|
Speaking of Sexual Assault (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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 off out of this part of the discussion. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| 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. |
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 ed. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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 ed. |
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). |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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... ;) |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Also your government is the one with the massive pedophilia problem, not ours |
That we know of. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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. |
|
|
| Dykes_on_Jay |
Finally, page 2.
Did she struggle nou, or did you gag her? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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". |
|
|
| Lilith |
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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, touché!! |
|
|
|
|
