Debate regarding child pornography laws | Wikipedia

Wikipedia has a quite frank discussion of child porn laws. Even Human-Stupidity is cited.  

We reprint the entire Wikipedia article here because we fear this will be repressed and edited out. Further down, after the reprint we point out where we would go much further then this Wikipedia article dares to tread.


Debate regarding child pornography laws | Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Laws regarding child pornography

While laws criminalizing child sexual abuse now exist in all countries of the world,[1][2] more diversity of views exists on questions like exactly how young those depicted in pornography should be allowed to be, whether the mere possession of child pornography should be a crime, or whether sentences for such possession should be modified.

Specific laws

In 1999, in the case of R. v. Sharpe, British Columbia’s highest court struck down a law against possessing child pornography as unconstitutional.[3] That opinion, issued by Justice Duncan Shaw, held, "There is no evidence that demonstrates a significant increase in the danger to children caused by pornography," and "A person who is prone to act on his fantasies will likely do so irrespective of the availability of pornography." [4]

Academic Milton Diamond has shown that availability of child pornography REDUCES child abuse, because pedophiles can act out their fantasies and possibly masturbate to fantasy child porn acts. His suggestion is, for this purpose, to create specific artificial child pornography under circumstances that does not traumatize children.

The Opposition in the Canadian Parliament considered invoking the notwithstanding clause to override the court’s ruling.[5] However, it was not necessary because the Canadian Supreme Court overturned the decision with several findings including that viewing such material makes it more likely that the viewer will abuse, that the existence of such materials further hurts the victims as they know of its existence and that the demand for such images encourages the abuse.[6]

It is shocking that such scientific statements about human psychology are decided by judges, or by the US Senate and Congress (Rind Study);  thus overriding respectable peer reviewed academic research.  Of course, nowadays such research is even more taboo then domestic violence and other research

In the United States, some federal judges have argued that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ recommended penalties for possessors of child pornography are too harsh.[7] Judge Jack B. Weinstein criticizes that the mandatory sentence for possession of child pornography is often higher than the penalty for actually committing the act of child abuse. Furthermore, child pornography prosecution has led to dozens of suicides, some of them among the innocently accused.[8]

We are cited here: Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)

The requirement that people convicted of possessing child pornography pay restitution has been criticized by some judges and law professors. This has been particularly controversial in cases involving millions of dollars of restitution, as in those pertaining to the Misty Series.[9] But in 2010, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that restitution directly to depicted minors was an appropriate penalty for possession of child pornography.[10]

Of course this is less cruel then 20 years in prison with prison rape punishment justice meted out by "upstanding violent criminals", with AIDS as a side effect. But the payments seem to be additional punishment. This is especially cruel as these people need money to survive prison and to live once they are life long registered sex offenders.

During the nomination process at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, anarcho-capitalist and U.S. Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart came under fire for her comment in her 1998 book, Short answers to the tough questions, in which she stated her opposition not only to laws against possession of child pornography but even against its production, based on her belief that such laws actually encourage such behavior by increasing prices.[11]

 

Shane Cory, on behalf of the minarchist United States Libertarian Party in his role as executive director, issued a response saying, "We have an obligation to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and we can do this by increasing communication between state and federal agencies to help combat this repulsive industry. While privacy rights should always be respected in the pursuit of child pornographers, more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children."[12] Cory resigned after the party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws.[13]

References

  1. Levesque, Roger J. R. (1999). Sexual Abuse of Children: A Human Rights Perspective. Indiana University Press. pp. 1,5–6,176–180. "The world community recently has recognized every child’s fundamental human right to protection from sexual maltreatment. This right has been expressed in recent declarations, conventions, and programs of action. Indeed, the right to protection from sexual maltreatment is now entrenched so strongly in international human rights law that no country can relinquish its obligation."
  2. "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child". Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1989. "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse… States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; (b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices; (c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials."
  3. Canada Court Quashes Child-Porn Law, AP Online, 06-30-1999
  4. Top B.C. court strikes down child-porn law, The National Post, January 16, 1999
  5. Judicial Activism in R. v. Sharpe: An Administration or Perversion of Justice?, Rev. Current L. & L. Reform, 2000, pp. 14
  6. R. v. Sharpe (26 January 2001). 1 S.C.R. 45, 2001 SCC 2. Retrieved February 20, 2006.
  7. Federal judges argue for reduced sentences for child-porn convicts, The Denver Post, November 29, 2009
  8. Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)
  9. John Schwartz (February 2, 2010), Child Pornography, and an Issue of Restitution, New York Times
  10. U.S. v. BAXTER
  11. Nathan Thornburgh (May 21, 2008), Can the Libertarians Go Mainstream?, Time
  12. Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography
  13. McCain, Robert Stacy (May 23, 2008), Fear and Loathing in Denver, The American Spectator

