Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdavid002
Get use to it..we are now officially a progressive society and have voted out traditions and morals. Glad I don't have any kids. The longevity of my fear is limited to my lifetime only. Feel sorry for the generations to come.
We are becoming a FREE and SECULAR society which is what we should be.
I am really behind the times. While reading the news about a Tennessee man who pasted pictures of three minors onto pictures of nude adult women, I found out that in 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court (******** v. Free Speech Coalition) said that certain sections of the Child Pornography Prevention Act were overbroad and unconstitutional. One of these sections is 2256(8)(B), which includes "virtual child pornography." In the case of virtual child pornography, no children are actually harmed and, therefore, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime!
I am absolutely outraged right now. If the perpetrator is using pictures of real children, even if it is unknown to the child and family, how can that child not be harmed? Is the child only harmed if the image is disseminated?
Please, if there are any constitutional lawyers out there, explain this to me. As for anyone else, am I alone in my outrage?
I just don't understand what this world is coming to when it is all right to use children as sexual objects.
They aren't being used as sexual objects, they aren't being used at all...their images are being photoshopped!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen
Basically, what this means is that if the children themselves are not forced to perform the acts, then the children aren't harmed. This clause basically allows for people to photoshop children (or teens) into pictures, for instance, Miley Cyrus's face on Jenna Jameson's body.
Logical...yet these idiots can't seem to grasp that simple concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd
Society is harmed in the process not that liberals give a ***t about any harm to society.
NO ONE should have the right to advocate the rape of OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN!!
What a dumb statement. Photoshopping a child's head onto an adult's body IS NOT THE SAME AS THE RAPE OF A CHILD.
Just like making a joke about a girl getting knocked up is not advocating the rape of a child.
Seriously, what is wrong with you? What happened to you to make you so over-the-top ridiculous in your reactions to this stuff? Were you raped as a child?
No matter how much I get stared at by the gay guys who see me around (because they do), I've never been MOLESTED by them. To be MOLESTED, I would have to be touched or forced to engage in some kind of sexual activity. By your logic, all men are rapists because they leer at sexy women (by your logic, every straight guy I know is guilty of molestation every single day) and all women are also molesters because they leer at men.
Do you see how flawed and pathetic your "logic" is?
You do realize that this country was founded on a basis of FREE SPEECH AND FREE EXPRESSION, right?
Once you lay a finger on a child, you are a molester, but until that point, you are as innocent as anyone else. Just like every man is innocent of rape when he sees a woman that makes him excited...until he actually puts a hand on her and physically forces himself upon her.
I do not advocate molestation, rape or pedophilia, but to stretch logic like that is simply wrong and dangerous. It's the same slippery slope argument you people use for everything and it's simply not accurate.
Get use to it..we are now officially a progressive society and have voted out traditions and morals. Glad I don't have any kids. The longevity of my fear is limited to my lifetime only. Feel sorry for the generations to come.
Funny, I'm a parent and I'm glad my kids will live in a society less constrained by your nutball version of morals.
One of these sections is 2256(8)(B), which includes "virtual child pornography." In the case of virtual child pornography, no children are actually harmed and, therefore, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime!
I am absolutely outraged right now. If the perpetrator is using pictures of real children, even if it is unknown to the child and family, how can that child not be harmed? Is the child only harmed if the image is disseminated?
I'd imagine they were adressing CGI computer graphics which have come a long way, this for example was created in program you can download for free:
Virtual phaedophilla will turn into real phaedophilla. If you get off harming virtual kids, then push the boat out and start looking for a real life Maddie McCann.
I am really behind the times. While reading the news about a Tennessee man who pasted pictures of three minors onto pictures of nude adult women, I found out that in 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court (******** v. Free Speech Coalition) said that certain sections of the Child Pornography Prevention Act were overbroad and unconstitutional. One of these sections is 2256(8)(B), which includes "virtual child pornography." In the case of virtual child pornography, no children are actually harmed and, therefore, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime!
I am absolutely outraged right now. If the perpetrator is using pictures of real children, even if it is unknown to the child and family, how can that child not be harmed? Is the child only harmed if the image is disseminated?
Please, if there are any constitutional lawyers out there, explain this to me. As for anyone else, am I alone in my outrage?
I just don't understand what this world is coming to when it is all right to use children as sexual objects.
Get use to it..we are now officially a progressive society and have voted out traditions and morals. Glad I don't have any kids. The longevity of my fear is limited to my lifetime only. Feel sorry for the generations to come.
I think that equals a regressive society. I feel sorry for future generations too, since we seem to be a society that encourages people to be be selfish for their own fantasies and pleasures
All of them, unless and until they commit a crime.
And when they do commit a crime I am you sure you and the other libs will be outside the prison chanting for his release because they were a victm of such a repressive religious society
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
