The First (?) Post-Heller Case Holding a Gun Control Law Unconstitutional:

[Rob Boudrie]

but yes, simulated (aka virtual or CGI generated) images have been defined as child porn and the ACLU is going after that one big time.

In that case, they must be doing work outside the us since SCOTUS has already weighed in this issue and determined that virtual child porn is protected free speech: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html

And, the guy in Australia was not "put away" but was fined $3000AU and received a criminal record. http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html. The Australian court held that "the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people."

 

[terraformer]

In that case, they must be doing work outside the us since SCOTUS has already weighed in this issue and determined that virtual child porn is protected free speech: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html

And, the guy in Australia was not "put away" but was fined $3000AU and received a criminal record. http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html. The Australian court held that "the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people."

I have old info in my head on the ashcroft case. I did not know it was worked out by now. Good to see it was sanely decided. Re AU, even a fine is absurd but I clearly got that one wrong.

 

[MetalgodZ]

a link to doggy day care?

Whoops. :rofl: MAJOR paste malfunction.

A guy in Australia was put away for having a simpsons spoof where lisa was getting some from another character and he will be considered a perv the rest of his life.

This is what I was going for. Link corrected in my OP.

In that case, they must be doing work outside the us since SCOTUS has already weighed in this issue and determined that virtual child porn is protected free speech: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html

+1 to you - Thanks for the info, I had not been actively following the US case.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Again, making of it, yes. And I'm in complete agreement that it is filthy, disgusting, and all those other bad things. But possession of it is ultimately a "victimless crime." The creation of it, through the coercion of underage minors, is absolutely wrong and should not be tolerated.

This is the dumbest thing I've seen posted on the site in 6 months (even including your posts in the 2nd Amendment Rights thread).

So, you're saying that creating a market and paying people to make kiddie porn is a victimless crime?

 

[Tiktock]

This is the dumbest thing I've seen posted on the site in 6 months (even including your posts in the 2nd Amendment Rights thread).

So, you're saying that creating a market and paying people to make kiddie porn is a victimless crime?

+1 this is crazy talk. Its like saying that clubbing baby seals is bad, but owning a baby seal coat is totally fine since youre not clubbing them yourself.

 

[FITH]

Now you are talking like Chief Gemme!
He is nice enough to assume since a Restraining Order was issued..you are guilty... WHY else would a JUDGE issue one..!!!! BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

You know the guy stole your radio. The cop knows the guy stole your radio. The guy knows he stole your radio. The judge knows the guy stole your radio. KNOWING something is one thing. PROVING it is different. "Not guilty" is not necessarily the same as "innocent".

 

[FITH]

Yes ..and you are NOT taking him RKBA ..your taking his life !!!!!!!

Sorry, we're not barbarians on this side of the Atlantic. I bet the middle east is okay with it. After all, the stone rape victims to death in front of large audiences.

 

[jar]

My logical side agrees with you but my human side knows that theres a 99% chance this guy gets off on little girls and my human side is winning this argument right now. If he gets to keep his guns at home while he sits in jail awaiting trial, I am fine with that, though...

Can you IMAGINE the fallout if a judge cited 2A to let an accused pedophile keep them until found guilty and he used one to rape some kid? (and normally im the last one to yell "its for the kids!")

So, show that he's more likely to do so at a hearing and get a judge to agree to take his guns away. We're not necessarily arguing that this guy should keep his guns, simply that they shouldn't be taken away without due process.

 

[Half Cocked]

I'm not sure I see an issue with the possession of "kiddie-porn."

You my friend.................have issues!!

 

[Bill Nance]

Until he has been convicted of a crime, how could the judge rule in any other way?

Would he rule the defendant could not write letters to the editor of the local paper? Would he rule that the defendant had no protection while on bail from freedom from cruel and inhuman punishment?

If the judge is doing his job (and it sounds like he did) he cannot rule the defendant in a criminal case be stripped pf basic rights unless he also rules the defendant can be denied bail.

If he gets bail, all other rights are preserved, save those covered under the Bounty Hunter provisions of law.

 

[Kalahari]

I'm pretty sure that the victim is the kid captured on the images, and soliciting and purchasing such are supporting the industry of child exploitation far past the moral relativism involved in consensual pornography with people of age.

Absolutely the child is a victim. But how does someone sitting at home watching kiddie porn hurt someone? Punish the original perpetrator, not the loser in his basement. Who's hurting the child? The person making the porn, not the guy whacking off to it.

This is the dumbest thing I've seen posted on the site in 6 months (even including your posts in the 2nd Amendment Rights thread). So, you're saying that creating a market and paying people to make kiddie porn is a victimless crime?

That market exists whether watching kiddie porn is legal or not, as evident by the many thousands of sick f***s in this country.



I'm really indifferent to the whole thing, I guess I was just flexing my libertarian muscle. We don't ever punish people for supporting a market for something, just those who are doing the illegal activity itself. See: The millions of marijuana users who get a small fine for smoking a joint.

 

[Martlet]

Absolutely the child is a victim. But how does someone sitting at home watching kiddie porn hurt someone? Punish the original perpetrator, not the loser in his basement. Who's hurting the child? The person making the porn, not the guy whacking off to it.

It's the same stupid, and failed, tactic the drug war uses. Attack the demand to remove the supply.

 

[Kalahari]

That's an extremely valid point and I agree having studied the war on drugs. How would we attack the demand, though? Unfortunately, it seems demand for kiddie porn, like hard drugs, is rather "inelastic."

 

[Coyote33]

What if someone saw a picture and the age was unknown? Don't these stay in log files somewhere? Isn't Verizon cracking down on this? How can this be avoided? We can't control the ages of people in pictures on the Internet, including on NES. Just wondering is all.

Edit: So I looked it up, and yes, Verizon IS supposed to be cracking down on this: http://www.infopackets.com/news/int...nt_time_warner_verizon_told_to_crack_down.htm

 

[terraformer]

What if someone saw a picture and the age was unknown? Don't these stay in log files somewhere? Isn't Verizon cracking down on this? How can this be avoided? We can't control the ages of people in pictures on the Internet, including on NES. Just wondering is all.

Edit: So I looked it up, and yes, Verizon IS supposed to be cracking down on this: http://www.infopackets.com/news/int...nt_time_warner_verizon_told_to_crack_down.htm

Don't think they are actually doing anything. They get whacked by a C&D by NYS AG which tells them to limit access to one underused part of the net but the lawsuits immediately popped up that once they did that they lost their common carrier status. That common carrier status is a get out of jail free card and they will do anything to protect themselves from losing it. This goes no where. They signed with NYS to drag Cuomo into any subsequent fight and they hope to come out the poor tortured businessman stuck in between two immovable objects.

 

[FunYun]

What if someone saw a picture and the age was unknown? Don't these stay in log files somewhere? Isn't Verizon cracking down on this? How can this be avoided? We can't control the ages of people in pictures on the Internet, including on NES. Just wondering is all.

Edit: So I looked it up, and yes, Verizon IS supposed to be cracking down on this: http://www.infopackets.com/news/int...nt_time_warner_verizon_told_to_crack_down.htm

The blocking of the newsgroups does seem a pretty blunt way to deal with the problem: there are literally tens of thousands of groups, most of them entirely legitimate and with no pornographic material. But it may be the easiest way for the firms to deal with the problem while staving off the threat of tighter legislation.

Wonderful, the 'gun control' method of dealing with crime, simply ban all of them.