Categories:



Human-Stupidity Analysis and Comments

Of course, we go further: In the child sex trauma myth we point out that the societal reaction and sex laws traumatize children and adolescents. Teenage sexuality and even child sexuality in itself are fairly harmless when *consensual and when the child has normal intelligence. We are aware that scientific research on this topic is totally taboo ever since the US senate and US congress decided to condemn prestigious academic research (Rind Study), because the scientific result is not acceptable and not desired. (Disclaimer!)

As a corollary, most child porn does not even damage or traumatize children.  Much less do we believe in the voodoo theory of child porn, that 17 year old "children" are scarred for life if someone looks at photos of legal sex acts.

Political Correctness is a web of lies and deceit

  1. Child porn voodoo theory
  2. Child sex trauma myth (Disclaimer)
  3. Domestic Violence against women hoax,
  4. wage gap lie, and
  5. the repression of research about race and iq and data about black crime, and
  6. subsequent race and sex quotas and affirmative action for fire fighters and equal pay for unequal tennis players

are all but facettes of the political correctness lies, supported by junk science such as women’s studies.

It is very sad to say that many people sympathize with one of these ìssues but are violently opposed to some or all  other points.

Share

Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

9 thoughts on “Debate regarding child pornography laws | Wikipedia”

  1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Humans may sooner be transcended by robots before they will tolerate thought crimes of any sort. Once orthodox dogmas like Islam or child porn possession bans have been established the only way they can be disestablished is by the death of the believer. Frankly I think all porn sucks though.

  2. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I believe I was banned from commenting at AVfM; if I am mistaken about that I trust that can soon be remedied. I think it a great pity that someone of the calibre of Erin Pizzey has allowed herself to be co-opted by an organisation which creates heretics faster than a Grand Inquistor seeking promotion.

    Paul Elam’s harem of willing women grows ever larger. It was noticeable that when Karen Straughan arrived at The Spearhead to defend her master and was given a few home truths that she soon in true female style retired butt-hurt, not to be heard from again.

    I seem to recall viewing 120 Days of Sodom on terrestrial television (C4?) and obviously failed to understand it for I do not recall feeling any particular disgust (over and above what I might feel from say any War film) in fact had rather forgotten about it. Just as Hammer blood is surely tomato-ketchup that was merely dark-chocolate. How about Titus Andronicus? Time to ban Shakespeare?

  3. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    HS:
    The discussion at Antifeminist’s came up because of the context of the Wikipedia article. We were discussing this article because it appeared shortly after I linked to an expose there about Futrelle’s support for sadistic homosexual porn film.

  4. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    HS:
    “I wish the Antifeminist would not feel the compulsion to disown and condemn those who are 80-99% in agreement with his views.”

    I don’t know why this keeps coming up; I’ve never been banned there and neither have a lot of others who are 80-99% in agreement with him. I’ve openly disagreed with him about things like PUA and transhumanism; and comment here and at other blogs that he doesn’t frequent or link to.

    As for AVfM: they are the ones who unilaterally seceded from the MRM and have kicked out numerous people who ‘don’t toe the party line’—Matt Forney just today. I can reel off a whole list of people they’ve taken it upon themselves to exile from the Mens Movement: you, Scarecrow, Angry Harry, Matt Forney, Bernard Chapin, Antifeminist, Jay Hammers, Rob Fedders, Eivind Berge, the Fifth Horseman, Keoni Galt, W.F. Price, Roissy, RooshV: and numerous commenters ranging widely in their beliefs. All of which shows that AVfM is more doctrinaire than anybody else.

  5. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    There was some discussion on theantifeminist.com about this post and other issues.

    People are more then welcome to bring the discussion here.

    The entire child porn and pedosexhysteria is such, that any slight open-mindedness is to be appreciated. This does not mean that I totally agree with the Wikipedia article. Or that many people who were somewhat sex positive, have, in the mean time changed to repressive views.

    I wish theantifeminist.com would not feel the compulsion to totally condemn and disown people that are 80%-99% allies, but have some divergences, though some of them serious.

