Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
My concern is more for the performers than the act performed.
But we are only talking about adults. You don't think I'm defending actual child pornography, I hope.
-
The important issue here is the protection of children.
No question that that's one of the important issues, but there are others too. "Protect that children" does not trump everything, otherwise we should ban cars, dogs, open stovetops, and so on.
I am also unconvinced by your slippery slope argument or your claim that this is a freedom-of-speech issue.
If we were to ban such depictions, we'd be implicitly accepting that fictional depiction of an act encourages actual committing of that act. Why then should that rule not be applied to any other illegal act?
[Paul, I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here in order to see what does and doesn't withstand criticism.]
-
How could you be satisfied that an image represented someone over 16?
The US has its 2257 regulations that require performers to be over 18 and producers to keep records of proof of age. I presume we have similar rules.
And might not the maker of the image intend it to represent someone younger than the age of consent?
They do. I've seen such things. Often they'll begin with the performer being asked her age (and replying "18", or above), but yes, the scenes with pigtails, lolipops, etc., are clearly are designed to give that impression.
The question of whether this is harmless fantasy or fuelling desires that would be wrong and illegal if carried out in reality is a tough one, and the regulatory responses to either perspective are highly problematic, too.
I tend to come down on the freedom-of-speech side, since the implications of banning such depictions seem very worrying (namely that it's a short step to deciding that all illegal acts should be prohibited from fictional depiction, and I guess that's then only another step from deciding that all immoral acts should be, too).
On the other hand, it would be very troublesome if such depictions did promote actual pedophilia, but the literature seems not to support that. Just as well; if it did, I'd be really unsure of the answer.
___
Under what circumstances should it be illegal to look at a picture of something it is legal to do?
Don't know about "should", but do we not now have some rules about the depiction of smoking on fictional television pieces? (though perhaps that's about workplace safety rules; I don't know).
-
So, will Labour take up the findings of this review when they next come into power? Do they have any intention to do anything about it. Not bloody likely. I know I keep talking about Labour, but if they weren't so incredibly timid then we could have the conversation we need to have.
Not disagreeing with you, George.
-
It's Friday, so allow me to drop this vid.
(Audio sucks, but otherwise great.)NZ Book Council - Going West:
-
So, the govt. instantly dismisses, for no given reason, the preliminary findings of a long, expensive, and expert review.
They only way they can possibly get away with this is if they can somehow hold their position until the media* move on to something else. </sarc>
*present company excepted
-
Depicting it is definitely illegal. Doing it is definitely not.
It's still okay to watch it live, though, right? ;)
I feel creeped out by the idea that someone would make a porn (or not) movie using women who look like pre-pubescent girls, presumably to appeal to the market for adults who believe that it is ok to have sex with children.
I'm not sure that that presumtion is entirely well-founded. As someone alluded to above, the audience for CSI is presumably not "adults who think it is okay to murder people".
-
Idiot/Savant has done some more work on NZ's income distribution,
Thanks, Sacha. I'd read that this morning and then driven myself mad trying to find it again somewhere in Keith's last four columns.
-
I just find it hard to believe that Philadelphia gynaecologist Martin Weisberg or the members of the British Film Board have not talked to at least a few people who've told them, "Uh... dude... it does exist".
-
yes, female ejaculation is a real thing
I must say, I'm a bit amazed that this is controversial.