fight child pornography
Michael Voytinsky
100...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>,
> Please e-mail the following message to your Member of Parliament >+
>(Canada), before 18 January 2000. If you are unsure of the identity of
> your MP, call Elections Canada at 1-800-463-6868.
> Restore the criminal code clause that prohibits the possession of
> child pornography via legislation, immediately -- use the
>`notwithstanding clause' if necessary.
The current criminal code clause makes pornographic stories involving
children, written for personal consumption, illegal. Yet such stories
cause no harm.
The law equates such stories to video or photographic depiction of
children performing sexual acts - depictions which can not be created
without harming children.
The law is excessively broad and as such should be re-written.
> Prohibit the sale of pornographic magazines, books, videos, etc, to
> people under the age of eighteen.
Excellent idea! No one under the age of 18 should know that sex
exists. Its not like people under that age ever have actual sex!
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Voytinsky
100...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>,
"Robert J.N. Speirs" <spe...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> >The current criminal code clause makes pornographic stories involving
> >children, written for personal consumption, illegal. Yet such stories
> >cause no harm.
>
> Of course they cause harm. Only a pervert would disagree.
What harm do they cause?
> You are immoral,
So what if I am?
I think we have had enough invective now, don't you?
> anti-Christian,
I really do not see the relevance of Christian views on the subject.
Christianity has as much standing in the eyes of the law as Satanism
does, and rightfully so.
G. Wayne Hines
<spe...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> >"Michael Voytinsky" <mich...@igs.net> trolled:
> >The current criminal code clause makes pornographic stories involving
> >children, written for personal consumption, illegal. Yet such stories
> >cause no harm.
>
> Of course they cause harm. Only a pervert would disagree.
Given your efforts to control some of these newsgroups, I'm not
surprised by your response. I suppose you long for the
technology that would allow monitoring of our thoughts so the
"Thought Police" could arrest and charge anyone who would even
think about such things.
Reread what Michael wrote: "stories...written for personal
consumption". No children have been forced into unnatural acts
or illegal activities. It's just a product of someone's
imagination, formed into words on paper, or images on a computer
screen. Who has been harmed?
> >The law equates such stories to video or photographic depiction of
> >children performing sexual acts - depictions which can not be created
> >without harming children.
> >
> >The law is excessively broad and as such should be re-written.
>
> Uh, no.
Uh, yes. Laws should be specific. Poorly written laws can allow
the innocent to be punished and the guilty to go free, based on
different interpretations of excessively broad laws.
But, back to the case in hand. If such a product of someone's
imagination, written for "personal consumtion", is classed as
child pornography and thus illegal, where does it end? Is
someone who writes a detailed imaginary account about killing
someone, guilty of murder or some other crime?
gwh
# w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca G. Wayne Hines #
# Team OS/2 Kentville, NS, Canada #
# I don't wanna work. I just want to ride on the train all day #
# http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/w.d.hines/express.html #
G. Wayne Hines
<spe...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> >w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> >Given your efforts to control some of these newsgroups, I'm not surprised
> >by your response. I suppose you long for the
>
> ^Childish comment.
Valid comment in light of your antics in the newsgroups.
> >technology that would allow monitoring of our thoughts so the "Thought
> >Police" could arrest and charge anyone who would even
>
> "Thought police" -- typical hippie/paranoid whining.
"Thought police" was mentioned by one of the lawyers in this
case.
> >If such a product of someone's imagination, written for "personal
> >consumtion", is classed as child pornography and thus illegal, where does
> >it end?
>
> The 1960s have passed -- accept that fact.
What does "the 1960s" have to do with it?
G. Wayne Hines
<spe...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> >w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> >Reread what Michael wrote: "stories...written for personal
> >consumption". No children have been forced into unnatural acts >or
> >illegal activities. It's just a product of someone's imagination, formed
> >into words on paper, or images on a computer screen. Who has been harmed?
>
> Wrong! No man is an island. Each stimulus affects the subject, therefore,
> each subject affects his environment. If a person is lead astray, then he
> leads other people astray, either directly or indirectly, conscious or
> unconscious -- the result is the same.
You avoided the question. Who has been harmed?
G. Wayne Hines
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:52:18 GMT, w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne
> Hines) wrote:
>
> >Reread what Michael wrote: "stories...written for personal
> >consumption". No children have been forced into unnatural acts
> >or illegal activities. It's just a product of someone's
> >imagination, formed into words on paper, or images on a computer
> >screen. Who has been harmed?
>
> So,,,,,,lemme get this straight...As far as you're concerned......its
> OK for people to go around engaging in fantasies about having sex with
> children because "Who has been harmed"....you think there's nothing
> wrong with someone dreaming about molesting a four year old?
Without an ability to read minds, how do we know if something
like this is happening? We don't know what someone is thinking.
And the discussion is about writing stories, not dreaming about
doing something. I think it's possible for someone to write
about any number of actions without actually fantasizing about
doing those things.
I did not say there was nothing wrong with someone dreaming
about molesting a child. And there's a big difference between
dreaming about something and actually doing, or trying to do it.
And if it is deemed to be wrong, or sick, to dream about
molesting a child, is it illegal?
> Sooooooo GWayne, if that person dreaming about having sex with a kid
> is your next door neighbour,,,,,,,,and the kid is your
> daughter......would that still be OK with you????? After
> all......."Who has been harmed"????
The key word here is "dreaming". If that is all that is done,
and nothing is said, then nobody would ever know, would they? If
you are having nasty thoughts about my daughter, I have no way
of knowing. I ask you...Is any harm being done? Are you harming
anyone by your dreaming?
> I don't know how people like you can justify these positions, but
> hey,.......
I just think there's a big difference between writing stories
for oneself and abusing and exploiting children for making
videos and photos of those children in sex acts...normal or
abnormal...noting that most people would consider sex acts
involving children as abnormal. I would include myself in "most
people". I think the court should send the laws back to
Parliament for some fine-tuning and clarification.
gwh
Michael Voytinsky
w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne Hines) wrote:
> But, back to the case in hand. If such a product of someone's
> imagination, written for "personal consumtion", is classed as
> child pornography and thus illegal, where does it end? Is
> someone who writes a detailed imaginary account about killing
> someone, guilty of murder or some other crime?
This would logically follow, but of course we are not dealing with
logic - we are dealing with taboos.
Murder is not taboo - it is merely a very serious crime. Sex with
children is taboo.
In a philosophy class no one would even blink if the prof started
discussing whether or not murder is morally wrong - everyone would just
understand that he is talking in hypotheticals, and has no actual
interest in comitting murder. It would be clear that he is merely
illustrating a point in ethical theory.
Yet if he tried the same stunt using "sex with children" as an example,
he would probably be out of a job.
Emily Dawson
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:22:14 GMT, w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne
>Hines) wrote:
>
>>I think it's possible for someone to write
>>about any number of actions without actually fantasizing about
>>doing those things.
>
>Face it......its perverted. Anyone who's thinking about sex with kids,
>or others having sex with children: is perverted, sick. Period, full
>stop. Its ~wrong~. Its inappropriate. Just because you're keeping your
>thoughts to yourself, doesn't make you any less perverted than Stu
>Freidman. (known kiddie porn distributor)
>
Go get him Pete. There are some things in life that people shouldn't
be thinking about. Child Porn is one of them.
Jim Jarvis
Emily Dawson <eda...@antwerpen.com> wrote in message
news:3885bfc1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Emily, I do hope you will inform us of the other things in life
people shouldn't be thinking about. Well, at least from your
perspective.
Robert W. Keereweer
: > Go get him Pete. There are some things in life that people
: shouldn't
: > be thinking about. Child Porn is one of them.
:
: Emily, I do hope you will inform us of the other things in life
: people shouldn't be thinking about. Well, at least from your
: perspective.
So Jim, tell us! Are you disaggreeing with her?
Robert W. Keereweer /---------------------/
(_8(|) | HALIFAX |
/---------------------------------------------/ | NOVA SCOTIA |
| I'm not a procrastinator, just very busy. | | CANADA |
| | | |
| Cyber Chef Cook Book | | E-mail To: |
| http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~chef | | ch...@chebucto.ns.ca |
/---------------------------------------------/ /---------------------/
Carter Lee
"Robert W. Keereweer" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Jim Jarvis wrote:
>
> : > Go get him Pete. There are some things in life that people
> : shouldn't
> : > be thinking about. Child Porn is one of them.
> :
> : Emily, I do hope you will inform us of the other things in life
> : people shouldn't be thinking about. Well, at least from your
> : perspective.
>
> So Jim, tell us! Are you disaggreeing with her?
No he is just trying to change the subject to avoid discussing kiddie
porn. He is obviously one who believes that "rights" are absolute and
must not be tampered with regardless of the damage that might do to
others. Thank goodness the legislators who developed the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms didn't think like that.
Carter
Jim Jarvis
Robert W. Keereweer <ch...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.100...@halifax.chebucto
.ns.ca...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Jim Jarvis wrote:
>
> : > Go get him Pete. There are some things in life that people
> : shouldn't
> : > be thinking about. Child Porn is one of them.
> :
> : Emily, I do hope you will inform us of the other things in life
> : people shouldn't be thinking about. Well, at least from your
> : perspective.
>
> So Jim, tell us! Are you disaggreeing with her?
If I was don't you think I'd have said so? I am trying to find out
what Emily thinks is/are proper thoughts we should all have. That's
just so I would know how to conduct myself in a perfect world. Well,
perfect according to Emily anyway.
Jim Jarvis
Carter Lee <cr...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:3885DEA6...@istar.ca...
>
>
> "Robert W. Keereweer" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Jim Jarvis wrote:
> >
> > : > Go get him Pete. There are some things in life that people
> > : shouldn't
> > : > be thinking about. Child Porn is one of them.
> > :
> > : Emily, I do hope you will inform us of the other things in life
> > : people shouldn't be thinking about. Well, at least from your
> > : perspective.
> >
> > So Jim, tell us! Are you disaggreeing with her?
>
kiddie
> porn. He is obviously one who believes that "rights" are absolute
and
> must not be tampered with regardless of the damage that might do to
> others. Thank goodness the legislators who developed the Canadian
> Charter of Rights and Freedoms didn't think like that.
>
> Carter
Goodness me Carter, I said all that?? Not only are you insightful but
have xray vision to one's mind. You'd make an ideal candidate to head
up the thought police. With your keen observational powers you'd have
the prisons full in no time.
But before you do have me arrested go back and read my reply to
Robert. Of course that could be too much trouble seeing as how you
have me already found quilty. People like you only serve to prove
just how valuable is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Carter Lee
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
>
> In article <HU4cdQdxQ4gO-pn2-IydnhoHGYpCo@localhost>,
> w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne Hines) wrote:
>
> > But, back to the case in hand. If such a product of someone's
> > imagination, written for "personal consumtion", is classed as
> > child pornography and thus illegal, where does it end? Is
> > someone who writes a detailed imaginary account about killing
> > someone, guilty of murder or some other crime?
>
> This would logically follow, but of course we are not dealing with
> logic - we are dealing with taboos.
Really? What is the point of making such a semantic distinction between
taboo, any act restricted or banned by custom, social authority or
convention; and crime, a grave offense against morality or social order?
The only difference here is the public's ability to punish a crime.
>
> Murder is not taboo - it is merely a very serious crime. Sex with
> children is taboo.
In our society murder IS taboo and it is also a (not merely) very
serious crime. Sex with children is, as you pointed out, taboo and, like
murder, it is also a very serious crime.
So you see we ARE dealing with logic here.
>
> In a philosophy class no one would even blink if the prof started
> discussing whether or not murder is morally wrong - everyone would just
> understand that he is talking in hypotheticals, and has no actual
> interest in comitting murder. It would be clear that he is merely
> illustrating a point in ethical theory.
Maybe that is true, I have never attended a philosophy class but what is
presently going on in the Supreme Court of Canada is not a philosophy
class. It is a very important presentation and decision making process
which has at it's center the critical question of how the most
vulnerable members of our society, our children, should be protected
from those who would use them for their personal gratification or
profit. Maybe you can apply some ethical theory to that process?
>
> Yet if he tried the same stunt using "sex with children" as an example,
> he would probably be out of a job.
And rightly so.
OK Michael, having said all that ask me if I believe that having in your
possession a self produced drawing or story depicting sex with children,
which was produced entirely from your imagination, and which you made no
effort to share with others, give away, sell, barter or otherwise
disseminate, should be considered a crime such as "possession of child
pornography"? (Notwithstanding that it is a mystery to me how anyone in
authority would know that you even had the stuff if all those elements
were in place)
My answer would be the same as that given by anyone who is capable of
thinking logically with a minimum of emotional interference, no it
should not be considered a crime provided all of the elements I outlined
above are present.
