child porn ruling

According to what I've seen on the tube, they got the decision right. While I find kiddie-porn highly disgusting, the thought of Roger Rabbit diddling that hot redheaded toon is quite titillating. I heard that if the law had been extended to any reproductions of underage kids having sex, that movies like "Traffic" and remakes of "Romeo and Juliet" would have to be outlawed. To think that something like that is possible under the Bush administration is scary.

gee, 'traffic' was one of the few movies i went to see, and i never get anything anyone says about it.


what was the child porn ramifications in that movie?


brad

What's even scarier is that Clinton signed the bill into law. Especially considering that Janet Reno launched her political career by putting innocents (Grant Snowden for one) behind bars for life with trumped up charges of child molestation.


Don't you think it's kind of ironic that you were one those asking for eLROY's departure for making comments that were maybe slightly, obtusely rascist. How's that for censorship?

Michael Douglas' daughter in the movie was supposed to be 16 (but she was played by an adult). She was shown having simulated sex. Arguably within the reach of the statute (portraying sex with a minor).

Michael Douglas' underage daughter having sex with the innercity drug dealer. I actually liked the movie and got much more out of it on my second viewing. Says a lot about how our current approach to drug use is not only wrong, but also ineffective. It also goes to show just how insurmountable this "drug war" really is.


Jeff

oh yeah.


maybe now that we have the war on terrorism to take away our liberties we can get rid of the war on drugs.


brad

I never argued that eLROY should be banned. His obtuse comments led to extremely low grade discussions on this forum.


What scares me is Bush's fundamentalist stance on the issue. To argue that any depiction of a minor engaging in a sex act should be illegal seems to be the same as arguing that "Lying is wrong". To define an act so absolutely, allowing no qualifiers is something that a fundamentalist would do. Lying is undoubtdly the correct thing to do in some circumstances.

is it?

absolutely. If a plane was hijacked and the terorists were forcing the stewardesses to tell them which passengers were American citizens, would lying still be wrong? To lie in order to save lives is acceptable behavior. Or are you asking about the fundamentalist part? I don't have time to answer that now.

i wouldnt worry about bush. he said he wouldnt sign the incumbent protection act passed by congress (no public advertisement of voting records 90 days before the election), but he went ahead and signed it.


by the way, im not kidding. (look it up).


brad


p.s. to clarify, evil people love child porn.

I have not read the law itself, but from what I know, they seem to have gotten this one right. However, I take issue with a few things you implied you your post. First of all, the law was passed in 1996, while Clinton was president, and was supported by his administration. Why is his name not in your post? Bush is wrong on this one, and I dislike Ashcroft as much as any reasonable American, but your shot at Bush was partisan rhetoric. What about all of the people in congress who voted for the law?


The too-broad scope of the law is obviously the reason it was overturned, but it was overturned because of its conflicts with the constitution and the POTENTIAL it could be used in this manner. This was a suit against the government, not an attempt to overturn an unfair conviction. It is important that this was done, and the system worked. On the other hand, the implication that movies like "American Beauty" would "have to be outlawed" is incorrect. "American Beauty" was released after the law was in place, and the filmmakers were not procecuted. The threat of a rouge DA doing something like this existed, but the law has not been blatently unreasonably applied as far as I can tell. Some say that without this law, child porn would have to be traced to a particular child in order for a crime to be proven. That is not something we want either. It is a tough choice between whether it is better to have a law that is too broad and trust that courts and juries will reasonably apply it, or to have no law at all and risk losing the ability to prosecute a child pornographer. This is the issue, not whether "Traffic" should be outlawed. Too often, lawmakers try to add language to legislation that applies their own morals to others. This is wrong. With this particular issue, however, there is no easy way to only get the child pornography. If anyone can think of a way to word a law that both prevents the explotation of children and does not extend to more accepted portrayals of the sexuality of those under 18, I would like to hear it. As I stated before, I agree that the law should have been overturned, but I don't think this is a clear-cut free speech case, as was Tipper's attempted music ban, etc...


