said things such as :
"Pictures of what appear to be a 17-year-old engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards," the court said.

"The (Act) also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea -- that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries."

I listened to him speaking on CNN and he said that as it stands now, if you allow virtual child porn, then blah blah blah, he basically said something that when translated into layman's terms, means the American people can't discern reality from virtuality. He stated that virtual porn would make it hard for the prosecutor to prove that it's real (well fuckface, that's what court is all about, and if you know it's fake in the first place, why are you bothering prosecuting?)Granted some images are done so well you cant tell. But aside from computerized images, let's get onto the subject of art and drawing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating kiddie porn, but when assholes start wanting to pass laws telling me or wheoever that i am not even allowed to put a pen or brush to paper and draw lines or paint colors that when all pieced together looks like something that the government has deemed illegal for someone to even fucking look at, that's where i draw the line. I guess conveying your thoughts on paper are going to be illegal too. How dare you even write about kiddie porn, or smoking crack, or whatever. I'm sick of this shit. It starts here then crosses into so many other things that when let go to run its course, starts blurring the lines of freedom to be a human and have the gifts of imagination and expression.

So anyway, let's take a look at this pic below. This pic would actually be illegal under that old act unless you could prove that it really isn't an underage girl posing. Problem is, Asscroft want's to make t so that the person doesn't even have the right to even prove it.

 

[Badkins21]

Considering this topic has already been discussed on the board about a week ago (quite rationally, actually, with no insinuations of killing anyone, or sub-junior high usage of profanity), I won't bother going into the merits of my opinions, or even rejecting anything you've said here.

All I will say, is that...

It's a slippery slope.

Check out the other thread (the grown-up version...) for a few real opinions on this subject!

B$, '03

 

[Burning_Inside]

Ah badkins, screw you, you condescending jackass. Allow me to gather some wood to build your pedestal. I'm not some all wise and all knowing Buddha, nor will I pretend to be by writing like I'm holier than thou, so if you don't like the way I put things across, you can suck my ass. Don't read my threads, make it easy on yourself.

Do I advocate child porn, no, do i advocate my right to be able to look at something, write about something, or even talk about something without having to agree or disagree with the subject, yes. It's shit like this that blurs the lines. If things like this are passed, then somewhere along the line, someone will think it's ok to go a bit futrther, and a bit further, and a bit further, because hey, I mean people had no problems a few years back passing this law and stripping away another fraction of human freedom in general (not American freedoms mind you) I guess they won't mind if we strip juuust a little more will they?

But you're a texan, so that explains a lot of things.

By the way, I left some spelling and punctuation mistakes in there go find them and be better than me ok?

(*note to all texans: I don't think ALL texans are ignorami)

 

[Badkins21]

I do agree with one thing you said...

If things like this are considered "OK," then eventually, maybe real child pornography won't be considered so evil...and so on, and so on.

It's leftists liberals that advocate moving the morality line further away from traditional values, and more towards a completely subjective area where anything goes...

Heard of Pragmatism? Moral Anarchism? Big words, I know...

There is nothing subjective about morals--the innocence of children is a black/white issue, and there is no middle ground, plain and simple.

Did you even bother reading the other thread, that had, I estimate, about 20-30 posts re: this issue?

To end this meaningless post (I assume nothing you believe is open for debate...), correcting your errors doesn't make me better, anyway--it's not making them myself, though...that's up for interpretation

And...GOD BLESS TEXAS!

Thanks for playing, try again when you learn to look at an issue with a relatively open mind, and don't resort to personal attacks against those who advocate them...

Here's some other complicated words...argumentum ad hominem

 

[Burning_Inside]

I do agree with one thing you said...

If things like this are considered "OK," then eventually, maybe real child pornography won't be considered so evil...and so on, and so on.
no you idiot. I'm not saying it's should be ok for the love of fuck. I'm saying that (now try and comprehend mr big shot I know latin phrases so i'm cool guy, cause this is the last time im going to explain it) if you say that you can't even make pictures of something deemed illegal, then you may as well not talk about it either, and may as well not even think about it. It's not right. And I do not believe that anyone should not be allowed to look, or listen to anything deemed illegal without having to agree or disagree with it. How can someone say you cant see this or hear this? It's my body, I'll look at and listen to what i want. Do you like being able to look at and listen to what you want without having an opinion either way you jackass? That's what I'm getting at. Why don't YOU get an open mind here.