I firmly believe that the Supreme Court of Canada will agree. That is
not to say that they will strike down the present child pornography
laws. I believe they will strongly recommend to the federal government,
however, that the definition of child pornography in the criminal code
be amended.
I also believe that the SSC will uphold the ruling of the BC Supreme
court IF the only thing the accused was shown to be in possession of was
material like I described above.
Carter
Emily Dawson
wrote:
>
>Emily Dawson <eda...@antwerpen.com> wrote in message
>news:3885bfc1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:41:32 GMT, teamb...@hotmail.com (Peet
>Dexter)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:22:14 GMT, w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G.
>Wayne
>> >Hines) wrote:
>> >
>> >>I think it's possible for someone to write
>> >>about any number of actions without actually fantasizing about
>> >>doing those things.
>> >
>> >Face it......its perverted. Anyone who's thinking about sex with
>kids,
>> >or others having sex with children: is perverted, sick. Period,
>full
>> >stop. Its ~wrong~. Its inappropriate. Just because you're keeping
>your
>> >thoughts to yourself, doesn't make you any less perverted than Stu
>> >Freidman. (known kiddie porn distributor)
>> >
>>
>> Go get him Pete. There are some things in life that people
>shouldn't
>> be thinking about. Child Porn is one of them.
>
>Emily, I do hope you will inform us of the other things in life
>people shouldn't be thinking about. Well, at least from your
>perspective.
>
This is not worth answering. If you think child porn is ok then into
the killfile with you.
Do you know what they do to pedophiles in jail? Even the criminals
know that is WRONG.
You better hope your neighbors/family don't read this newsgroup only
to discover your views on this subject.
Gee Jim, you wouldn't happen to be the beany baby bandit would you?
Jim Jarvis
on the subject before you make unsupportable accusations. And before
you insinuate what I might be, remember that I post with my real name
as opposed to you who hides behind a handle. Therefore, I stand
behind what I say rather than throw lies around while hiding my face.
You're a real brave woman now aren't you Emily.
Mary Albertson
> dictate its perception of morality is extremely dangerous. There are many
> very disturbed people who are experiencing pleasure and profiting from the
> abuse of children. An aggressive all-encompassing (broad!) law must be
> enforced with conviction, otherwise weasels will seek loop-holes.
> </sincere>
>
What you call a "loop hole" other call "Due Process", there are plenty of
cases in Canada of laws catching people and putting them in jail or 10 or
more years cause they could not find that "loop hole" you keep referring to.
Robert, you had better be carefull asking for these laws, "broad" ones I
mean, because alot of your posts contain some very questionable material,
boarding on hate literature. Remember this law allows people to be
prosecuted for 'thought', I agree that child pornography is the most
horrific crime that exists in our society but, be carefull, because laws
like this can create situations far worse.
Jim Jarvis
Peet Dexter <teamb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38882179...@news1.ns.sympatico.ca...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:50:34 GMT, "Jim Jarvis"
>
> Its OK with Jim Jarvis if people have fantasies about having sex
with
> kids (beacuse no ones hurt).........but its not OK with Jim Jarvis
to
> use a handle to use a handle on the usenet.
>
> Jeeeeeeeezus.
ok dexter, please point to where I said that was ok. If I said it I
will stand behind it. Just point us all to where I ever said such a
thing. Unlike you I am not afraid to stand behind what I say. Just
take me to the post where I supported child pornography in any way,
shape or form.
G. Wayne Hines
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:22:14 GMT, w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne
> Hines) wrote:
>
> >I think it's possible for someone to write
> >about any number of actions without actually fantasizing about
> >doing those things.
>
> Face it......its perverted. Anyone who's thinking about sex with kids,
> or others having sex with children: is perverted, sick. Period, full
> stop. Its ~wrong~. Its inappropriate. Just because you're keeping your
> thoughts to yourself, doesn't make you any less perverted than Stu
> Freidman. (known kiddie porn distributor)
The question before the Supreme Court is not whether possession
of certain material, or thinking certain thoughts, is perverted,
sick or wrong. The question is whether possession of such
materials, which were created without exploitation of children,
is illegal. It is not an issue to be settled by emotion, but by
careful consideration of child pornography laws, the
constitution, and other applicable laws.
G. Wayne Hines
wrote:
> In article <HU4cdQdxQ4gO-pn2-IydnhoHGYpCo@localhost>,
> w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne Hines) wrote:
>
> > But, back to the case in hand. If such a product of someone's
> > imagination, written for "personal consumtion", is classed as
> > child pornography and thus illegal, where does it end? Is
> > someone who writes a detailed imaginary account about killing
> > someone, guilty of murder or some other crime?
>
> This would logically follow, but of course we are not dealing with
> logic - we are dealing with taboos.
>
> Murder is not taboo - it is merely a very serious crime. Sex with
> children is taboo.
>
> In a philosophy class no one would even blink if the prof started
> discussing whether or not murder is morally wrong - everyone would just
> understand that he is talking in hypotheticals, and has no actual
> interest in comitting murder. It would be clear that he is merely
> illustrating a point in ethical theory.
>
> Yet if he tried the same stunt using "sex with children" as an example,
> he would probably be out of a job.
A victim of political correctness and those who would attempt to
control thought.
G. Wayne Hines
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:22:14 GMT, w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne
> Hines) wrote:
>
> >I think it's possible for someone to write
> >about any number of actions without actually fantasizing about
> >doing those things.
>
> Face it......its perverted. Anyone who's thinking about sex with kids,
> or others having sex with children: is perverted, sick. Period, full
> stop. Its ~wrong~. Its inappropriate. Just because you're keeping your
Tell that to some of the kids in our elementary schools.
Emily Dawson
wrote:
>
>Emily Dawson <eda...@antwerpen.com> wrote in message
>news:38860959...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:18:38 GMT, "Jim Jarvis"
><jjno...@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Emily Dawson <eda...@antwerpen.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3885bfc1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:41:32 GMT, teamb...@hotmail.com (Peet
>> >Dexter)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:22:14 GMT, w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G.
>> >Wayne
>> >> >Hines) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>I think it's possible for someone to write
>> >> >>about any number of actions without actually fantasizing about
>> >> >>doing those things.
>> >> >
>> >> >Face it......its perverted. Anyone who's thinking about sex
>with
>> >kids,
>> >> >or others having sex with children: is perverted, sick. Period,
>> >full
>> >> >stop. Its ~wrong~. Its inappropriate. Just because you're
>keeping
>> >your
>> >> >thoughts to yourself, doesn't make you any less perverted than
>Stu
>> >> >Freidman. (known kiddie porn distributor)
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Go get him Pete. There are some things in life that people
>> >shouldn't
>> >> be thinking about. Child Porn is one of them.
>> >
>> >Emily, I do hope you will inform us of the other things in life
>> >people shouldn't be thinking about. Well, at least from your
>> >perspective.
>> >
>>
>>
>> This is not worth answering. If you think child porn is ok then
^^^
>into
>> the killfile with you.
>> Do you know what they do to pedophiles in jail? Even the criminals
>> know that is WRONG.
>> You better hope your neighbors/family don't read this newsgroup
>only
>> to discover your views on this subject.
>> Gee Jim, you wouldn't happen to be the beany baby bandit would
>you?
>>
>Really Emily, I expected better from you. Read what I have had to say
>on the subject before you make unsupportable accusations. And before
>you insinuate what I might be, remember that I post with my real name
>as opposed to you who hides behind a handle. Therefore, I stand
>behind what I say rather than throw lies around while hiding my face.
>You're a real brave woman now aren't you Emily.
>
Sorry Jim, I have children and this is one of the few subject in
which emotions do type the text.
I know one little boy who at the age of two was raped by a friend of
his family. The little fellow was never emotionally the same.
I am not saying that it should be illegal to think anything, but it
is demented and anyone who thinks about this should get help before
they hurt some innocent child.
PS..... I did say IF. I'm afraid that I confused you for GW Hines who
makes his view fairly clear on this subject.
I only use a handle because I was warned too many times to ignore, the
dangers of using your own name.
Emily
G. Wayne Hines
>
> Michael Voytinsky wrote:
> > In a philosophy class no one would even blink if the prof started
> > discussing whether or not murder is morally wrong - everyone would just
> > understand that he is talking in hypotheticals, and has no actual
> > interest in comitting murder. It would be clear that he is merely
> > illustrating a point in ethical theory.
>
--- snip---
> >
> > Yet if he tried the same stunt using "sex with children" as an example,
> > he would probably be out of a job.
>
> And rightly so.
Why? What's the difference between a theoretical discussion
about murder and one on "sex with children"? Is not a university
a place where such discussion should be encouraged, where
students learn to think for themselves, and form opinions on any
subject? Should theoretical discussion about "taboo" subjects be
forbidden?
> OK Michael, having said all that ask me if I believe that having in your
> possession a self produced drawing or story depicting sex with children,
> which was produced entirely from your imagination, and which you made no
> effort to share with others, give away, sell, barter or otherwise
> disseminate, should be considered a crime such as "possession of child
> pornography"? (Notwithstanding that it is a mystery to me how anyone in
> authority would know that you even had the stuff if all those elements
> were in place)
>
> My answer would be the same as that given by anyone who is capable of
> thinking logically with a minimum of emotional interference, no it
> should not be considered a crime provided all of the elements I outlined
> above are present.
And this is where I think people are having trouble with this
issue. Emotion, rather than logic, is driving their thought
process. And, they are judging the issue not on the basis of
information like you presented above, but on the basis of "what
if" several other things might happen.
G. Wayne Hines
<spe...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> Anyone adult who draws pictures of naked children should be arrested for
> possession of child pornography, because it may be the only way that such
> a sick person may be treated. It is only a matter of time until such an
> "adult" does abuse a child.
And how do the authorities find out someone has such pictures?
Do we send the police into everyone's home several times a year
to look for them? Is it a proven fact that someone who draws
such pictures WILL eventually abuse a child?
Carter Lee
"G. Wayne Hines" wrote:
> The question before the Supreme Court is not whether possession
> of certain material, or thinking certain thoughts, is perverted,
> sick or wrong. The question is whether possession of such
> materials, which were created without exploitation of children,
> is illegal. It is not an issue to be settled by emotion, but by
> careful consideration of child pornography laws, the
> constitution, and other applicable laws.
More definitively the question is whether possession of such materials,
which were created without the exploitation of children and were not
given to anyone else, offered for sale, barter or otherwise disseminated
by the creator, is illegal.
Carter
Carter Lee
"G. Wayne Hines" wrote:
> Why? What's the difference between a theoretical discussion
> about murder and one on "sex with children"? Is not a university
> a place where such discussion should be encouraged, where
> students learn to think for themselves, and form opinions on any
> subject? Should theoretical discussion about "taboo" subjects be
> forbidden?
Oops! Scratch my comment, I misunderstood Michael's comment. You are
correct but actually I think Michael is right, the Professor just might
find himself out of a job.
>
> > OK Michael, having said all that ask me if I believe that having in your
> > possession a self produced drawing or story depicting sex with children,
> > which was produced entirely from your imagination, and which you made no
> > effort to share with others, give away, sell, barter or otherwise
> > disseminate, should be considered a crime such as "possession of child
> > pornography"? (Notwithstanding that it is a mystery to me how anyone in
> > authority would know that you even had the stuff if all those elements
> > were in place)
> >
> > My answer would be the same as that given by anyone who is capable of
> > thinking logically with a minimum of emotional interference, no it
> > should not be considered a crime provided all of the elements I outlined
> > above are present.
>
> And this is where I think people are having trouble with this
> issue. Emotion, rather than logic, is driving their thought
> process. And, they are judging the issue not on the basis of
> information like you presented above, but on the basis of "what
> if" several other things might happen.
That is true wayne, it is a very emotional issue. Being a parent and
grandparent I understand that emotion. For that very reason I don't envy
the judges of the SSC who have to cut through all of that emotion and
arrive at a judgement that will not further inflame the emotions of the
public. Quite a tall order I think.
Carter
Carter Lee
Deacon wrote:
> Then you write laws so they do not have loop holes. You do not ride an
> irrational wave of violent emotion and attempt to enforce poorly
> written laws by popular appeal.
>
> If you don't grasp why a law must survive a challenge by the system
> that enforces it, then you understand very little about the law.
Well spoken and very true Deacon.
Carter
Deacon
100...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>,> >>Jim Jarvis wrote:
> >>You are absolutely correct. The Court is merely sending back a
poorly
> >>written law and the government will, hopefully, now write a law that
> >>will stand up to the test of the Court. Many people are outraged
that
> >>the Court is allowing child pornography. The Court is doing no such
> >>thing but rather is sending back a poorly written law.