-Glenn

don't have to lie in this situation. just refuse to say which are americans. would it be better to point out non-americans and have the tourists kill them instead?

I think he means you should say you don't know, which is lying..

I read an article in the Seatle Times after I posted this that said that Ashcroft pressed for this legislation in 1996 when he was a Senator in MO. This backs up my fear of Bush's administration. Maybe I should fear the stupidity of the American people instead. That last line was not a shot at anyone in particular, just a reference to the fact that we argue indefensible points of view based on what we think or believe, rather than what's true or not. See? eLROY did teach me something.

i think thats dumb. "sorry, i don't know?" not gonna fly with them terrorists. i think they're smarter than that. either way, lying is not necessarily the BEST route here.

what we think or believe cannot be separated from what is true. thats why we argue. do you honestly think that people argue for what they believe, even though they *know* something else to be true?


you're still givin people more credit than they deserve...

No, I think people argue from a position of ignorance. They think they know, or they just take someone else's word and argue in defense of that point of view.


If you were to argue that stealing is always morally wrong, I would argue that stealing a drunk's car keys to prevent him from driving drunk would be morally correct. That refutes your argument and therefore proves that stealing is not always morally wrong.


What I think, feel, or believe and $8 will buy me a ticket to any movie in town. If I claim to *know* something, then I'd better be ready to provide some reasons why I know it's true.

What we're arguing here is whether or not "Lying is wrong" is an abolute moral principle or not. All I have to do is come up with one instance where that is not true to refute that. Are you claiming that there are no circumstances where lying is correct?

sort of... im challenging you to do it. i like arguing.

but do you believe what you feel is relevant to what is true?


re: stealing a drunk's car keys... you are not stealing in this instance. making the definition very broad is not a good tactic in defending your stance. you are removing the tools for harm. perhaps stealing could be defined as 'appropriating that which is not yours in a manner which is not legally justified' then, things like taking the knife away from your attacker, or taking somebody's car keys away, etc. are not stealing. you are not irrevocably witholding the right of ownership and posession of these objects from their rightful owners. the guy gets his car back the next day. you're not going to sell it and take the $$ and run. its not stealing.


my point in arguing these cases is that, if you are going to claim that there is a moral continuum, you better be damn sure of where you draw the line.

I disagree, I think many people would say "I don't know, shoot me if you don't believe me"..

You have every right to point at all the Americans on board if somebody pulled a gun on you, but It's not in my character to do so..

But what if you steal the keys, and then are forced to throw them in a very deep lake because the driver is threatening to physically take them back..

The keys are not recoverable, but you refuse to monetarily replace them?? Is this stealing?? By your definition, it could be argued yes and no..


Anybody else think this is sorta ridiculous?

more than one person on this forum claimed that the US has the highest crime rate in the civilized world.


the data simply does not support this. (of course when they use data from 1986 or whatever, then it does. but the current data does not.)


they can argue causality/correlation all they want (belief, or unprovable facts), but they cannot argue the facts. (how many murders per capita, lets say.)


its like arguing about the capital of some little country hardly anyone has ever heard of. its absolutely pointless, because you can easily go look it up (as opposed to sitting there arguing about who's right).


brad

forced to throw them in the river? i don't understand how this would be the only option. for me, at least, i can physically stop any drunken 'attack' by anybody whose keys i decide i need to take. this means i don't have to throw them in the river, or the garbage can, or whatever. but if i DID throw them in the can, then i WOULD pay to them remade. not paying to have them remade is not crucial to the driver not driving. the situation is not made better by not paying to have them remade, so it is a moot point as to whether or not that particular instance of stealing would be the 'right' thing to do...

i think that my point was being made in reference to things not of a factual nature. the capitol of a country is definable and can be pronounced right or wrong. to argue past such pronouncement is absurd. but when arguing ethical issues, people don't argue for one stance even though they believe that another is correct (unless, of course, it is for the sake of argument).

