At 09:12 PM 4/16/02, Tom Beck wrote: >One of the problems with the bill was that it criminalized even visual >representations that were fictitious or invented; i.e., that were not of any >particular, actual child. I can understand criminalizing, say, photographs >(or movies or videos or artwork done from life) of children engaging in sex, >since that is by definition exploiting someone who cannot legally consent. >But a drawing made up entirely from imagination? Whom does that harm? > >Part of the anti-porn impetus is the antis' insistence that people OUGHT NOT >to want to see/read porn. That is doubly so when it comes to porn involving >children. The argument might be that reading a story about children or seeing >a drawing depicting children might make the adult more likely to abuse an >actual child. But seeing a pretty girl might make a man want to rape her; do >we ban pictures of pretty girls? Seeing a diamond ring in a store window >might make a person want to steal it; do we ban store displays? One could >also argue that porn is a safe way for people to deal with their urges. > >A law should be drawn as narrowly as possible to achieve its goal with a >minimum of ambivalence or over-stepping. Child pornography should be banned >only when it is made using actual children. Anything else is going too far.
I think the difference is that while there _is_ a proper way for an adult male to act on sexual urges toward pretty girls (viz., find one who consents), there is _no_ proper way for an adult to act on sexual urges toward children except to refuse to entertain them in any fashion. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam� God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989)