> >
> >"Alex MacAskill" <026...@acadiau.ca> wrote:
> >In the meanwhile, allowing child pornography?
The law is still in effect and people are charged with possesing actual
child porn. The problem is that part of the law allows the invocation
of a thought crime, and in that regard the law must be rewritten.
>
> <sincere>
> Bravo, Alex! This is a very serious issue. Permitting the secular law
to
> dictate its perception of morality is extremely dangerous.
???. All we have is secular law, written and enforced by men of good
faith with regards to due process. I imagine that you think religious
law strictly forbids the abuse of children? You would be sadly mistaken.
...and don't start about the Ten Commandments. That laundry list of
absolutes is entirely useless as basis for a system of law. If you
actually read them and apply them to real situations, you will
understand why they are useless.
There are many
> very disturbed people who are experiencing pleasure and profiting
from the
> abuse of children.
And if children are actually abused, the perpetrators will go to jail.
That's not what the court challenge is about.
An aggressive all-encompassing (broad!) law must be
> enforced with conviction, otherwise weasels will seek loop-holes.
Then you write laws so they do not have loop holes. You do not ride an
irrational wave of violent emotion and attempt to enforce poorly
written laws by popular appeal.
If you don't grasp why a law must survive a challenge by the system
that enforces it, then you understand very little about the law.
--
Only fraud and falsehood dread examination. Truth invites it.
--Thomas Cooper (1759-1839)
Jim Jarvis
If that is an apology I thank you. I might be an asshole, shit
disturber and all kinds of other things but a pedophile I am NOT! Nor
do I have any tolerance for child abuse of any kind.
>
JaKo
> given to anyone else, offered for sale, barter or otherwise disseminated
> by the creator, is illegal.
>
> Carter
Lawyers ...
The question is: "Do we ask the RIGHT question?" What does justice have to
do with a MEDICAL condition?! Pedophiles are seriously mentally ill and
justice system should at most make sure, that they do get appropriate
treatment. I mean medical treatment and not the kind some people here
recommend (e.g. as in prison, administered by criminals).
We shouldn't forget, it's not that long ago, "courts" sentenced many
mentally ill people to burn at the stake and even closer to our times were
the forced confinements in those so called asylums, with no real
(beneficial) treatment at all.
We should have no more or less sympathy for the pedophiles (and some others)
as most people would have now for other mentally diseased! The first step is
the recognition -- and that is always the most difficult one
(especially for lawyers ! ;)
JaKo.
Carter Lee
I can't argue with anything you say about pedophiles and their need for
treatment provided what you say about them is true, to wit; "pedophiles
are seriously mentally ill...." I don't know if that is true about all
pedophiles. Nowhere can I find the condition or proclivity described as
a mental illness. Can you provide some reference to that fact.
To keep this in perspective I must point out that child pornography laws
are not only aimed at pedophiles but, just as or maybe more important,
at those who abuse children in order to produce the pornographic
material for profit, and those that distribute the material wether or
not they were involved in it's production. It is my personal opinion
that those people represent a greater threat to society than do
pedophiles. There must be strong laws to curb the activities of such
people.
Carter
Michael Voytinsky
Carter Lee <cr...@istar.ca> wrote:
> Really? What is the point of making such a semantic distinction
> between taboo, any act restricted or banned by custom, social
Taboo indicates a greater degree of prohibition. Even murderers do not
like child molesters.
> In our society murder IS taboo and it is also a (not merely) very
> serious crime. Sex with children is, as you pointed out, taboo and,
> like murder, it is also a very serious crime.
Most people have no difficulty watching (staged) murder for
entertainment - TV programming is full of that sort of thing.
Sex with children is regarded in a very different light.
> class. It is a very important presentation and decision making process
> which has at it's center the critical question of how the most
> vulnerable members of our society, our children, should be protected
> from those who would use them for their personal gratification or
> profit. Maybe you can apply some ethical theory to that process?
That is not the central point of the proceedings at all. Have you read
the BC Supreme Court's rulings. They are on the web at
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/SC/Sc-main.htm - just do a search on
"pornography".
The central issue is that the law is overly broad - to a point that
even suggesting that age of consent should be lowered - something that
presumably is a legitimate statement of opinion - can be interpreted as
child pornography. According to 163.1 (b) section of the Criminal Code:
any written material or visual
representation that advocates or counsels
sexual activity with a person under the age
of eighteen years that would be an offence
under this Act.
The law goes far beyond even making the posession of photographs or
videos of children in sexual context illegal - and it is being
challenged on this basis.
If the law was narrower in scope, Mr. Sharpe would probably not have a
legal leg to stand on.
>> Yet if he tried the same stunt using "sex with children" as an
>>example, he would probably be out of a job.
>
> And rightly so.
Why? Why do you think questioning moral standards is a bad thing?
> which was produced entirely from your imagination, and which you made
> no effort to share with others, give away, sell, barter or otherwise
> disseminate, should be considered a crime such as "possession of child
> pornography"? (Notwithstanding that it is a mystery to me how anyone
> in authority would know that you even had the stuff if all those
> elements were in place)
Couple of scenarios would make it possible:
1) Someone could mention it to their psychiatrist - who are bound by
law to report this sort of thing.
2) It could be seized as evidence by authorities for reasons unrelated
to kiddie porn.
3) Third party that is not a law enforcement official could look at it
- and then call the police. This would not normally invalidate the
evidence.
Also, I would think that being able to share one's thoughts with others
in private conversation (including letters), even if the thoughts are
repulsive, is a fundamental part of "freedom of thought".
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
G. Wayne Hines
>
>
> JaKo wrote:
> > The question is: "Do we ask the RIGHT question?" What does justice have to
> > do with a MEDICAL condition?! Pedophiles are seriously mentally ill and
> > justice system should at most make sure, that they do get appropriate
> > treatment. I mean medical treatment and not the kind some people here
> > recommend (e.g. as in prison, administered by criminals).
> > We shouldn't forget, it's not that long ago, "courts" sentenced many
> > mentally ill people to burn at the stake and even closer to our times were
> > the forced confinements in those so called asylums, with no real
> > (beneficial) treatment at all.
> > We should have no more or less sympathy for the pedophiles (and some others)
> > as most people would have now for other mentally diseased! The first step is
> > the recognition -- and that is always the most difficult one
> > (especially for lawyers ! ;)
>
> I can't argue with anything you say about pedophiles and their need for
> treatment provided what you say about them is true, to wit; "pedophiles
> are seriously mentally ill...." I don't know if that is true about all
> pedophiles. Nowhere can I find the condition or proclivity described as
> a mental illness. Can you provide some reference to that fact.
I haven't checked out any medical references, but it seems to me
that pedophiles are "not totally right in the head". Maybe some
are not capable of realizing what they are doing is wrong. Maybe
some have a behavioural problem. For some reason, some just may
desire sex with children. These could all come under the
umbrella of "mental illness".
> To keep this in perspective I must point out that child pornography laws
> are not only aimed at pedophiles but, just as or maybe more important,
> at those who abuse children in order to produce the pornographic
> material for profit, and those that distribute the material wether or
> not they were involved in it's production. It is my personal opinion
> that those people represent a greater threat to society than do
> pedophiles. There must be strong laws to curb the activities of such
> people.
I guess it depends on how they get the "actors" or "models" for
their movies or pictures. If they go around kidnapping children
to become slaves, then, yes, they are worse than the pedophiles.
Unfortunately, in these modern times, there are probably plenty
of children, living in poverty, without parents, who would
gladly volunteer for such things, even if they really knew what
they were getting into. But, I agree strong laws are needed to
deal with them.
G. Wayne Hines
>
>
> "G. Wayne Hines" wrote:
>
> > Why? What's the difference between a theoretical discussion
> > about murder and one on "sex with children"? Is not a university
> > a place where such discussion should be encouraged, where
> > students learn to think for themselves, and form opinions on any
> > subject? Should theoretical discussion about "taboo" subjects be
> > forbidden?
>
> Oops! Scratch my comment, I misunderstood Michael's comment. You are
> correct but actually I think Michael is right, the Professor just might
> find himself out of a job.
I think he's be gone so fast he'd get whiplash.
..snip...
> > And this is where I think people are having trouble with this
> > issue. Emotion, rather than logic, is driving their thought
> > process. And, they are judging the issue not on the basis of
> > information like you presented above, but on the basis of "what
> > if" several other things might happen.
>
> That is true wayne, it is a very emotional issue. Being a parent and
> grandparent I understand that emotion. For that very reason I don't envy
> the judges of the SSC who have to cut through all of that emotion and
> arrive at a judgement that will not further inflame the emotions of the
> public. Quite a tall order I think.
That's why they're getting the big bucks. :-)
I'm not a grandparent yet, but could be in a few years. Although
some apparently think otherwise, judging from the reaction to
some earlier postings, I have no use for those creating and
selling child pornography. I expressed concern about this
particular case and law because it seems the law, as it stands,
is poorly written, and could lead to serious violations of
people's rights. I think the court needs to send it back to
Parliament for some fine tuning.
Anonymous
>sexual abusers, are even lower than the bottom rung of the ladder
..
>as it should be. If I wee a prison guard in such an institution, I
>might be prone to turn my back when the prisoners were doling out
>their own form of justice.
You talking from experience?
Wee a prison guard?
Freudian slip, or are you a fucking pervert that is into golden
showers?
Anon
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:47:16 GMT, eda...@antwerpen.com (Emily Dawson) wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:41:32 GMT, teamb...@hotmail.com (Peet Dexter)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:22:14 GMT, w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne
>>Hines) wrote:
>>
>>>I think it's possible for someone to write
>>>about any number of actions without actually fantasizing about
>>>doing those things.
>>
>>Face it......its perverted. Anyone who's thinking about sex with kids,
>>or others having sex with children: is perverted, sick. Period, full
>>stop. Its ~wrong~. Its inappropriate. Just because you're keeping your
>>thoughts to yourself, doesn't make you any less perverted than Stu
>>Freidman. (known kiddie porn distributor)
>>
>
>Go get him Pete. There are some things in life that people shouldn't
>be thinking about. Child Porn is one of them.
Shoot! I was just about to write the "novel of the year", which would have shown how sick and twisted child pornography
actually was. Now I can't even think about it.
Carter Lee
"G. Wayne Hines" wrote:
>
> In an earlier episode, Carter Lee <cr...@istar.ca> wrote:
> I haven't checked out any medical references, but it seems to me
> that pedophiles are "not totally right in the head".
I tend to agree but is it a mental illness?
Maybe some
> are not capable of realizing what they are doing is wrong. Maybe
> some have a behavioural problem.
Undoubtedly, but behavioural problems are not necessarily mental
illnesses.
For some reason, some just may
> desire sex with children.
Obviously.
These could all come under the
> umbrella of "mental illness".
No I'm afraid not Wayne. Those things come under the umbrella of
antisocial behaviour more so than mental illnesses.
Very often these days we hear warnings of pedophiles being released from
prison after having served their sentences. If these people were
mentally ill they would never have stood trial in the first place. I can
assure you that each and every one of them was examined before trial and
found mentally competent to stand trial. That means that they knew and
understood the nature of their acts. A mentally ill person cannot be
said to know and understand the nature of his/her acts.
>
> I guess it depends on how they get the "actors" or "models" for
> their movies or pictures. If they go around kidnapping children
> to become slaves, then, yes, they are worse than the pedophiles.
> Unfortunately, in these modern times, there are probably plenty
> of children, living in poverty, without parents, who would
> gladly volunteer for such things, even if they really knew what
> they were getting into.
Sorry but under law a "Child" cannot volunteer for such things. You are
probably right there are many underprivileged children who will do those
things for money but if you pay them to do it you are no better than the
person who would kidnap children for that purpose. As a matter of fact
you are more despicable because you are taking advantage of the child's
social situation for your own gratification or profit.
Carter
Carter Lee
"G. Wayne Hines" wrote:
> I'm not a grandparent yet, but could be in a few years. Although
> some apparently think otherwise, judging from the reaction to
> some earlier postings, I have no use for those creating and
> selling child pornography. I expressed concern about this
> particular case and law because it seems the law, as it stands,
> is poorly written, and could lead to serious violations of
> people's rights. I think the court needs to send it back to
> Parliament for some fine tuning.
Yes you are absolutely right Wayne. I would be interested to know what
specific parts of the legislation you think should be amended.
Carter
Carter Lee
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
> Taboo indicates a greater degree of prohibition. Even murderers do not
> like child molesters.
