Comments on: Free Speech Doesn’t Include Fiction

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:33:00 +0000

Tofu, you need to get out more, or at least stop jumping to the defense of the indefensible. Child molesters are generally not mentally stable, and to give them any impetus at all is too much. It’s like handing a bottle of beer to an alcoholic. The difference is that unlike the alcoholic, the child molester isn’t destroying his own life, he’s destroying someone else’s. Child molesters are considered so despicable that even criminals in prison want nothing to do with them.

As for Lolita being about a teacher and a 17yr old student, while 17 is underage for pornography purposes, it is above the age of consent in most states. One of the members of our high school band married one of the history teachers of graduation.

By: Sasha

Sasha — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:09:30 +0000

Consider them not brought up, peejz.:cool:

By: peejz

peejz — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:04:22 +0000

13- don’t even bring them up Sasha!:mad:

By: Sasha

Sasha — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:00:25 +0000

Astro, I’ve always been of the opinion that there’s too much sex and violence on TV and not enough at home.

I’ve also always believed there’s a smart way to watch the idiot box.

Getting back to the area of pornography, you’re supposed to be over a certain age to view it, and you’re not supposed to show it to minors or anyone not wishing to see it.

With regard to porn involving minors, it may be within a person’s right to do it, but at the same time, that person is feeding someone’s habit, reinforcing an undesirable behavior, and possibly bringing one more kid that much closer to becoming a victim in real life. The news is full of cyberstings, where men and women have been arrested for soliciting a minor (cop posing aa a kid) for sex online.

Just because I have the right to do certain things, doesn’t mean it is right for me to do those things.

Ugh, this is starting to remind me of that whole NAMBLA thing.

By: Astro

Astro — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:47:26 +0000

11 – That depends on what type of sex with kids you mean. Sex with minors is illegal because they aren’t old enough to give consent, so for that reason no you can’t buy that tape, but at the same time you can get one with an eighteen or nineteen year old girl dressing down like a schoolgirl.

A book on sex with kids? Once again, the act is illegal so that would be contributing to a criminal act. If you mean it as a work of fiction, that’s why I brought up Lolita in my original post, which IIRC was about a teacher and his seventeen year old student.

By: peejz

peejz — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:37:13 +0000

8- You might want to check again on what is actually protected under the 1st amendment. Reilly posted an article about 3 years ago in the discussion forum that fell into the category of this very type of thing. The site very well may not have been targeted had they not brought up the kids. Can I go into a library and get a book on sex with kids? Can I go to a porn shop and buy a tape showing adults having sex with kids?

By: Astro

Astro — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:33:55 +0000

11 – it might be, but if that’s reason to throw somebody in jail here, what should we do about violent movies and TV shows? Should we be going after Best Buy for selling box sets of The Sopranos and all the things it desensitizes people to? For that matter, look at the graphic nature of the CSI shows…

By: Sasha

Sasha — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:38:35 +0000

Do you think stuff like that can be a gateway/desensitizer/enabler for the people actually committing the acts?

By: Astro

Astro — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:22:18 +0000

I didn’t know anything about the site before it, so I can’t say what type of children stories they were, whether it was about a high school freshman or a kindergartener. According to a couple articles I read, they ‘allegedly involved bestiality, water sports, scat, bondage and domination, S&M, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children.’. Regardless, as long as they weren’t “how to get away with sex with children” stories, I think it falls under that pesky first amendment. It also irks me that the feds go after a website for erotic fiction rather than going after people who are actually committing the acts.

By: Peejz

Peejz — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:17:45 +0000

If one needs to fantasize about sexual acts with children, they are in need of something other than their “constitutional right” to free speech. I would have defended the site had the kids not been brought into it.