At 08:24 PM 8/13/00 -0400, Tim May wrote:
>At 3:45 PM -0700 8/13/00, Kerry L. Bonin wrote:
>>At 06:17 PM 8/13/00 -0400, Tim May wrote:
>>>At 8:33 PM -0400 8/11/00, Kerry L. Bonin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>heh... I was wondering if/how I should qualify my own comments as well. I
>>>>have kids, and my personal opinion on kiddie porn is minimum penalty of
>>>>forced castration for creators of the images, if not death penalty. That
>>>>said, I don't think its constitutional for the FBI to conduct "dragnet"
>>>>sweeps for _any_ crime, which seems to the direction they are heading -
>>>>'two wrongs' and the like. The technical issues on both sides are
>>>>interesting, and as I work in security and open source crypto, I'm
>>>>painfully aware of my role on both sides of the fence.
>>>
>>>
>>>And in my view, you deserve the death penalty for advocating that
>>>others who appreciate what you call "kiddie porn" face the death
>>>penalty.
>>>
>>>
>>>--Tim May
>>
>>If you are going to judge me for my comments, please do so accurately.
>>
>>I did not state that those who "appreciate what you call 'kiddie porn'"
>>deserve the death penalty.
>>
>>I stated that I feel that the "creators of the images", i.e. those behind
>>the cameras of "kiddie porn", i.e. sexually exploitive pictures of
>>significantly underage (often pre-pubescent) children, deserve the death
>>penalty.
>
>
>Point taken. You deserve the death penalty for advocating the death
>penalty for this specific point. (Though nearly all child porn laws
>make no distinction between producers and consumers.)
>
>The issue of whether a child is "hurt" by some behavior is not
>compelling. Many children are hurt by many things. Being photographed
>is only one tiny facet of this.
I agree that most child porn laws make no distinction between producers and
consumers, my position is reserved for the producers.
Since you state that I am deserving of the death penalty, you obviously
believe it is warranted in some cases. (This comment is obviously tongue
in cheek, I've read many of your posts...) Most anarchists believe that
any action is acceptable so long as no harm occurs to others. What to do
when others are harmed is one of the areas where the differences in opinion
are legion.
While I would agree in principle that "being photographed is only one tiny
facet of this", again, I know a number of people who have been through
this. I would also consider that standards of any kind require
quantifiable criteria. The history of laws regarding sexuality are full of
subjective ambiguities, which I would like to avoid in taking a position on
something as important as capital punishment.
My standard is simple - I would instantly execute anyone I caught abusing
my own children sexually, and I would consider "creating kiddie porn" as
one form of such abuse, along with the more classic forms (coitus, sodomy,
ect.) By extension, I believe that anyone carrying out such acts should be
permanently 'removed' from society.
You seem to be taking the position that the creators of 'kiddie porn' are
deserving of far less or possibly no punishment. Do you consider yourself
a completely amoral individual? I don't encounter them often. Anarchy is
an interesting political position I once held myself, raising a family and
dealing with both good and bad in society tends to temper such extreme views.