That is true but they are both crimes albeit one is seen by society as
being more serious than the other. (I will leave the argument about
whether or not that is true to others)
> Most people have no difficulty watching (staged) murder for
> entertainment - TV programming is full of that sort of thing.
>
> Sex with children is regarded in a very different light.
I will concede that.
>
> That is not the central point of the proceedings at all.
Sorry but I believe it is. I will admit that my description of the
central point is a tad too broad but it does get to the heart of this
matter. After all of the things you mention below are dealt with it is
really the protection of children that is most important.
Have you read
> the BC Supreme Court's rulings. They are on the web at
> http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/SC/Sc-main.htm - just do a search on
> "pornography".
Yes.
>
> The central issue is that the law is overly broad - to a point that
> even suggesting that age of consent should be lowered - something that
> presumably is a legitimate statement of opinion - can be interpreted as
> child pornography. According to 163.1 (b) section of the Criminal Code:
>
> any written material or visual
> representation that advocates or counsels
> sexual activity with a person under the age
> of eighteen years that would be an offence
> under this Act.
>
> The law goes far beyond even making the posession of photographs or
> videos of children in sexual context illegal - and it is being
> challenged on this basis.
Yes I am aware of these things and I agree that some parts of the
legislation must be changed. I think however that the overriding
question when making those changes should be "does the legislation
adequately protect our children?" and not "does the legislation infringe
on civil liberties?" That is not to say that I believe the legislation
should infringe on civil liberties only that I think there are occasions
when civil liberties have to take a back seat to other more important
issues. The legislators who developed our Charter of rights were well
aware of that.
>
> If the law was narrower in scope, Mr. Sharpe would probably not have a
> legal leg to stand on.
True.
>
> >> Yet if he tried the same stunt using "sex with children" as an
> >>example, he would probably be out of a job.
> >
> > And rightly so.
>
> Why? Why do you think questioning moral standards is a bad thing?
I don't, as I stated in another post I misunderstood your point, I'm
sorry. I do believe however that he would be out of a job.
>
> > which was produced entirely from your imagination, and which you made
> > no effort to share with others, give away, sell, barter or otherwise
> > disseminate, should be considered a crime such as "possession of child
> > pornography"? (Notwithstanding that it is a mystery to me how anyone
> > in authority would know that you even had the stuff if all those
> > elements were in place)
>
> Couple of scenarios would make it possible:
>
> 1) Someone could mention it to their psychiatrist - who are bound by
> law to report this sort of thing.
>
> 2) It could be seized as evidence by authorities for reasons unrelated
> to kiddie porn.
>
> 3) Third party that is not a law enforcement official could look at it
> - and then call the police. This would not normally invalidate the
> evidence.
OK those are possibilities. In either of those scenarios if the material
we are talking about was the only pornographic material present I
seriously doubt that any crown attorney would proceed with an
indictment. I believe that what the legislators had in mind when they
included this type of material in the definition of kiddie porn was the
possibility that it could be used, in the presence of other more real
evidence, to show the state of mind of the accused. I also believe they
erred and that part of the definition should be removed.
>
> Also, I would think that being able to share one's thoughts with others
> in private conversation (including letters), even if the thoughts are
> repulsive, is a fundamental part of "freedom of thought".
Of course, so long as the "others" are not persons who are duty bound to
report evidence of criminal activity.
BTW, thanks for the civil reply, it's refreshing to have a non flaming
discussion on such an emotional issue. <grin>
Carter
Carter Lee
BusterBoy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:17:43 -0400, Carter Lee <cr...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Michael Voytinsky wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <HU4cdQdxQ4gO-pn2-IydnhoHGYpCo@localhost>,
> >> w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne Hines) wrote:
> >>
> >> > But, back to the case in hand. If such a product of someone's
> >> > imagination, written for "personal consumtion", is classed as
> >> > child pornography and thus illegal, where does it end? Is
> >> > someone who writes a detailed imaginary account about killing
> >> > someone, guilty of murder or some other crime?
> >>
> >> This would logically follow, but of course we are not dealing with
> >> logic - we are dealing with taboos.
> >
> >Really? What is the point of making such a semantic distinction between
> >taboo, any act restricted or banned by custom, social authority or
> >convention; and crime, a grave offense against morality or social order?
> >The only difference here is the public's ability to punish a crime.
>
> I think he was trying to differentiate between things we deal with
> emotionally as opposed to logically.
OK I'll buy that.
>
> >> Murder is not taboo - it is merely a very serious crime. Sex with
> >> children is taboo.
> >
> >In our society murder IS taboo and it is also a (not merely) very
> >serious crime.
>
> Oh? Weren't you cheering for NATO in Bosnia?
No I wasn't "cheering" for anybody.
Wasn't murder committed
> then?
Yes but not by NATO, if that is what you are insinuating.
Was there a very serious crime committed?
Yes, it's called genocide.
Carter
Carter Lee
BusterBoy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:17:43 -0400, Carter Lee <cr...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> >> In a philosophy class no one would even blink if the prof started
> >> discussing whether or not murder is morally wrong - everyone would just
> >> understand that he is talking in hypotheticals, and has no actual
> >> interest in comitting murder. It would be clear that he is merely
> >> illustrating a point in ethical theory.
> >
> >Maybe that is true, I have never attended a philosophy class but what is
> >presently going on in the Supreme Court of Canada is not a philosophy
> >class. It is a very important presentation and decision making process
> >which has at it's center the critical question of how the most
> >vulnerable members of our society, our children, should be protected
> >from those who would use them for their personal gratification or
> >profit. Maybe you can apply some ethical theory to that process?
>
> I thought (NPI) it wasn't about what was being done to children; it
> was about what someone was *thinking* about doing to children?
You thought wrong.
Carter
Ken & Laura Chaddock
>
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:22:14 GMT, w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne
> Hines) wrote:
>
> >I think it's possible for someone to write
> >about any number of actions without actually fantasizing about
> >doing those things.
>
> Face it......its perverted. Anyone who's thinking about sex with kids,
> or others having sex with children: is perverted, sick. Period, full
> stop. Its ~wrong~. Its inappropriate. Just because you're keeping your
> thoughts to yourself, doesn't make you any less perverted than Stu
> Freidman. (known kiddie porn distributor)
This is *NOT* my point of concern with this bill. The problem is
NOT the criminalization of this sort of "child pornography" (though I
generally have a great deal of problem with "victimless" crimes) it's
the extremely broad brush of this law which criminalizes things which
*most* Canadians would NOT consider child pornography.
For example, the *VERY FIRST* application of this law was the seizure
of art hanging in a reputable gallery and the arrest of the artist for
the production and distribution of "child pornography" and of the
gallery
owner for "possession and distribution of child pornography". The
pictures
in question were depictions of child sexual abuse experienced by the
artist
as a child and were, by all accounts a very scathing depiction of child
sexual abuse.
There are other very disturbing possibilities, for example the arrest
and imprisionment of someone for keeping a diary of childhood sexual
experiences. Since I had my first sexual experience well below the age
of 18, if I had kept a diary, I would be "quilty" of possession of and
producing "child pornography".
If a 17 year old makes a video of her (or his) consentual (and
completely
legal) sexual activity with her husband, she is "quilty" of producing
and
possession of "child pornography".
If a victim of child sexual abuse keeps a "therapudic diary" to be
used
by him/her and their Doctor during therapy scessions, he/she is "quilty"
of
production and possession and distribution (the Doctor sees it) of
"child
pornography".
I doubt VERY MUCH if ANY of these examples fall into the realm of
"child
pornography" as understood by the majority of Canadians and I would go
even
further and state the I think that the vast majority of Canadians would
be
outraged if these type of charges were actually brought and people who
are
innocent of actually harming children were to go to jail for such
"offences"
...Ken
JaKo
> >I can't argue with anything you say about pedophiles and their need for
> >treatment provided what you say about them is true, to wit; "pedophiles
> >are seriously mentally ill...." I don't know if that is true about all
> >pedophiles. Nowhere can I find the condition or proclivity described as
> >a mental illness. Can you provide some reference to that fact.
>
> I always find it interesting that homosexuals want to insist that
> people are born with whatever sexual preferences they have, but get
> upset when it is mentioned that therefore pedophiles must be included
> in that list. But if homosexuals can't help it, how can pedo's?
>
> Buster
Pssssst, BB!
Don't spoil the plot BusterBoy, I'm waiting for all those "consenting adults" kind
of persons to respond. They smell the fire well, you know.
JaKo.
JaKo
> Taboo indicates a greater degree of prohibition. Even murderers do not
> like child molesters.
Read my lips:
I DON'T CARE WHOM MURDERERS DISLIKE!
(I have a big gun of my own :)
> Most people have no difficulty watching (staged) murder for
> entertainment - TV programming is full of that sort of thing.
>
> Sex with children is regarded in a very different light.
Staircase to Evil:
#1 Sex with children
#2 Murder
...
Makes no sense, does it?
> The central issue is that the law is overly broad - to a point that
> even suggesting that age of consent should be lowered - something that
> presumably is a legitimate statement of opinion - can be interpreted as
> child pornography. According to 163.1 (b) section of the Criminal Code:
>
> any written material or visual
> representation that advocates or counsels
> sexual activity with a person under the age
> of eighteen years that would be an offence
> under this Act.
>
> The law goes far beyond even making the posession of photographs or
> videos of children in sexual context illegal - and it is being
> challenged on this basis.
>
> If the law was narrower in scope, Mr. Sharpe would probably not have a
> legal leg to stand on.
There is no law prohibiting TNT. One can manufacture tons of it. But if you
drop a bomb with TNT (and some detonation device) on someone's embassy,
you're in trouble (unless you are NATO :(.
My point is, why do we always insist on punishing "manufacturers" of illegal
stuff (let it be Coke, Mary or Child porn) and not on the users?
Colombians could produce millions of tons of Coke a month, big deal -- as
long as nobody in the US snorts it, that is!!!
JaKo.
Ken & Laura Chaddock
>
> >On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:22:14 GMT, w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca (G. Wayne
> >Hines) wrote:
> >
> >>I think it's possible for someone to write
> >>about any number of actions without actually fantasizing about
> >>doing those things.
> >
> >Face it......its perverted. Anyone who's thinking about sex with kids,
> >or others having sex with children: is perverted, sick. Period, full
> >stop. Its ~wrong~. Its inappropriate. Just because you're keeping your
> >thoughts to yourself, doesn't make you any less perverted than Stu
> >Freidman. (known kiddie porn distributor)
> >
>
> be thinking about. Child Porn is one of them.
Ah, but what *IS* child pornography Emily ? The problem is NOT the
criminalization of "child pornography" it's that the extremely broad
brush of this law which criminalizes things which *most* Canadians would
NOT consider child pornography.
For example, the *VERY FIRST* application of this law was the seizure
of art hanging in a reputable gallery and the arrest of the artist for
the production and distribution of "child pornography" and of the
gallery owner for "possession and distribution of child pornography".
The
pictures in question were (semi-explicit) depictions of child sexual
abuse
experienced by the artist as a child and were, by all accounts a very
scathing depiction of child sexual abuse...yet lumped in all the
abusive,
explotative child pornography....
There are other very disturbing possibilities, for example the arrest
and imprisionment of someone for keeping a diary of childhood sexual
experiences. Since I had my first sexual experience well below the age
of
18, if I had kept a diary, I would be "quilty" of producing and
possession
of "child pornography"...even though *I* am the "child" and my personal
experiences are the topic and the diary is *private* and not for anyone
else to see.
If a 17 year old makes a video of her (or his) consentual (and
completely
legal) sexual activity with her husband, she is "quilty" of producing
and
possession of "child pornography".
If a victim of child sexual abuse keeps a "therapeutic diary" to be
used
by him/her and their Doctor during therapy scessions, he/she is "quilty"
of
production and possession and distribution (the Doctor sees it) of
"child
pornography"...there is NO exception for medical/therapeutic material
such
as this and the normal defence of mens rea, having a "criminal mind"
does not
apply since the offence *IS* the possession or production of *ANYTHING*
judged
to be a pornographic depiction of a person under 18 years of age...NO
MATTER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES !
I doubt VERY MUCH if ANY of these examples fall into the realm of
"child
pornography" as understood by the majority of Canadians yet they are in
fact
*CRIMINAL* under the provisions of our child pornography law.
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> OK Michael, having said all that ask me if I believe that having in your
> possession a self produced drawing or story depicting sex with children,
> which was produced entirely from your imagination, and which you made no
> effort to share with others, give away, sell, barter or otherwise
> disseminate, should be considered a crime such as "possession of child
> pornography"? (Notwithstanding that it is a mystery to me how anyone in
> authority would know that you even had the stuff if all those elements
> were in place)
Many many ways Carter. One very real way would be if a firearms
inspector
decided to enter your home for the purpose of inspecting your firearms
or
records there of. If he/she happened to "stumble" across your childhood
diary
where you describe your "first time" with your 17 year old girl
friend...*YOU*
my friend are in possession of child pornography and since you also
wrote the
diary you are also guilty of "producing" child pornography...how would
*YOU*
like to go to jail for keeping your childhood diary ?
