[LINK] why calm, rational thought is required....

[Adam Todd]

A teenager taking a photo of her/himself and putting it on the net is not 
Pornography.  It may be to some people, but to the person taking it and the 
person view it, it's not.

Just because the parents found the photos doesn't make them pornographic.

Pornographic to me is women engaged with a horse, or people having sex with 
CHILDREN who are not of consenting age (in my liberal perspective) or 
maturity.  I have had to come to accept the concept of people having sex 
with dogs as, strangely enough, this is legal in some European 
countries.  Not sure I'd be willing to risk what is in effect a wild animal 
in my sexual pleasures, but then some humans are more risky than animals.

Taking photos of my wife is not pornographic to me, or her.  You might 
think it is, but then you can also NOT look at the pictures.

Howard, you've said the rest :)


At 12:21 PM 11/02/2007, Howard Lowndes wrote:
>You are overlooking one important factor.  This is in  the US where the 
>sanctimonious religious right rulz.  If they ain't getting any then why 
>should their kids...
>
>Craig Sanders wrote:
>>i remember having a brief argument on LINK a year or so ago about
>>the mindless hysteria over "child pornography on the net" and how,
>>IMO, there was no need for over-reaction via ill-considered draconian
>>legislation.
>>here's a good example of why:
>>http://news.com.com/2102-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=st.util.print
>>
>>sure, children and teenagers need to be protected from exploitation
>>by adults. they don't need to be protected from their own consensual
>>relationships with each other, especially not when they're 16 & 17 years
>>old.
>>
>>i still think most of the anti-child-porn legislation is just using the
>>child-porn issue as cover for draconian over-regulation of the
>>net....laws have been passed that wouldn't have a hope of being accepted
>>by the public if it weren't for this highly emotive issue.
>>(and that, IMO, is a good way of telling bad law from good law - is the
>>bill an emotional, knee-jerk response?)
>>AFAICT, most such legislation has been passed according to the following
>>"logic":
>>1. we must do *something* about child porn on the net
>>2. *this* is something 3. therefore we MUST do *this*.
>>
>>
>>what really gets me is the following excerpt from the majority opinion in the
>>case: "Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may
>>be done to these minors' careers or personal lives."
>>huh? what about the *actual* damage to the minors' careers and personal
>>lives by having child pornography convictions recorded against them and,
>>presumably, listing on sex-offender registries for the rest of their
>>lives? wherever they go, whatever they do, they're stuck with the label
>>of "child pornographer". forever.
>>craig
>
>--
>Howard.
>LANNet Computing Associates - Your Linux people <http://lannetlinux.com>
>When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux;
>When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
>--
>Flatter government, not fatter government; abolish the Australian states.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link