Day: October 1, 2013

Millions of children watch child porn daily

Millions of children watch child porn daily when they look into their bath room mirror. If they do so while posing sexy, or masturbating, it is even higher on the copine scale of child porn, for "children" as old as 17.

Practically every single person under 18 sees LIVE child porn on a daily basis. What they see in the mirror would qualify as child pornography, if photographed or filmed.

This is not the only example where live pictures are legal, but pictures of legal behavior are not

And no, publication and distribution of the illegal pictures are not necessary for it to be a crime

If a teen makes a sexy pose in front of the mirror, what s/he sees is a live version of level 4 child pornography, according to the copine scale "Deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount,context and organisation suggests sexual interest)."

If they look  straight at their genitals, they see  a live version of copine level 6 CP: "Pictures emphasizing genital areas, where the child is either naked, partially clothed or fully clothed."

They see level 7 , If they touch themselves, with their eyes open,: "Pictures that depict touching, mutual and self-masturbation, oral sex and intercourse by a child, not involving an adult."

 

This is why it is so hard to explain children why sexting is such a huge crime. But possessing one’s own photo in the privacy of one’s own cell phone is production and possession of child pornography. According to the voodoo theory of CP, it victimizes the child who took its own photo.

We ought to outlaw bathroom mirrors. Because what these children see in the bathroom mirror is a live version of what would be child porn, if photographed or filmed.

 

 

  1. Watching depictions of a child being beheaded by Muslim terrorists, or stoned to death for extramarital sex,  a child being clubbed to death by US inner city gang bangers is totally legal. Distribution of such movies by for-profit web sites or TV networks is legal too.  Now if there is nudity, if in the movie the kid is not clubbed to death but makes love, or masturbates, then a child is being victimized.  We fail to understand this logic.

  2. Committing actual physical violence against children carries lower penalties then possession of photos: Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years. Man possesses photos: priceless (40 years)

  3. Why would children or adolescents get victimized by mere watching? “Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws

  4. Should some kind of child pornography (that does not victimize children) be encouraged, for reducing real crimes against children? Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

See also

"They fight like girls" is prohibited by BBC speech code

 

On Saturday the BBC made its football commentator and former Liverpool striker Robbie Fowler apologise on air for describing two footballers as "fighting like girls". It made for uncomfortable viewing. It was obvious to any viewer with more than one brain cell that Fowler’s comment, made about a tussle between Fernando Torres and Jan Vertonghen during the Tottenham-Chelsea game, was entirely innocent, intended only to condemn Torres and Vertonghen’s childish antics and not to slander the female sex. Yet minutes later, having clearly had a word in his ear from PC producers, a red-faced Robbie was making an embarrassing climbdown and telling the nation he was "deeply sorry" for apparently offending womankind. It was an ugly and humiliating spectacle.

It is not just football. Harassment laws have poisoned the work place for male expression and freedom of thought. Street harassment will soon be a crime too. Speech codes protect every conceivable minority, and even the majority (women are over 50% of the population).  Racial jokes, ethnic jokes, even academic research on taboo topics are censored (Rind study, race and iq)

In Scotland, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act makes it a crime for Celtic and Rangers fans to sing “sectarian” or even political songs. Last month it was announced that every single footballer in the Premier League will have to attend lessons about the use of homophobic and racist language, presumably to cleanse their dumb, working-class brains of their foul prejudices. The Football Association has declared war on the use of homophobic language at football grounds, which includes obliterating not only offensive words like “queer” but also, once again, jokey phrases about “girls” and “manning up”. The FA is also trying to stop Tottenham Hotspur fans from referring to themselves as Yids and the Yid Army, something they’ve done for years. The Crown Prosecution Service itself has warned football clubs not to allow their fans to “cross the line [into] inappropriate crowd behaviour and chanting”. But who decides what is appropriate and inappropriate chanting? Surely it should be fans themselves rather than the snobby, censorious suits and PC phrase-police who have become an ugly blot on the beautiful game in recent years?

Source: The BBC’s humiliation of Robbie Fowler shows that football is fair game for censorship

Thanks to the antifeminist for the above link.

God praise the US constitution, with its freedom of speech clauses. Freedom of speech is less curtailed in the US then elsewhere. See

Behavior in general gets over criminalized. Children in the US get expelled for carrying a half inch micro replica of a gun, or for shooting pellet guns in the privacy of their back yard. And of course, anything sexual, teenage sexuality or child porn which often is neither porn (see copine scale) nor a child (17).

Political correctness slowly but surely curtails our freedom and instates a reign of harassment and terror.