Sound far fetched ? Think again, a firearms inspector in NOT bound by
simple
warrant, and he/she has the authority to look at *ANYTHING* if he/she
has any "suspicion" that it contain firearms or records of firearms.
Since their "inspection", which is NOT limited to simple warrent as
are most
other searches, is a legal activity, then *ANYTHING* they find can be
used against
you. It doesn't even matter whether you can show that they had no real
reason to
look in your personal diary, the "evidence" is admissible in court...YOU
MNY FRIEND
ARE A PEDOPHILE !
Like it so far Carter ?
...Ken
> My answer would be the same as that given by anyone who is capable of
> thinking logically with a minimum of emotional interference, no it
> should not be considered a crime provided all of the elements I outlined
> above are present.
>
> I firmly believe that the Supreme Court of Canada will agree. That is
> not to say that they will strike down the present child pornography
> laws. I believe they will strongly recommend to the federal government,
> however, that the definition of child pornography in the criminal code
> be amended.
>
> I also believe that the SSC will uphold the ruling of the BC Supreme
> court IF the only thing the accused was shown to be in possession of was
> material like I described above.
>
> Carter
Ken & Laura Chaddock
>
> Anyone adult who draws pictures of naked children should be arrested for
> possession of child pornography, because it may be the only way that such
> a sick person may be treated. It is only a matter of time until such an
> "adult" does abuse a child.
Self portraits too Robert ? The *VERY FIRST* application of this law
was the seizure of art hanging in a reputable gallery and the arrest of
the artist for the production and distribution of "child pornography"
and of the gallery owner for "possession and distribution of child
pornography". The pictures in question were depictions of child sexual
abuse experienced by the artist as a child and were, by all accounts a
very scathing depiction of child sexual abuse....
...Ken
Carter Lee
No of course not, you are preaching to the converted. I was a Cop for 35
years and for most of the last half of my career I was an investigator
faced with having to enforce this legislation by investigating alleged
violations of it. That experience taught me three things;
1. Nobody is going to be sent to jail or labelled a pedophile for
keeping a childhood diary;
2. Most people who bother read our kiddie porn laws get so emotional
and wrapped around the axle about what admittedly is not the best
legislation in the world that they fail to consider it with anything
approaching logic; and
3. Policemen and crown attorneys have to be, and are, extremely careful
when dealing with kiddie porn because they know and understand the
reason(s) for the legislation against it.
I have been instructed and advised by several learned judges that, when
our legislators included self produced things, even art, in the
definition of kiddie porn, it was not their intention that people be
prosecuted for possession and production of those things alone. It was
their intention that those things could be used as evidence, along with
other more real evidence, to help show the state of mind of an accused.
The fault of the legislation is that it does not clearly explain this.
It is my opinion, and that of at least one of those judges, that the
legislators erred and the material in question should be removed from
the definition of kiddie porn. That would allow police investigators and
crown attorneys to deal with that type of evidence in accordance with
the Canada Evidence Act, that is collect, preserve and present it if it
is considered relevant and material to the facts in issue. Whether it is
or not then will have to be decided by the courts based on the same
tests of relevancy and materiality as is applied to any other evidence.
You described your scenario above as a very real one. I disagree, I
think it is far fetched and a bit paranoid. A firearms inspector AFAIK
has no authority to collect evidence not related to the inspection he is
conducting. If he sees what he believes to be evidence of criminal
activity he can only call or report his findings to the police. If he
sees what you describe (diary) he would probably chuckle and ignore it
because I assume that firearms inspectors are reasonable people not
affected by hysteria or paranoia. If, however he did report it and,
based on what he reports, the police do investigate and find only the
material you describe, there will be no further action taken other than
what may be required to update police intelligence files. Any policeman
who brought that kind of evidence (A diary describing your first sexual
encounter with your 17 year old girlfriend) and no other to a crown
attorney as evidence of alleged production or possession of kiddie porn
would, at the least, be politely advised to return it to it's rightful
owner.
I agree, probably more that most, that our kiddie porn laws need
amending but please my friends try to look at this issue logically. I
happen to believe that the underlying rationale, the central issue if
you will, of any kiddie porn legislation is the protection of the most
vulnerable members of our society, our children.
Carter
Ken & Laura Chaddock
No ? In all of your years as a police officer you never yourself or
never heard of police "going after" someone they considered a "criminal"
and using *anything* they could to bring him/her down ? If you had a
drug
dealer who was "hooking" kids on crack you wouldn't use his/her personal
diary to put him/her away if you couldn't get him/her for anything else
?
> 2. Most people who bother read our kiddie porn laws get so emotional
> and wrapped around the axle about what admittedly is not the best
> legislation in the world that they fail to consider it with anything
> approaching logic; and
There is little "logic" in the law. The law is the law. If the SCC
upholds this law with no "reservations" or "guidance" it will be open
season...
> 3. Policemen and crown attorneys have to be, and are, extremely careful
> when dealing with kiddie porn because they know and understand the
> reason(s) for the legislation against it.
See below about the artist and gallery owner...
> I have been instructed and advised by several learned judges that, when
> our legislators included self produced things, even art, in the
> definition of kiddie porn, it was not their intention that people be
> prosecuted for possession and production of those things alone. It was
> their intention that those things could be used as evidence, along with
> other more real evidence, to help show the state of mind of an accused.
> The fault of the legislation is that it does not clearly explain this.
> It is my opinion, and that of at least one of those judges, that the
> legislators erred and the material in question should be removed from
> the definition of kiddie porn. That would allow police investigators and
> crown attorneys to deal with that type of evidence in accordance with
> the Canada Evidence Act, that is collect, preserve and present it if it
> is considered relevant and material to the facts in issue. Whether it is
> or not then will have to be decided by the courts based on the same
> tests of relevancy and materiality as is applied to any other evidence.
I agree and some relatively simple amendments to clarify this would
certainly fix the situation however with Anne MacLennan (sp?) as
minister
do you *really* think there will be any amendments ?
> You described your scenario above as a very real one. I disagree, I
> think it is far fetched and a bit paranoid. A firearms inspector AFAIK
> has no authority to collect evidence not related to the inspection he is
> conducting. If he sees what he believes to be evidence of criminal
> activity he can only call or report his findings to the police.
In most cases firearms inspectors will *be* police officers...
> If he sees what you describe (diary) he would probably chuckle and ignore it
I would certainly hope that would be the case however would he/she
also "chuckle and ignore" a marihauna joint of a hit of crack he/she
"happened across" ? If not, why would he/she just ignore one crime but
pursue another ? Isn't he/she bound by law to investigate and charge in
suce a case ?
> because I assume that firearms inspectors are reasonable people not
> affected by hysteria or paranoia. If, however he did report it and,
> based on what he reports, the police do investigate and find only the
> material you describe, there will be no further action taken other than
> what may be required to update police intelligence files. Any policeman
> who brought that kind of evidence (A diary describing your first sexual
> encounter with your 17 year old girlfriend) and no other to a crown
> attorney as evidence of alleged production or possession of kiddie porn
> would, at the least, be politely advised to return it to it's rightful
> owner.
That's how I *hope* it would happen however as long as the law
*allows*
abuse ther will be abuse at some point.
> I agree, probably more that most, that our kiddie porn laws need
> amending but please my friends try to look at this issue logically. I
> happen to believe that the underlying rationale, the central issue if
> you will, of any kiddie porn legislation is the protection of the most
> vulnerable members of our society, our children.
A very logical response Carter however how do you explain the fact
that the *VERY FIRST* application of this law was the seizure of art
hanging in a reputable gallery and the arrest of the artist for the
production and distribution of "child pornography" and of the gallery
owner for "possession and distribution of child pornography".
The pictures in question were depictions of child sexual abuse
experienced by the artist as a child and were, by all accounts a very
scathing depiction of child sexual abuse....certainly *NOT* a situation
where "children" were being injured or exploited, certaily *NOT* a
situation which most (Robert Speirs excluded) of us would consider
"child pornography" yet there it is. The *convictions* are currently
under appeal but unless the SCC strikes this down these people will go
to jail !
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
>
> >>"Robert J.N. Speirs" <spe...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> >>Anyone adult who draws pictures of naked children should be arrested for
> >>possession of child pornography, because it may be the only way that
> >>such a sick person may be treated. It is only a matter of time until
> >>such an "adult" does abuse a child.
> >>
> >Self portraits too, Robert? The first application of this law was the
>
> Yes, definitely. Why are self portraits special?
Because no one is victimnized or injured ?
> >seizure of art hanging in a reputable gallery, and the arrest of the
> >artist for the production and distribution of "child pornography" and of
> >the gallery owner for "possession and distribution of child pornography".
> >The pictures in question were depictions of child sexual abuse
>
> The artist may have altruistic intentions, yet he has no control over how
> his "art" may be viewed. Is his "art" viewed by intellectuals or by
> voyeuristic perverts who masquerade as intellectuals? Such "art" is merely
> perversion masquerading as art.
Then why don't we have similar prohibitions concerning other crimes?
Why
is it "OK" to write murder stories or rape stories, or robery stories ?
After all, there can be no control over how *any* of this is viewed or
whether it will stimulate someone to commit some of those other crimes.
If it's just a matter of protecting children, why don't we have laws
against depictions of violence against children...it's quite legal to
write
a story about murdering children...isn't that worst than sexually
abusing
them ?
> >experienced by the artist as a child and were, by all accounts a very
> >scathing depiction of child sexual abuse...
>
> The discussion of child abuse can be broached in a more intelligent and
> thoughtful manner. Using vulgar depictions of the abuse is hypotical and
> ironic exploitation of the abuse to deliver a distorted "message".
Yet with *MUCH* less impact and effect I think.
...Ken
Carter Lee
Ken & Laura Chaddock wrote:
> No ? In all of your years as a police officer you never yourself or
> never heard of police "going after" someone they considered a "criminal"
> and using *anything* they could to bring him/her down ?
Of course that is what policemen are paid to do, go after criminals.
They will use anything that they are legally entitled to use to bring
criminals to justice.
If you had a
> drug
> dealer who was "hooking" kids on crack you wouldn't use his/her personal
> diary to put him/her away if you couldn't get him/her for anything else
Don't be daft, of course not. I think you are watching too much American
TV.
> There is little "logic" in the law. The law is the law. If the SCC
> upholds this law with no "reservations" or "guidance" it will be open
> season...
You are entitled to that opinion but please don't spread the hysteria
and paranoia that I detect here.
> I agree and some relatively simple amendments to clarify this would
> certainly fix the situation however with Anne MacLennan (sp?) as
> minister
> do you *really* think there will be any amendments ?
Yes.
>
> > You described your scenario above as a very real one. I disagree, I
> > think it is far fetched and a bit paranoid. A firearms inspector AFAIK
> > has no authority to collect evidence not related to the inspection he is
> > conducting. If he sees what he believes to be evidence of criminal
> > activity he can only call or report his findings to the police.
>
> In most cases firearms inspectors will *be* police officers...
I don't think so but it really has nothing to do with this thread.
>
> > If he sees what you describe (diary) he would probably chuckle and ignore it
>
> I would certainly hope that would be the case however would he/she
> also "chuckle and ignore" a marihauna joint of a hit of crack he/she
> "happened across" ? If not, why would he/she just ignore one crime but
> pursue another ? Isn't he/she bound by law to investigate and charge in
> suce a case ?
Did you read what I told you that two judges had told me and my
colleagues about what they believed the intent of the legislators was?
Do you not think that a learned judge's advice and instruction has some
effect on the way a police officer will do his job? No, a policeman is
not always bound by law to lay charges, there is something in law called
discretion which a policeman may use when he believes the circumstances
warrant. Your scenario regarding a diary is, IMO, one of those
circumstances. If you want to discuss weed or crack start another
thread, you are comparing apples and bananas when you bring those things
up in this thread.
> That's how I *hope* it would happen however as long as the law
> *allows*
> abuse ther will be abuse at some point.
Of course.
>
> > I agree, probably more that most, that our kiddie porn laws need
> > amending but please my friends try to look at this issue logically. I
> > happen to believe that the underlying rationale, the central issue if
> > you will, of any kiddie porn legislation is the protection of the most
> > vulnerable members of our society, our children.
