TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Speaking of Sexual Assault
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Let's just get to page 2 then.

Cosby sweater, bad.

This is page 2.

15PPP4LIFE.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Compared to the US it is incredibly strict. Everything besides real children in sex acts in photos/videos is considered protected speech.

Why the fuck would anyone who isn't a paedophile want to read or write erotic fiction involving a child?

I enjoyed Lolita, and I don't fuck kids.

Try to keep up Jay.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I mean like blatant sex stories where the only point is sex.

I will say, actually, that the UK free speech laws aren't as open as in America. I was absolutely shocked two years ago when I read about a guy going to jail for an offensive joke on Twitter. The joke was apparently so horrible that the press wasn't allowed to quote it and he went to prison for a few years That would never happen in the States. And yeah, I think it involved a minor and sex.

Obviously the UK is one of the freest-speaking countries in the world, just not as much as the US, which is a bit odd.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Try to keep up Jay.

I never read his posts.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Why the fuck would anyone who isn't a paedophile want to read or write erotic fiction involving a child?

I don't know, but they probably shouldn't go to jail for it since it harms no one and involves nothing actually happening in the real world.

Just like people shouldn't go to jail for child porn for drawings of Bart and Lisa from the Simpsons fucking or some ridiculous shit like that. It isn't real, so how can there be a crime.

You could certainly argue it encourages the treatment of children as sexual objects though. We're talking specifically here about fiction written for no other purpose than causing sexual arousal. Towards children. You should know as well as anyone that pornography can influence sexual taste and behaviour. Of all the things to highlight as problematic about freedom of speech in the UK, this should be very bottom of the list.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Of all the things to highlight as problematic about freedom of speech in the UK, this should be very bottom of the list.

Um, I highlighted it because it was relevant to the point I was making.

Also you can make the same argument, with clinical backing I am sure, that fake pornography in cases such as pedophilia actually satiates desires and gives deviants a safe outlet for their urges. If they have the choice between wanking it to some text by another pervert about someone who isn't real and has no possibility of harming anything or anyone or seeking out a real child to have the same sexual release then I think the choice is clear.

Furthermore making the statement that porn influences behavior is highly subject and pretty drastic. For example, just because someone watches rape porn or is in to rape play doesn't mean they are going to go out and actually rape someone or that they want to be raped in real life.

This isn't the first time Nou has defended child pornography. And he wants us to believe he's not a rapist, lol.

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I can't say I'm disappointed to live in a country notable for extremely strong laws against the sexual abuse of children.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I can't say I'm disappointed to live in a country notable for extremely strong laws against the sexual abuse of children.

Except writing about sex with someone is not having sex with someone, especially if that someone doesn't exist.

That is the basis of almost all US Supreme Court decisions on obscenity.

quote:

Originally posted by Silky Johnson This isn't the first time Nou has defended child pornography. And he wants us to believe he's not a rapist, lol.

I am not defending child pornography. I am making a case about freedom of speech under US law and under the British/Commonwealth Common Law system.

It comes down to the fact that basically British common law is just a series of gentleman's agreements with no real backing in any sort of document (blah blah Magna Carta) or upheld legal code, where as the US made a document, said this is the basis for the legal system, it can be changed, and interpreted, but the spirit of it must be upheld.

It is fairly interesting. If you don't want to talk about it then you can fuck off out of this part of the discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Except writing about sex with someone is not having sex with someone, especially if that someone doesn't exist. That is the basis of almost all US Supreme Court decisions on obscenity.

Fuck the US Supreme Court. Material that objectifies children in a sexual manner should not exist. It is a misconception that all child sexual abuse occurs because the perpetrator is only attracted to children. If paedophiles need something to jerk to then they've got their imaginations. Sexualisation of children is one of the strongest social taboos, and it is not a taboo for some arbitrary prudishness, but because it's extremely harmful to the victims. Society should uphold and enforce this taboo from top to bottom, and American pretensions of "freedom" can get fucked.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Fuck the US Supreme Court. Material that objectifies children in a sexual manner should not exist. It is a misconception that all child sexual abuse occurs because the perpetrator is only attracted to children. If paedophiles need something to jerk to then they've got their imaginations. Sexualisation of children is one of the strongest social taboos, and it is not a taboo for some arbitrary prudishness, but because it's extremely harmful to the victims. Society should uphold and enforce this taboo from top to bottom, and American pretensions of "freedom" can get fucked.

Whatever. I am actually a strong advocate for limits on free speech, but obscenity is one of the places where I have serious qualms about the limits because so much of it can come down to religious views, which is violations of another tenant of the US.

My dad actually won a supreme court case in the 80s about obscenity and free speech, that actually placed limits on free speech, but it was specifically related to schools and the control of speech in public schools. The 1st amendment protects against the government censoring people outside of the government, but it doesn't protect people from being censored in the government. It set an interesting precedent for control of medium cases that persists to this day (and actually has been reinforced a number of times).

Also your government is the one with the massive pedophilia problem, not ours Sys-J, so maybe they need those outlets. Like the Catholic church...

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Also your government is the one with the massive pedophilia problem, not ours

That we know of.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery That we know of.

Nah, ours is a homosexual problem with the right and a philandering problem with the left.

Finally, page 2.

Did she struggle nou, or did you gag her?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby It comes down to the fact that basically British common law is just a series of gentleman's agreements with no real backing in any sort of document (blah blah Magna Carta) or upheld legal code, where as the US made a document, said this is the basis for the legal system, it can be changed, and interpreted, but the spirit of it must be upheld.

what a load of crap. common law is just the law of precedent; and precedent comes from judicial interpretation of statutes. statutes are not "basically gentleman's agreements".

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what a load of crap. common law is just the law of precedent; and precedent comes from judicial interpretation of statutes. statutes are not "basically gentleman's agreements".

Come on man hold up a sec, look at who you're talking to.
It's like asking Stu for shampoo and conditioner advice.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Come on man hold up a sec, look at who you're talking to. It's like asking Stu for shampoo and conditioner advice.

hahaha, touch�!!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what a load of crap. common law is just the law of precedent; and precedent comes from judicial interpretation of statutes. statutes are not "basically gentleman's agreements".

I meant more the root of precedent is based on a murky foundation compared to the US. All precedent is rooted in the Constitution.

The constitution is just another set of laws though. you could say that it was nothing more than a �gentlemen�s agreement� because it wasn�t based on anything, either. just because our constitution (and yours) sets out a bunch of stipulations regarding federal and state authorities, doesn't really mean that common law is rooted in the constitution (imo). statute is statute, regardless of the historical basis for/of law.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.