• Is the fact the, "child porn is illegal" unconstitutional?
    264 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lankist;16932284]Child pornography laws are designed to protect the rights of children in that children (prepubescents) cannot consent to sex in any way, shape or form. To try to not only force them to have sex but also tape it and sell it is a massive violation of those children's basic rights, namely in the fact that it is sexual exploitation. Post-pubescents are regarded with a proxy-system in which if you are within a certain age to a post-pubescent minor, you cannot be prosecuted in criminal court. Anybody who thinks child porn isn't a mass violation of rights is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] Loli isn't a violation of rights as there are no victims :eng101:
[QUOTE=Lankist;16932351]No it isn't. And legislating morality is fucking dumb.[/QUOTE] If pictures of naked young girls or guys are posted on the internet, or videos of them BEING naked are distributed, that must be fucking CP. If it isn't, that's pretty fucked up.
[QUOTE=PCRShade;16932398]Loli isn't a violation of rights as there are no victims :eng101:[/QUOTE] Nobody cares.
Loli however isn't real people.
[QUOTE=aznz888;16932211]it's illegal because it's frowned upon by society.[/QUOTE] It's disgusting. I've reported 12ch... numerous times and it's still up. :mad:
[QUOTE=lum1naire;16932400]If pictures of naked young girls or guys are posted on the internet, or videos of them BEING naked are distributed, that must be fucking CP. If it isn't, that's pretty fucked up.[/QUOTE] It's illegal to distribute and illegal for legal adults to view it provided they are not within the approximate age. It is NOT illegal, however, for, say, an 18 year old to see 17 year old titties on the internet.
[QUOTE=Egevened;16932368]Exactly making out is sex[/QUOTE] No it's not, it leads into it, but it's just a display of affection. Shouldn't do it in public, but there should not be harsh penalties for doing it. Maybe just an official "Get a room, guys".
[QUOTE=Wakka V2;16932424]It's disgusting.[/QUOTE] This is where you people start getting stupid. You stop talking about consent and individual rights and start talking about disgust and morality. Those hold absolutely no weight in the discussion. If there is no victim there is no crime, disgust or not.
[QUOTE=PCRShade;16932398]Loli isn't a violation of rights as there are no victims :eng101:[/QUOTE] Marijuana smokers claim that their crime has no victims, yet marijuana is very much illegal. And there's no reason loli porn should be legal either.
this is CP [img]http://historyofphoto.arts.usf.edu/hop/hop2009/slides2009/page5/Image111.gif[/img] do you care
[QUOTE=Egevened;16932368]Exactly making out is sex[/QUOTE] You haven't heard of Foreplay have you. Also, it seems Lankist finally has found his thread.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16932432]It's illegal to distribute and illegal for legal adults to view it provided they are not within the approximate age. It is NOT illegal, however, for, say, an 18 year old to see 17 year old titties on the internet.[/QUOTE] yes it is! if you're under 18, nude photos are NOT allowed. PERIOD.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nc1BlfP8p4k/Snc5pzV5kfI/AAAAAAAAAeA/aBQYaju-zAk/s400/anarchy.jpg[/img] and bla bla bla man
[QUOTE=protoAuthor;16932443]No it's not, it leads into it, but it's just a display of affection. Shouldn't do it in public, but there should not be harsh penalties for doing it. Maybe just an official "Get a room, guys".[/QUOTE] Government needs to stay out of its citizens' pants when consent is present.
I for one, support topless woman in public.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16932449]This is where you people start getting stupid. You stop talking about consent and individual rights and start talking about disgust and morality. Those hold absolutely no weight in the discussion. If there is no victim there is no crime, disgust or not.[/QUOTE] It's a fucking child who was probably molested, raped, tricked into doing it.
[QUOTE=hottshot3312;16932461]yes it is! if you're under 18, nude photos are NOT allowed. PERIOD.[/QUOTE] No. There are exceptions. You are wrong.
[QUOTE=protoAuthor;16932443]No it's not, it leads into it, but it's just a display of affection.[/QUOTE] No, technically it can be considered a form of sex. And should be punished.
[QUOTE=Wakka V2;16932473]It's a fucking child who was probably molested, raped, tricked into doing it.[/QUOTE] And therefore a person's rights have been violated. Disgust never comes into play.
show em lankist you know how CP goes around
[QUOTE=Lankist;16932475]No. There are exceptions. You are wrong.[/QUOTE] 17 year olds can see 17 year olds but 18 year olds cant see 17 year olds, as confusing as that sounds.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16932458] Also, it seems Lankist finally has found his thread.[/QUOTE] I didn't recognize him without his old avatar.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16932463]Government needs to stay out of its citizens' pants when consent is present.[/QUOTE] True. But bedroom stuff should stay in the bedroom. No penalties, just a "Hey, guys, you might want to get a room". After that, oh well. I guess, yeah, I don't have to look at it. They aren't hurting anyone.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16932458]You haven't heard of Foreplay have you. Also, it seems Lankist finally has found his thread.[/QUOTE] Because making out always leads to sex.
[QUOTE=hottshot3312;16932499]17 year olds can see 17 year olds but 18 year olds cant see 17 year olds, as confusing as that sounds.[/QUOTE] Note that close in age exceptions vary with localities, some places don't have one at all, while others have ranges of a few years.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16932463]Government needs to stay out of its citizens' pants when consent is present.[/QUOTE] Unless the citizens are doing something immoral. That's where it is the government's duty to step in.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16932475]No. There are exceptions. You are wrong.[/QUOTE] Hey fuckers. Protip: Don't argue with Lankist about law. [editline]08:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Uber|nooB;16932535]Unless the citizens are doing something immoral. That's where it is the government's duty to step in.[/QUOTE] Damn straight bro
[QUOTE=hottshot3312;16932499]17 year olds can see 17 year olds but 18 year olds cant see 17 year olds, as confusing as that sounds.[/QUOTE] No. That was fifty years ago. Today we use a system of proxy, in which the individual states decide what approximate ages are appropriate. For instance, a state may decide a 2 year gap is appropriate but no more. That means you can have sex with a 17 year old if you are somewhere between 15 and 19. The same applies to viewing (But not distributing) consensual pornographic material of a post-pubescent.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;16932543]Hey fuckers. Protip: Don't argue with Lankist about law. [editline]08:10PM[/editline] Damn straight bro[/QUOTE] Hey brotip: Lankist is an anarchist where the man is his own law.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;16932543]Hey fuckers. Protip: Don't argue with Lankist about law. [editline]08:10PM[/editline] Damn straight bro[/QUOTE] The goverment should not allow our christian country to have streets filled with these spawns that spill their seeds and go against god's will
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.