>
> A very logical response Carter however how do you explain the fact
> that the *VERY FIRST* application of this law was the seizure of art
> hanging in a reputable gallery and the arrest of the artist for the
> production and distribution of "child pornography" and of the gallery
> owner for "possession and distribution of child pornography".
> The pictures in question were depictions of child sexual abuse
> experienced by the artist as a child and were, by all accounts a very
> scathing depiction of child sexual abuse....certainly *NOT* a situation
> where "children" were being injured or exploited, certaily *NOT* a
> situation which most (Robert Speirs excluded) of us would consider
> "child pornography" yet there it is. The *convictions* are currently
> under appeal but unless the SCC strikes this down these people will go
> to jail !
I would not even attempt to explain what you call the "very first" (see
I don't shout) application of this law. I wasn't there and I do not know
why the owners of an art gallery had their property seized and were
charged. I also don't know why they were convicted except I assume there
was sufficient evidence presented at a trial to convince a judge or jury
or both that they were guilty of something.
You seem to know more about this case than I do and I think that you
have already made up your mind (I assume you were in the courtroom) that
these people are not guilty. Me? I will await the results of the appeal
court.
Carter
Barbara Amero
Nothing.
> >"donald tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote:
> >I just asked a question. You inferred that anybody not wanting
> >that law upheld was a proponent of child porn. I'll ask again.
> >Who are you going to uphold the law against? Just the ones you do
> >not like, or every person that breaks that particular law? If the
> >latter, then you are going to have to put just about everybody with
> >a book collection or art collection in jail.
> >The law quite clearly states that any depiction of sexuality or
> >any nude picture of anyone under eighteen is defined as porn.
> >That includes such things as Romeo and Juliet (14 years old),
> >as noted by another poster.
Well, the poster was wrong, and so are you. The law does not state
that any depiction of 'sexuality' or any nude picture of anyone under
eighteen is defined as porn. If it did, I, and all the parents known
to me with family pics & photo albums, would be in possession of and
distributing child porn. The law uses the terminology sexual activity
and for a sexual purpose, not 'sexuality'. Sexuality does not equal
sexual activity or for a sexual purpose.
> >So is a painting like "The Madonna" by Raphael. In fact, a doctor
> >that X-rays a child and every librarian in Canada is guilty of child
> >porn under that law.
That is ridiculous.
> >I am certainly not in favour of exploitation of children, in any
> >way shape or form. However, I do not consider the pictures of my
> >children (or grand-children) as new-borns to be pornographic, nor
> >do I consider simple nudity pornographic.
Nor does the law (well, that doesn't apply to, for e.g., a woman
sitting nude on the steps of St. Mary's Basilica on Spring Garden Rd.,
no, I wasn't that woman). And, most parents I know have nude pics of
their children beyond the age of new-borns.
> >However, "exploitation" is quite a different thing than "pornography".
That's not so. There is "exploitation" of children in the making
of the "pornography."
> > If you are going to pass laws against the latter, then you have
> > to define it. The law as currently drafted is rather stupid, and
> > deserved to be thrown out.
While I am not defending the current law, the latter is defined.
DEFINITION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
[6] Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code reads:
163.1(1) in this section "child pornography" means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual
representation, whether or not it was made
by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is
depicted as being under the age of
eighteen years and is engaged in or is
depicted as engaged in explicit sexual
activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which
is the depiction, for a sexual
purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal
region of a person under the age of
eighteen years; or
(b) any written material or visual
representation that advocates or counsels
sexual activity with a person under the age
of eighteen years that would be an offence
under this Act.
(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or
possesses for the purpose of publication any
child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten
years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary
conviction.
(3) Every person who imports, distributes, sells or
possesses for the purpose of distribution or
sale any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable for
imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten
years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary
conviction.
(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography
is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary
conviction.
(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection
(2) in respect of a visual representation that
the accused believed that a person shown in the
representation that is alleged to constitute
child pornography was or was depicted as being
eighteen years of age or more unless the accused
took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age
of that person and took all reasonable steps to
ensure that, where the person was eighteen years
of age or more, the representation did not
depict that person under the age of eighteen
years.
(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence
under subsection (2), (3) or (4), the court
shall find the accused not guilty if the
representation or written material that is
alleged to constitute child pornography has
artistic merit or an educational, scientific or
medical purpose.
(7) Subsections 163(3) to (5) apply, with such
modifications as the circumstances require, with
respect to an offence under subsection (2), (3)
or (4), 1993, c.46.s.2.
Carter Lee
Peet Dexter wrote:
> I'm gonna go with Carter's opnions about that diary, but let me
> prattle about art forms and art galleries for a minute.......
>
> It seems to me that reputable, in terms of an art gallery primarily
> means that "they can get big bucks for their products" or "they can
> attract the more prominent artists".......and thats all. For
> example....last year I read an article in the National Post about a
> couple of "artists" in the UK who make paintings from human feces and
> sell them for big bucks to Brits. Is it considered art? Not to me, not
> to you. It seems to me that if some artist or photorapher hangs a
> bunch of pictures in a gallery, its because he or she is trying to
> earn a living selling this stuff.
>
> A picture of a naked child in a gallery is gonna cost someone more
> than a pic downloaded from Stu Freidman's site........what other real
> differences are there? If you call it 'art' does that make it OK?
> Don't think.......
>
> The artist who depicts his own alleged sexual abuse must use children
> to pose, participate in this photography. Thats kiddie porn. Just
> because someone calls it an art form, does that make it any more
> acceptable? Not to me...... Ane 'artist' out trying to hire or attract
> children to pose for 'depictions' is creating kiddie porn. Its abusing
> the child who is posing for this photography, and its furthering a
> market for this product.
Hi Peet;
Generally I agree, particularly with the last paragraph. I don't know
for sure but I suspect that in the case that Ken is talking about there
was some of that kind of evidence submitted, otherwise I doubt that a
conviction would have been registered.
This is a particularly thorny part of the kiddie porn laws because the
question of what is and what is not art is far too subjective. Two
questions come to mind; how do you define "art"? and who decides? These
questions are almost impossible to answer in legal terms and for that
reason alone the legislation should be amended.
Carter
Ad Astra
"Carter Lee" <cr...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:388B1742...@istar.ca...
> This is a particularly thorny part of the kiddie porn laws because the
> question of what is and what is not art is far too subjective. Two
> questions come to mind; how do you define "art"? and who decides? These
> questions are almost impossible to answer in legal terms and for that
> reason alone the legislation should be amended.
Forgive me if this point has already been made, but I'm a newcomer to this
debate.
My own personal feelings run along the lines of "if it looks like a duck
and sounds like a duck, then it's a duck..." (if it looks like a naked
child....) No child is capable of informed consent, ergo any picture of a
naked child (other than, of course, the aforementioned baby pictures,
etc., held by parents solely for the purpose of keeping a photographic
record of the life of their beloved child) is exploitive in nature. I
don't care if someone else calls it "art" because it's hanging on a wall,
vice appearing on the pages of a magazine, or hiding in a shoebox full of
polaroids. What "good" or "enrichment" can possibly come from someone
looking at a child's genitalia? Yes, *some* people would only see the
sheer beauty of an innocent girl, but I submit that the same girl would be
every bit as beautiful in a pretty white dress, with flowers in her hair.
Is it necessary, or somehow enriching to present her naked? I think not,
so I also think that naked children have no place in "art." Someone else
mentioned Stu Freidman. Anyone here really think that's "art?" Anyone else
wonder just who really needs to look at naked pictures of other people's
kids? What about Brooke Shields' early movies? Any guesses as to how many
guys sat there, glued to the screen, peckers in hand, gleefully waiting
for the next peek at an adolescent girl's tiny breasts? But it was a
film... "art", right?
The debate about what is, and is not, art is just what you said:
"subjective." Someone else said that the dividing line seems to be what
the object costs. Take Mapplethorpe, for example: Put a photograph of a
man whith a whip shoved up his arse on the wall (or in a book which costs
around $200) and it's "art." Put a similar picture in a $5 magazine, and
it's "pornography." Same picture, same physical and emotional reactions
(both good and bad) in the observers. The difference is in the public's
*perception* of those observers. On the one hand you have high-society
people who pay big money to view the "work" of a "serious and talented
photographer" and on the other hand you have the average depraved sexual
deviant who is given to viewing obscene pictures of gay men in dirty
magazines. Same photograph, same people (potentially) looking at 'em. I
guess this is all to say that if ya got money, you can't be a deviant, so
looking at an obscene photograph is somehow different.
Ya know, I just realized that I don't really have a point here... <grin>
Oh yeah... it's this: it doesn't matter where the "line" is, because
there's always going to be people on both sides of it. Call it "art" as
much as you like, but there's always going to be someone looking at it
differently. I think the art-vs-pornography debate as it relates to
children is moot because the child can't give informed consent. If a nude
pic of a kid leaves mommy's photo album, it's *potentially* damaging.
Period.
Take a naked picture of your son or daughter and hang it on the wall in
the Louvre. It's art, right? Now, put an unrepentant pedophile, with his
hand down his pants in front of it. Is is still "art"?
And that's my $0.0165
Cheers!
Gary
------
Madness: A divine release of the soul from the yoke of custom and
convention.
- Socrates -
Carter Lee
Exactly, I rest my case, or I will when someone else posts a similar
subjective rant but taking the opposite view, and someone will.
On a personal level I agree with most of what you have said Gary about
photographs of children. I have just one question; How would you
categorize a painting (from imagination and not meant to depict anyone
in particular) of a naked female child cavorting in a field of flowers.
There is in the art world such a painting but I cannot recall it's name
or the name of the artist.
Carter
Ad Astra
> photographs of children. I have just one question; How would you
> categorize a painting (from imagination and not meant to depict anyone
> in particular) of a naked female child cavorting in a field of flowers.
> There is in the art world such a painting but I cannot recall it's name
> or the name of the artist.
I guess I'm a little funny that way, Carter, but I'd have to ask "why must
the child be naked?" Is there something that somehow enriches the "art" if
you can see the little girl's genitals or (future) breasts? How about a
female child cavorting in the same flowers with the bright sun making her
flowing white dress seem like the wings of an angel? That, to me, is art.
You did say, however, that the picture was created from imagination, so
obviously no "real" person would be hurt in your example. There are some
images which included naked children that I have found to be extremely
attractive. An example is a painting of a new mother cradling her newborn
to her naked torso. It was the idea, however, of motherhood which was so
beautiful, and the painting's beauty had nothing to do with the nude
little boy's bottom. The painting rather spoke to me of the mystic (to us
men, anyway) bond between mother and child. Interestingly (to me), the
mother had spectacular (engorged) breasts, but the notion of them being
sexually related appendages didn't occur to me while viewing it: they
belonged to the baby :) Take the motherhood out of the picture, and I
would have simply been admiring (with sexual thoughts) a great pair of
breasts... I guess it's all about intent, huh?
So, to directly answer your question, if the painting was "about" the
girl's nudity, I would categorize it as child pornography. If, on the
other hand, the girl's nudity was somehow necessary to enhanced the pure,
innocent beauty of the painting, I would categorize it as "art." I know
that reasonable men like you and I would look at a painting like the one
you described and think "my good sweet goodness, that's beautiful" and we
would smile as we were reminded of our own kids' youth. But, I think that
there are also others who would look at such a painting in a different
way, and that gives me the creeps.
You ask tough questions: glad I never had to answer to you "on the job!"
:)
Last line (finally): I have a daughter who just turned four and a son who
just turned 5, and there's a sick f**k driving around Winnipeg in a white
van, trying (and succeeding, on occasion) to rape children (both sexes.)
It's not impossible <grin> that my views are being slanted by this...
Cheers!
Gary (I promise: short posts from now on! LOL)
allonzo
>
> Last line (finally): I have a daughter who just turned four and a son who
> just turned 5, and there's a sick f**k driving around Winnipeg in a white
> van, trying (and succeeding, on occasion) to rape children (both sexes.)
> It's not impossible <grin> that my views are being slanted by this...
>
> Cheers!
Same way people feel about the sick f$$$s bombing children. mothers and
fathers in the Balkans;
same way they feel about the sick f$$$ks who bombed the retreating
Iraquis and the sick f$$$s who impose genocidal sanctions killing
hundreds of thousands of children and the elderly and the sick f$$$s
who oversee the ethnic cleansing and genocide and the sick f$$$s who
cloak theemselves in phoney 'high ideals' while committing crimes
against humanity.
And they call others 'nuts'!
Ken & Laura Chaddock
>
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:04:52 -0800, Ken & Laura Chaddock
> <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> Hello Ken......
Hi Peet
> I'm gonna go with Carter's opnions about that diary, but let me
> prattle about art forms and art galleries for a minute.......
I hope to hell you and Carter are right...
