On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Charlotte Webb
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On 12/10/08, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wonder, what would you say of a prepubescent girl whose parents had her
> > work in a strip club? Is that a decision that a girl and her parents
> should
> > be allowed to make, or is it a situation where the government can step in
> > and stop? If the latter, is it reasonable to call it a sex crime?
>
> I wouldn't call it a sex crime but there are in fact laws against
> employing minors in a "sexually-oriented business", which is probably
> a good thing.
>
I'd say it's definitely a good thing, and that those laws are as I mentioned
before, "Promoting a sexual performance by a child".
I don't see why it shouldn't be called a sex crime, though.
It is possible that some jurisdictions may classify the strip club
> operator as a sex offender in if convicted of knowingly hiring a
> minor, I really have no idea. Revocation of business licence would be
> almost certain.
>
It's ironic you should say that, because when I googled for {strip club
child} the very first line of the very first result was "The city ordinance
that regulates sexually oriented businesses does not allow authorities to
revoke the license of such a business for employing someone under 18." This
was referring to a strip club which employed a 12-year-old. Two coworkers
were charged with "felony sexual performance of the child in connection with
making the 12-year-old work at the club".
And yes I do agree that it would be bad parenting on the mother's
> part. Same with the album cover and most of the other examples I
> mentioned. Daughter could probably be taken into state custody and
> foster care if a certain burden of proof is met, I really don't know.
>
> If any of these prosecutions occur it will be due to laws which
> already exist, many of which are written in response to specific
> incidents. Often they are known legally by a cryptic number but more
> commonly as "So-and-so's Law" in remembrance of a famous victim and as
> part of a grass-roots campaign to keep the same thing from happening
> again.
>
> That's the way it should work, and I support this. But enforcing laws
> we think should exist would not hold up in court, at least not in any
> country which values freedom.
Of course we should enforce laws we think should exist. We should make them
laws first, though. As for Wikipedia, I think Wikipedia has a duty to not
distribute content which violates laws we think should exist, regardless of
whether or not the law does exist.
In any case, laws against "sexual performance of the child" and
"distribution of child pornography" do exist.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