It's leftists liberals that advocate moving the morality line further away from traditional values, and more towards a completely subjective area where anything goes...

Why do you have to label everything in a political fashion, why not just replace leftist liberals with "sane Americans"

Heard of Pragmatism? Moral Anarchism? Big words, I know...

no i've never heard of Pragmatism, nor will I pretend I did, but obviously your views on this subject are of much greater value because you know what it means. Who am I to mess with your marvelousness?

There is nothing subjective about morals--the innocence of children is a black/white issue, and there is no middle ground, plain and simple.

so by looking at a pic of kiddy porn or thinking about a dog humping a naked 3 year old, or drawing a pic of a naked 5 year old chick for shits and giggles, this would make me a bad person and I'm hurting children?

Did you even bother reading the other thread, that had, I estimate, about 20-30 posts re: this issue?

no i didn't and I don't care. This is my thread, you want me to see something cut and paste it for me.

To end this meaningless post (I assume nothing you believe is open for debate...), correcting your errors doesn't make me better, anyway--it's not making them myself, though...that's up for interpretation

And...GOD BLESS TEXAS!

Thanks for playing, try again when you learn to look at an issue with a relatively open mind, and don't resort to personal attacks against those who advocate them...

Here's some other complicated words...argumentum ad hominem

god man you are so damn cool.

 

[ladymacbeth]

Dude, you really don't have to be so hostile. But if that's the way you like it...

This country already sexualizes children far too much. It has become acceptable to do so in the media and fashion industries. If we keep pushing this further, and further, and further, we will end up with the complete exploitation of children. We risk turning sexual feelings towards children acceptable, a social norm, and sexy, and finally completely acceptable. I've worked for the united way and ywca with children, and seen the worst the world has to offer. I am very much against censorship, but there is a fine line between censorship and socially unacceptable behavior. Child pornography should be unacceptable. Just because it is a fine line, doesn't mean THERE IS NOT A LINE. I hate Ashcroft, but this child pornography stuff goes beyond the pic you put up there to digitally altered images of adults having sex with very, very young children. No fucking way.

 

[McLurch]

Think of it this way. I am 21. Why would I like to look at a thirty year old chick. I wouldnt, I would do a thirty year old chick, dont get me wrong. I like to look at people my age. Then they are younger, cleaner, not used as much. If I was 18 I would like to look at chicks that are 18. Same goes if I were sixteen.

 

[Burning_Inside]

Dude, you really don't have to be so hostile. But if that's the way you like it...

This country already sexualizes children far too much. It has become acceptable to do so in the media and fashion industries. If we keep pushing this further, and further, and further, we will end up with the complete exploitation of children. We risk turning sexual feelings towards children acceptable, a social norm, and sexy, and finally completely acceptable. I've worked for the united way and ywca with children, and seen the worst the world has to offer. I am very much against censorship, but there is a fine line between censorship and socially unacceptable behavior. Child pornography should be unacceptable. Just because it is a fine line, doesn't mean THERE IS NOT A LINE. I hate Ashcroft, but this child pornography stuff goes beyond the pic you put up there to digitally altered images of adults having sex with very, very young children. No fucking way.

I just don't like being told what I can and can't look at or what i can and cant think about and what i can and cant draw just because I can, wether I agree with what I think about or draw or look at or not. Going on what Asscroft wants to do, I'd be prosecuted if i even doodled, just for the hell of it, for a joke, a stick figure that resembled a small kid getting assrammed. It's ridiculous. Not that I go around doing this, nor have I ever even done it, but still. Shit should not be like that. The arguement here seems to be deviating away from the fact that I'm arguing about freedoms of expression, not necessarily VIRTUAL child porn. I'm just saying this would be the first step towards something bad.

 

[Frackal]

Asscroft ought to spend his time doing something more productive.

 

[ladymacbeth]

I'd be prosecuted if i even doodled, just for the hell of it, for a joke, a stick figure that resembled a small kid getting assrammed.

Are you telling me that there should be no standards that say these things are NOT acceptable? Should people have to be TOLD what to think, as you put it, if what we're talking about is child pornography? Do we live in a standardless world, where you should be able to draw a picture of a little kid getting molested and then cry when society gets really, REALLY, REALLY pissed off? That your precious right to do so has been violated?

And as aforementioned, I hate Ashcroft. But I don't have to call him "Asscroft" to get my point across.