> It seems to me that reputable, in terms of an art gallery primarily
> means that "they can get big bucks for their products" or "they can
> attract the more prominent artists".......and thats all. For
> example....last year I read an article in the National Post about a
> couple of "artists" in the UK who make paintings from human feces and
> sell them for big bucks to Brits. Is it considered art? Not to me, not
> to you. It seems to me that if some artist or photorapher hangs a
> bunch of pictures in a gallery, its because he or she is trying to
> earn a living selling this stuff.
Good point. There is another side to "art" however. Most artists
don't make the "big bucks", if money were their concern, most artists
could be making more working at MacDonalds or Wendy's than being
artists so I don't think it's entirely about "making a living". Most
artists I know (and I know several) are in it because they have
something to say about society that they feel is important to say.
> A picture of a naked child in a gallery is gonna cost someone more
> than a pic downloaded from Stu Freidman's site........what other real
> differences are there? If you call it 'art' does that make it OK?
> Don't think.......
The "difference" is in the purpose for the picture. If we simply
apply the logic you propose above, without determining what the picture
or "depiction" are for, then even things like Medical Text Books
showing drawings or photographs of pre-pubescent genitalia would be
"Kiddie porn".
> The artist who depicts his own alleged sexual abuse must use children
> to pose, participate in this photography. Thats kiddie porn. Just
> because someone calls it an art form, does that make it any more
> acceptable? Not to me...... An 'artist' out trying to hire or attract
> children to pose for 'depictions' is creating kiddie porn. Its abusing
> the child who is posing for this photography, and its furthering a
> market for this product.
Even when the intent is to show the horrors and evils of child sexual
abuse ? Are we to sweep it all under the carpet again ? Out of sight out
of mind ? I know many would like that, better not to have to confront
the
horrors of the world than to admit that our society has it's monsters !
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
Hi Carter
> Peet Dexter wrote:
>
> > I'm gonna go with Carter's opnions about that diary, but let me
> > prattle about art forms and art galleries for a minute.......
> Hi Peet;
>
> Generally I agree, particularly with the last paragraph. I don't know
> for sure but I suspect that in the case that Ken is talking about there
> was some of that kind of evidence submitted, otherwise I doubt that a
> conviction would have been registered.
As far a I can determine the convictions were solely on the strength
of the pictures seized.
> This is a particularly thorny part of the kiddie porn laws because the
> question of what is and what is not art is far too subjective. Two
> questions come to mind; how do you define "art"? and who decides? These
> questions are almost impossible to answer in legal terms and for that
> reason alone the legislation should be amended.
There I agree but would put a slightly different perspective on
it, I think that the determination of what is Kiddie porn is far too
subjective, not what is not. It's not even a matter of "art", there's
a requirement that a judge/jury be completely subjective in determining
whether a particular item is Kiddie porn or not, not just "artistic"
works.
Consider a hypothetical scenario. A "known" pedophile is found to
have a certain medical text book with depictions of pre-pubscent
gentalia
in his/her possession...is this "Kiddie porn" ?
If it's not Kiddie porn, then why would a picture down loaded from
the
"net" showing basically the same thing "BE" kiddie porn ?
Let's assume (for science) that the medical text depictions *are*
determined to indeed be "Kiddie porn", what's to stop the prosecution of
a doctor is found to have the same medical text with known "kiddie porn"
in his/her possession ?
Thorny issues indeed. Personally I think you have to hang the
determination
of whether something is child pornography on two features of the item;
1/ is the intent of the item "pornographic" ie: intended to titilate
or
cause sexual arousal (and no, I don't thnik this will be particularly
difficult
in the vast majority of cases) and
2/ were any *real* children abused or exploited in the production of
the
piece (somewhat more difficult, was the child whose genatials
photographed
for the medical text "exploited ?)
Anything else is too great a intrusion, not only into personal rights
of
individual citizens but may even be counter productive by impeding the
function of many persons and organizations who are actually trying to
*help*
children.
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> My own personal feelings run along the lines of "if it looks like a duck
> and sounds like a duck, then it's a duck..." (if it looks like a naked
> child....) No child is capable of informed consent, ergo any picture of a
> naked child (other than, of course, the aforementioned baby pictures,
> etc., held by parents solely for the purpose of keeping a photographic
> record of the life of their beloved child) is exploitive in nature.
As I noted in a previous post, what about photos of pre-pubscent
gentaila contained in many medical texts ? By your defination probably
every doctor and many nurses in Canada are in possession of Kiddie Porn.
I
> don't care if someone else calls it "art" because it's hanging on a wall,
> vice appearing on the pages of a magazine, or hiding in a shoebox full of
> polaroids. What "good" or "enrichment" can possibly come from someone
> looking at a child's genitalia? Yes, *some* people would only see the
> sheer beauty of an innocent girl, but I submit that the same girl would be
> every bit as beautiful in a pretty white dress, with flowers in her hair.
> Is it necessary, or somehow enriching to present her naked? I think not,
> so I also think that naked children have no place in "art." Someone else
> mentioned Stu Freidman. Anyone here really think that's "art?" Anyone else
> wonder just who really needs to look at naked pictures of other people's
> kids? What about Brooke Shields' early movies? Any guesses as to how many
> guys sat there, glued to the screen, peckers in hand, gleefully waiting
> for the next peek at an adolescent girl's tiny breasts? But it was a
> film... "art", right?
An interesting point, in fact probably almost every video store,
(even
squeekie clean Blockbuster) in the country had loads of "Kiddie Porn" on
the shelves...and I mean in the "Adult" section either...
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
>
> Ad Astra wrote:
> >
> > "Carter Lee" <cr...@istar.ca> wrote in message
> > news:388B1742...@istar.ca...
> >
> > > question of what is and what is not art is far too subjective. Two
> > > questions come to mind; how do you define "art"? and who decides? These
> > > questions are almost impossible to answer in legal terms and for that
> > > reason alone the legislation should be amended.
> >
> > debate.
> >
> > and sounds like a duck, then it's a duck..." (if it looks like a naked
> > child....) No child is capable of informed consent, ergo any picture of a
> > naked child (other than, of course, the aforementioned baby pictures,
> > etc., held by parents solely for the purpose of keeping a photographic
> > don't care if someone else calls it "art" because it's hanging on a wall,
> > vice appearing on the pages of a magazine, or hiding in a shoebox full of
> > polaroids. What "good" or "enrichment" can possibly come from someone
> > looking at a child's genitalia? Yes, *some* people would only see the
> > sheer beauty of an innocent girl, but I submit that the same girl would be
> > every bit as beautiful in a pretty white dress, with flowers in her hair.
> > Is it necessary, or somehow enriching to present her naked? I think not,
> > so I also think that naked children have no place in "art." Someone else
> > mentioned Stu Freidman. Anyone here really think that's "art?" Anyone else
> > wonder just who really needs to look at naked pictures of other people's
> > kids? What about Brooke Shields' early movies? Any guesses as to how many
> > guys sat there, glued to the screen, peckers in hand, gleefully waiting
> > for the next peek at an adolescent girl's tiny breasts? But it was a
> > film... "art", right?
> >
So if an "unrepentant pedophile, with his hand down his pants" is
sitting in front of a medical text book this transforms the medical
text book into "kiddie porn" ? Or was it *always* kiddie porn, we just
didn't recognize it as such ?
> On a personal level I agree with most of what you have said Gary about
> photographs of children. I have just one question; How would you
> categorize a painting (from imagination and not meant to depict anyone
> in particular) of a naked female child cavorting in a field of flowers.
> There is in the art world such a painting but I cannot recall it's name
> or the name of the artist.
I guess you know my take on it Carter...if the intent of the picture,
story etc is not "pornographic" then it's not pornographic, otherwise
even
your "baby" pictures *must be* lumped in with the gallery pictures, the
medical text etc.
By the logic you and Gary are using *ANYTHING* (sorry for shouting)
can
be "pornographic" if used that way, even the baby pictures of your
daughter,
in the hands of an "unrepentant pedophile, with his hand down his pants"
become "child pornography".
...Ken
Ad Astra
"allonzo" <dubl...@tallships.ca> wrote in message
news:388BC5...@tallships.ca...
> Same way people feel about the sick f$$$s bombing children. mothers and
> fathers in the Balkans;
> same way they feel about the sick f$$$ks who bombed the retreating
> Iraquis and the sick f$$$s who impose genocidal sanctions killing
> hundreds of thousands of children and the elderly and the sick f$$$s
> who oversee the ethnic cleansing and genocide and the sick f$$$s who
> cloak theemselves in phoney 'high ideals' while committing crimes
> against humanity.
> And they call others 'nuts'!
Heh heh heh... tough time at recess today, kiddo?
Anyway, would this be the reasoned arguments, supported by facts, that I
asked if you could provide? If so, I guess I can rest my case, then, huh?
Well done, "Allonzo", your credibility is soaring...
Facts? I don't have no f$$$$$g facts!
Cheers!
Gary
GET THE VOICES OUT OF ALLONZO'S HEAD!!!
Carter Lee
Ken & Laura Chaddock wrote:
>
> So if an "unrepentant pedophile, with his hand down his pants" is
> sitting in front of a medical text book this transforms the medical
> text book into "kiddie porn" ? Or was it *always* kiddie porn, we just
> didn't recognize it as such ?
No a medical text book is not included in the definition of child
pornography, it is in fact specifically excluded for obvious reasons.
>
> > On a personal level I agree with most of what you have said Gary about
> > photographs of children. I have just one question; How would you
> > categorize a painting (from imagination and not meant to depict anyone
> > in particular) of a naked female child cavorting in a field of flowers.
> > There is in the art world such a painting but I cannot recall it's name
> > or the name of the artist.
>
> I guess you know my take on it Carter...if the intent of the picture,
> story etc is not "pornographic" then it's not pornographic, otherwise
> even
> your "baby" pictures *must be* lumped in with the gallery pictures, the
> medical text etc.
The problem with your take Ken is that it is too simplistic and it is
really only a subjective opinion. Actually I wish it were that simple.
Intent is a large part of the equation but an equally important part is
content and both must be present in a particular circumstance before an
otherwise innocent photo could be classified as pornographic.
Unfortunately innocent photos can fall into the same category as art,
that is they could be considered art and art is not specifically
excluded from the definition of child porn, it is in fact included. (As
I said above exclude the medical text)
> By the logic you and Gary are using *ANYTHING* (sorry for shouting)
> can
> be "pornographic" if used that way, even the baby pictures of your
> daughter,
> in the hands of an "unrepentant pedophile, with his hand down his pants"
> become "child pornography".
No Ken that is not what Gary said or what I agreed with. Gary said
something to the effect that a baby picture taken from mom's album could
be "potential" kiddie porn. That is true if the picture, along with
other porno material, is presented, offered for sale or otherwise
distributed with the "intent" to titillate. I agree with that and the
same could be subjectively said for the painting I described above. Note
and remember that I said "subjectively".
Most of what Gary said BTW concerned "art". One of the problems is that
art is not exempted as medical material is. The question remains; what
is art and when does it become child pornography, and, who decides? The
whole issue is far too subjective to form part of child porn
legislation. Lets take two extreme examples (1) a photo of a ten year
old girl performing fellatio on an adult male, and (2) the painting I
described above. One is obviously pornographic but, if they were both
offered for sale together on your local pedophiliac web site, what about
the other, the painting? I'm sure you have an opinion, maybe gary has a
different one and I might very well have a third. Are you beginning to
see the difficulty in this? How does a policeman conducting a search
know what evidence to collect? How does a prosecutor decide what
evidence to present to a court? How does a judge decide if the "art" is
porn or not? Are judges even qualified to make such decisions? Regarding
the first case you spoke of earlier, what was the intent of hanging such
paintings or photos in an art gallery? Was it to sell them for profit as
art or was it to titillate a specific target audience? Who is qualified
to decide? Most of those questions cannot be answered objectively and
the only way you can prosecute, convict and punish someone for any
offence is by objective investigation, objective collection and
presentation of evidence and objective decision making by judges and/or
juries. Subjectivity cannot form part of that judicial process. When the
judiciary acts subjectively someone's charter rights gets violated.
It is my opinion my friend that the definition of child porn as it
presently exists in the CCC is far too broad. It must be amended to
become more specific. Only in that way can the legislation do what it
must, protect our children.
Carter
Carter Lee
Carter Lee wrote:
> No a medical text book is not included in the definition of child
> pornography, it is in fact specifically excluded for obvious reasons.
Hi Ken;
I fear I may have led you and others astray with the comment above. It
is not entirely correct and I apologize.