    Paul Elam, theantifeminist, all of them divide the men’s rights activism camp into warring factions, unneededly.

    One should be able to agree on most issues, and then constructively disagree on others.

    He is right that some disagreements are of very serious nature, like (almost) calling for arrest, lynching and more. But, sadly, this is what public opinions, and some laws, clamor for anyway.

    I will not cease to support the 99% of the issues I agree with theantifeminist, nor the 90% of the issues where I agree with avoiceformen, just because they feel the necessity to evict me for some disagreements. In the case of avoiceformen these disagreements are of serious nature. But, the serious disagreement is about issues where avoiceformen has adopted the repressive opinion of a large part of the population and/or lawmakers.

    For example, I deplore that avoiceformen strongly supports to have men imprisoned for having photos of their 17 year old girlfriends that they can legally have sex with, but cannot photograph them.

    Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

    Or that avoiceformen thinks that Teenagers who aggressively seek sex are always rape victims

    I still appreciate that avoiceformen opposes men to be imprisoned for unsubstantiated allegations of rape or sham accusations of domestic violence. Or that avoiceformen oppose felony laws against men for DNA testing their alleged offspring.

  6. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @admin Nothing really causes a person to be violent. By that I mean there are no one-to-one relationships that will cause a person to be violent. If I kick a soccer ball that will cause the soccer ball to move; that is a one-to-one relationship because kicking the ball guarantees the ball to move. But very few things, especially something as complicated as human behavior, have that one to one relationship.

    For instance smoking does not cause lung cancer. It creates a risk factor for lung cancer, meaning it increases the chances that a person will get cancer, but it does not guarantee it. Some people smoke their entire lives and live to be 100 without ever getting cancer (and some people never smoke and get it) so it can not be said that smoking causes it.

    Likewise physical abuse will not cause someone to be violent nor can genes guarantee it 100% of the time. Nothing can because nobody has been able to discover a one to one relationship that would be true 100% of the time. Look at Elliot Rodger who was never physically or sexually abused, his parents were a bunch of “all you need is love” type of liberal atheist hippies who had plenty of wealth. So none of those things can be accounted for that are typically thought to cause violent behavior such as poverty and abuse.

    Also if it was genes then why is it that people act violently only at certain times? For instance if Elliot Rodger had a violent gene that caused him to massacre people then why didn’t he do it in high school or when he was 21 instead of 23? Something would have to activate the genes to turn violent.

  7. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @Caprizchka: I forgot to stress an important point, which is kind of implicit in the word “consensual”: … if no violence is involved. So sexual abuse paired with physical abuse would likely compound the trauma and not considered harmless. After all it would make one doubt the term “consensual”.

    On the other hand, leaving aside sexual abuse, without sexual abuse: moderate “physical abuse” is probably totally harmless.

    I mean old fashioned reasonable slapping, which nowadays is outlawed in many countries. Almost all psychological research about education is worthless, because it is based on the dogma that there are no genetics. The research simply does not control for heritability of traits. So if children who have been treated violently turn violent, this is quite likely because they inherited the trait to violence, not because they were treated violently.

  8. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I’m on the fence on this issue. I think that physical and psychological abuse of a child is magnified when sex is added to the mix but agree that without the former, the later is not necessarily such an issue. Nonetheless it is difficult for an outsider to determine whether parental enmeshment applies or whether the child’s “childhood” is being robbed by a parent who paradoxically puts the child in the role of “adult”. However, these situations involve *incest,* without which I have fewer concerns.

    Homosexual pedophilia is yet another issue that opens up a political correctness dilemma. Is a child capable of making the decision to consent to “alternative” sexualities? What about BDSM? Of course, children do these things, but, it would seem that if they are capable of keeping it private and undetected by “authorities”, that in itself seems evidence of either some kind of maturity, “healthy” boundaries, or distrust for authority.

    In short it’s an issue as sticky as assisted suicide in that there are too many possibilities of subjective abuse with little recourse.

    However, that doesn’t mean that people should suppress discussion and research, or yield to “the thought police”. The bigger question however is whether this is something for our dysfunctional “public” or “the authorities” to mediate. I don’t know the answer to that question.

  9. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    If some kid’s don’t get traumatized during real sex,why stop at CP,and that goes for the creation,distribution and possession
    also,I was going to mention the rind study,but you beat me to it above,I’m for free speech at all costs,better to catch 1000 people
    for “indecent images” then catch 10 child rapists?maybe we should rename the police as the online police.

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.