A new Meme?

Why would sex ed. use images of minors?

How were Naturists protected in this law I wonder.

 

and as for selling them on.......

 

This I don't understand. I've seen some of, at the worst end - child rape.
It made me sad and angry and I thought the people involved needed some rough
justice, but I didn't loose a night of sleep over it. I knew it went on and
I can have no influence over its occurrence.

OTOH veronica moser and her ilk can leave me feeling queasy for days!

 

I've no idea why looking at it should be an offence of any nature, it seems
pretty fucked up to me. Making or distributing it OTOH.

I've been talking about the whole sex industry thing with folk and getting
the female POV, well some of as there is a wide range of opinion.
I think my distilled opinion is that censorship is completely unacceptable
for images of what consenting adults want to do that involves inflicting no
serious damage. I think that commercialising sex should be unacceptable
though.
What I mean is that *selling* pornographic content should be an offence. I'd
enforce this through the credit card and merchant service companies. So
people can make and distribute their own porn but in no way may you
commercialise it.
I think it would have a huge and beneficial effect on the internet and on
society.

 

IIRC the Operation Ore material was hosted in that vicinity...

 

Presumably most naturist images wouldn't fall into the category of
incecent as defined above. However, since the law has been in place,
I've never seen any naked child images on naturist sites. Playing it
safe, I guess.



--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
`\\ | //'
`\|/`
`

 

Would porn sites still be allowed to charge for advertising under your new
rules?

If so then the Internet would become even more packed with banner ads,
pop-ups and so forth.

If not then we'd just lose all of the porn sites.

Possibly porn would become a barter industry, where people who made porn
would swap logins, but nobody else would have access.

There's also an issue with how you define what is porn. For example, is
this site porn ... http://www.carstuckgirls.com/ [1]. It *feels* like a
porn site, but doesn't have an nudity or sexual content, at least not in the
normal sense.

Anyway, I think your idea is crap - in case you hadn't noticed.

[1] I think this link has been posted here before.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Aprilia RSV-1000R (11th August), Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

cartoon images of children are used along with detailed diagrammatic
images of their genitalia and descriptions of their function as well as
instructions such as "rubbing it makes you feel nice".

disclaimer: i have not seen this material, only had it described to me
by primary school teachers.

um, they weren't involved in sexual activity or posed to be sexually
provocative?

 

That's still commercialisation isn't it

so no

You would loose all the *commercial* porn sites and the usurious industry
behind them would collapse. This rather the point.

Lots of people make porn for non commercial reasons and offer general
access.

I think porn is already defined in legal terms elsewhere.
Recall I am suggesting almost no censorship for non commercial porn

While it hardly helps your case as the next Pontif I think this is probably
a_good_thing

 

Wouldn't it be quite subjective though?

 

Yes, but they're flabby, ugly people. If you want to see attractive people
naked commercialisation, and lots of it, is the way forward.

Let's face it, "amateur" is already porn-industry code for "ugly" - if
that's what floats your boat then fine, but I think the rest of us would
rather things stayed as they are.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Aprilia RSV-1000R (11th August), Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Unfortunately it has lots of negative consequences.

So you pay for porn content? Or just leech.

 

I remember when I was with Lucent, some employee in the US was caught
hosting KP on the Lucent website. This was years ago, mind.

 

So does commercialisation of anything, but it's also the primary driver for
people to do things.

Supply and demand, and all that.

I'm saying nothing.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Aprilia RSV-1000R (11th August), Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Well quite, whereas if they remove _all_ child images they should be
safe.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
`\\ | //'
`\|/`
`

 

It's a problem universities have to deal with all the time. The
`research' defence is an easy one if you get it sorted out in
advance. There are people who do work on pornography and its effects
(mainly in psychology and sociology) and have to deal with material
that would have them jailed if they weren't doing research. They have
to hold it securely, control access and show a legitimate reason for
having it. Likewise, there are researchers who deal with various kinds
of criminal and are not obliged to report offences to the police in
the way they normally would if they were normal punters.

It's a bit like the laws on animal cruelty: you can do things to an
animal in a lab which would have you jailed if you did them on the
street.

 

Err, wasn't weggie's quote up there ^^ directly taken from UK law?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
`\\ | //'
`\|/`
`

 

and in any case it's the "involved in sexual activity" which is
problematic here.

 

Oh indeed. I imagine they have their own "problems"

 

Looking at it perpetuates a market for it, commercial or otherwise. In
order for there to be something to look at, a kid's been abused. I'm
pretty laissez-faire about just about everything, but other than
perverted interest or idle curiosity (neither of which is much of a
defence) I can't think of a single valid reason to want to look at
images of kids being fucked or sexually abused. Maybe you can - if so,
I'm not sure I want to hear it.