You do like to argue!! /images/smile.gif

I'm gonna fold this one, take it down..

real example from this forum. we were talking about something (cant remember exactly what) and a guy said that what i was saying was a non sequitiur or whatever, that my point that economic linking of economies didnt imply linking of governments, etc. (nafta, gatt, etc.)


well, the crux of his argument was that i was just stupid to think that something like this could happen.


BUT WAIT!


there is a factual precedent. look at the EU. the european union. his counter-argument is false on the face of it, because what he claims wont happen has already happened. the EU started out as an economic free trade block, and is now into the governmental linking stage. what he claimed (part of his belief structure) would not happen, has in fact already happened!


that is, he's denying on general principles something that has already occurred in the real world.


my point is that peoples beliefs often have very little connection to the real world. by showing how the real world factual examples contradict their world view you can really demolish their arguments.


brad

not as much fun if you won't argue back... im not bluffing... good fold

true, when it involves real world factual examples. i don't think that classification applies to the point of my argument. yes, if someone doesn't agree after being shown factual evidence, the argument is moot, and absurd. but FACTUAL evidence doesn't come in to play when dealing with ethical decisions. (not that facts don't matter, but ethics are not factually true or false. you cannot PROVE that some course of action is right or wrong, only categorize it according to your system of ethics)

'you cannot PROVE that some course of action is right or wrong, only categorize it according to your system of ethics) '


actually not true. we have a system of ethics because that is the best system to predict the outcome of complex events.


im being completely serious, and if you want to be a thinker, you should really think about this until you understand it.


morality is the sum total of human wisdom concerning survival and living well. the fact that it can change over time is the stuff that might throw people off.


in short, any decision can be proven better or worse than another by looking at the result, or ulitimate result. im sure you see what i mean.


brad

yeah, you can look the outcome of certain decisions, and maybe even prove that you decisions effected those outcomes. but i still think that the ends don't always justify the means. would you cheat in a poker game? why not? i wouldn't do it because its wrong, and it doesn't matter if my EV went up.


'actually not true. we have a system of ethics because that is the best system to predict the outcome of complex events.


im being completely serious, and if you want to be a thinker, you should really think about this until you understand it. '


believe me, ive put plenty of thought into ethical systems. people have different ethical systems. they have different reasons for them. i don't do things based on the total outcome. i do them based on whether i think it is right or wrong. and, whether or not you like it, i base those ideas on my 'religion'. i would love to have you 'prove' to me that one system is more right than another. that's like saying that blue is redder than green.


'morality is the sum total of human wisdom concerning survival and living well. the fact that it can change over time is the stuff that might throw people off.'


i disagree. by this definiton, if i can survive better and live better by killing a rival businessman, poker player, musician, politician, etc. that it is the moral thing to do.

i really come off as an arrogant prick on these forums, i know. oh well, what can i say.


but the point is precisely that if you cheat, over the long term it has to be a -EV play, right?


as for religions, well, i doubt that the major religions really disagree on behavior acceptable among human beings (which is sometimes restricted to only its own members).


as for personal stuff like your last point, lets take incest. its probably good for you (equivalent to killing rivals) in the short term. i mean you get to have more kids, etc. but its universally prohibited. why? well, its just so obviously -EV in the long term. but in the real short term for individuals, its not that hard to imagine that people just couldnt see the consequences of their if-it-feels-good-do-it.


brad


p.s. so just for the record i guess im now officially out in the open for nazi race based eugenics, herion addiction, and now incest. im coming around to my detractors point of view (about me).

Here it is! When my wife asks me "Do I look fat?" I always say no, regardless of whether or not she looks fat. That keeps me sexually active and keeps her from getting her feelings hurt. That has to be morally required behavior. One wrong makes two rights.

special case. relationships with women don't count when discussing ethics. lol!! good post.