It is not that medical, scientific and educational material is
specifically excluded from the definition, in fact neither is
specifically mentioned in the definition, nor is art. All of those
things are dealt with in the legislation as a form of defence. Here is
what Sec 163.1(6) of the CCC says;
163.1(6) Defences
(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2),
(3) or (4), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the
representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child
pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or
medical purpose.
The problem is that "...educational, scientific or medical purpose." is
reasonably easy to objectively define while the term "...artistic
merit..." is not. It is obvious from the above that if the material in
question is a medical textbook, regardless that a pedophile may have
been enjoying the pictures in it, the person charged with possessing it
as child porn would have to be found not guilty. It naturally follows
also that, considering this defence, the police and prosecutors will be
less likely to collect and present such evidence to a court.
Just for your information here are sections (2), (3) and (4) referred to
above.
163.1(2) Making child pornography
(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the
purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
163.1(3) Distribution or sale of child pornography
(3) Every person who imports, distributes, sells or possesses for the
purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
163.1(4) Possession of child pornography
(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
...and here is the definition of child pornography;
163.1(1) Definition of "child pornography"
163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation,
whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age
of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in
explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a
sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under
the age of eighteen years; or
(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or
counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years
that would be an offence under this Act.
Hope this is a help.
Carter
Carter Lee
Dilagetto wrote:
> now wait a minute here. If you have such a picture, according to the laws at
> hand that would be illegal.
Not necessarily illegal. That would depend on what you were doing with
the picture and with what intent. The picture itself may not be kiddie
porn but it may have the potential to become so depending on it's use.
If you posted that picture to a newsgroup you
> could be nailed for distribution of kiddie porn!
Again not necessarily, it would depend on your intent and the type of
news group.
Even though the worst you
> would do with it was to embarrass your kid at his or her wedding by
> projecting it on a big screen at their wedding (a big no-no as that would be
> public broadcast of kidde porn)
Same answer as above.
This is something that people worry needlessly about because the cute
photo of your three month old daughter naked is not by definition kiddie
porn (see the excerpts from the CCC that I posted in an earlier
message). It could however, if used with malicious intent, have the
potential to become so.
Carter
Ken & Laura Chaddock
>
> Do we really need to warn society about these monsters by expressing
> it as an artform? How many of the potential customers for this
> material are going to say: "Hey I''m so appalled about child
> pornography that I'd better get a collection together........do you
> take American Express......"
>
> It has to remain a taboo.
The problem with that Peet is that taboos don't get talked about,
don't get exposed and don't get addressed...if it "hits you in the
eye" you're more likely to try to address/correct/prevent the
situation than if it's "out of sight out of mind"...
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> It is my opinion my friend that the definition of child porn as it
> presently exists in the CCC is far too broad. It must be amended to
> become more specific. Only in that way can the legislation do what it
> must, protect our children.
Exactly right Carter, which is what I've been getting on about since
the beginning. The existing law is far to broad and subjective and
people's
charter rights have already been abused by it.
It remains to be seem whether the SCC or parliment (or both) have the
moral fortitude to actually acknowledge and correct the situation. I
hate
to say it but I personally have my doubts, hope to heaven I'm wrong but
still have my doubts.
> Carter
Ken & Laura Chaddock
Hi Carter
I am aware of the statutes
> Hi Ken;
>
> I fear I may have led you and others astray with the comment above. It
> is not entirely correct and I apologize.
>
> It is not that medical, scientific and educational material is
> specifically excluded from the definition, in fact neither is
> specifically mentioned in the definition, nor is art. All of those
> things are dealt with in the legislation as a form of defence. Here is
> what Sec 163.1(6) of the CCC says;
>
> 163.1(6) Defences
>
> (6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2),
> (3) or (4), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the
> representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child
> pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or
> medical purpose.
>
> The problem is that "...educational, scientific or medical purpose." is
> reasonably easy to objectively define while the term "...artistic
> merit..." is not.
I'm not entirely sure that this is correct. As you noted in another
post, it's all contextual. If a pedophile is using the Medical Text, for
"titilation" it's obviously not being used for a medical purpose and
could
very well be defined as "child porn".
This in and of itself is not a problem but say Grey's Anatonmy
becomes
defined as "pornographic" under certain circumstances, lets further say
that a certain doctor is accused sexually abusing one of her child
patients...lets go further to say she also owns a print of the picture
you
previously mentioned of the young girl running naked in a field as well
as a number of pictures of naked children (who turn out to be neices and
nephews who are "skinney dipping")...we're getting a pretty substantial
circumstantial case here. None of it would be classified as "child porn"
under normal circumstances however given the accusation this could be
pretty damning stuff...even if it *is* all quite innocent.
...Ken
Carter Lee
Ken & Laura Chaddock wrote:
>
> Carter Lee wrote:
>
> Hi Carter
>
> I am aware of the statutes
>
> I'm not entirely sure that this is correct. As you noted in another
> post, it's all contextual. If a pedophile is using the Medical Text, for
> "titilation" it's obviously not being used for a medical purpose and
> could
> very well be defined as "child porn".
> This in and of itself is not a problem but say Grey's Anatonmy
> becomes
> defined as "pornographic" under certain circumstances,
No, you are ignoring sec 163.1(6) of the CCC. If the material that is
alleged to constitute child pornography has a medical purpose, and
Grey's Anatomy certainly does, it matters not for what purpose someone
may be using it, it cannot be defined as pornographic and the person
charged in relation to it must be found not guilty. Note that sec 163.1
(6) says nothing about the purpose for which the material may be being
used, only that it "has a medical purpose".
lets further say
> that a certain doctor is accused sexually abusing one of her child
> patients...lets go further to say she also owns a print of the picture
> you
> previously mentioned of the young girl running naked in a field as well
> as a number of pictures of naked children (who turn out to be neices and
> nephews who are "skinney dipping")...we're getting a pretty substantial
> circumstantial case here. None of it would be classified as "child porn"
> under normal circumstances however given the accusation this could be
> pretty damning stuff...even if it *is* all quite innocent.
How so? If the Grey's Anatomy was the only other evidence, nobody can be
found guilty of possessing child porn for possessing that, all of the
other stuff that does not fit the definition of child porn is
irrelevant. You know the statutes so you know that part of the
definition says that to be child porn the material must portray a
"child" involved in a sexual act.(that is what I meant before when I
mentioned "content")
Now, for argument sake lets say that some of those skinny dipping kids
were fondling each other's privates and a charge of possessing child
porn was laid against your doctor. The defence alleges that the doctor
should not be found guilty because the photos are art. This is where the
issue gets sticky. It is fairly simple for a judge to look at a copy of
Grey's Anatomy and determine that it is a medical textbook. That is a
basic objective exercise. It is not so easy for that judge to look at a
photo of two children fondling each other and determine that it has
"artistic merit". That is a totally subjective exercise. That is why I
believe the reference to "artistic merit" in sec 163.1 (6) should be
removed.
Carter
Carter Lee
Hi Gary;
Again my server missed one of your posts, I pulled this from a reply to
you by BusterBoy so I may not have all of your original.
I asked the question only to demonstrate how difficult it is to define
art and in this case to separate it from child pornography. Most of your
reply, as I would have expected from anybody, is subjective and based on
your personal feelings and standards. That is not to say that your
personal feelings and standards do not have weight, they most certainly
do (on a personal level I agree with you as I'm sure do many others). Is
it fair however to have a judge, who might share your feelings, make the
same subjective decision about what constitutes art as you have made
when the freedom of an accused person is dependant on that decision? I
think not.
I particularly like your last paragraph, it shows some original thought
and concern. You might however like to re-think the first sentence in
light of the Criminal Code definition of child pornography. According to
that definition the child depicted must be involved in a sexual act for
the material to be considered pornographic. I seriously doubt that you
believe, but some might, that cavorting naked in a field of flowers is a
sexual act.
> >You ask tough questions: glad I never had to answer to you "on the job!"
> >:)
Thanks. I always believed and practised something my father once told
me, if you want the right answers you have to ask the right questions.
> >
> >Last line (finally): I have a daughter who just turned four and a son who
> >just turned 5, and there's a sick f**k driving around Winnipeg in a white
> >van, trying (and succeeding, on occasion) to rape children (both sexes.)
> >It's not impossible <grin> that my views are being slanted by this...
Of course and who can blame you?
Cheers
Carter
Ad Astra
<My long, boring post SNIPPED>
> I particularly like your last paragraph, it shows some
> original thought and concern. You might however
> like to re-think the first sentence in light of the Criminal
> Code definition of child pornography. According to
> that definition the child depicted must be involved in a
> sexual act for the material to be considered pornographic.
> I seriously doubt that you believe, but some might, that
> cavorting naked in a field of flowers is a sexual act.
Carter,
Thanks. The thought I forgot to include (but I'm guessing that you
understood) is that in my "Motherhood painting" example, the naked
boy-child was a necessary component of the painting. The nude infant was
*essential* to the message of motherhood, and if you removed him, the
painting's "message" changed to being sexual in nature. I was trying to
provide an illustration of what I meant by "we must ask if the child's
nudity is necessary?" Anyway....
I am ignorant of the legislation in question, but I take note of the
definition you provide. Given that the Criminal Code states that the child
must be involved in a sexual act for the material to be considered
pornography, I must ask (as a latecomer to this debate (dontcha hate
that?)) what all the hoopla in here about mom's photo album, etc., is
about? It appears to me that the very Criminal Code definition *excludes*
all of the "innocent" material that people are raising a fuss over. No?
As a matter of fact, it would seem that the question here is not "what is
art?" but rather "what is a sexual act?" I would further submit that this
definition is somewhat "loose" as opposed to "restrictive" in that it
would be harder to prove that something *is* a sexual act that it would to
prove it not; For example:
1) A child performing fellatio: Sexual act? No question: a resounding
"YES!"
2) A child masturbating: Sexual act? No question: a resounding "YES!"
3) A child lying on a bed, seemingly asleep, legs spread wide, exposing
prepubescent genitals. Sexual act? Who can say? Subjectively, "YES!", but
in court, with a burden of proof? I don't fancy the prosecutor's chances.
4) A child cavorting naked in a field of flowers: Sexual act? Not a
chance.
5) Mommy's photo album? Sexual act? Yeah... right.
So, it would seem to me that a prosecutor would have to "prove" that the
picture in example 3 is indeed portraying a sexual act. The possessor
could simply say "No, she's sleeping, and I think that's pretty." On the
other hand, given the CCC definition, anybody trying to attribute a
"sexual act" to a painting of a naked kid playing in flowers would be
laughed out of court.
So, we've come from the popular, hysterical scenario in which the Crown's
Stormtroopers kick in your door and arrest you for having a photo of your
newborn's first bath, to one in which a slimeball is able to escape
prosecution because the Crown can't prove that his collection of dirty
pictures (example 3, above) "portray sexual acts." I submit that law
abiding citizens have naught to fear from this legislation, and that it's
perhaps a bit too lenient. Do you agree?
Cheers!
Gary
Carter Lee
Ad Astra wrote:
> Thanks. The thought I forgot to include (but I'm guessing that you
> understood) is that in my "Motherhood painting" example, the naked
> boy-child was a necessary component of the painting. The nude infant was
> *essential* to the message of motherhood, and if you removed him, the
> painting's "message" changed to being sexual in nature. I was trying to
> provide an illustration of what I meant by "we must ask if the child's
> nudity is necessary?" Anyway....
Understood.
>
> I am ignorant of the legislation in question, but I take note of the
> definition you provide. Given that the Criminal Code states that the child
> must be involved in a sexual act for the material to be considered
> pornography, I must ask (as a latecomer to this debate (dontcha hate
> that?)) what all the hoopla in here about mom's photo album, etc., is
> about? It appears to me that the very Criminal Code definition *excludes*
> all of the "innocent" material that people are raising a fuss over. No?
I tend to agree and have said so earlier. There is a great deal of
hysteria and paranoia surrounding this issue.
Having said that I must also point out that in an issue such as this one
can slide down a very slippery slope if he relies on only partial
definitions. I'm afraid I was getting close to being guilty of that when
I refereed to only part of the definition of child pornography. Here is
the full definition;
163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation,
whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age
of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in
explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a
sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under
the age of eighteen years; or
(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or
counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years
that would be an offence under this Act.
As you can see para(s) (a)(ii) and (b) have at least the potential to be
misunderstood and create the hysteria that seems to be so prevalent in
this issue. In (a)(ii) People seem to ignore the "...for a sexual
purpose..." phrase and you can see what that does to the meaning of the
article. That phrase is in fact the most important part of the article.
In fact it takes Mom's album right out of the picture, at least as far
as Mom is concerned.
I will comment on the remainder of your message in a separate post.
Carter
Carter Lee
Ad Astra wrote:
Hi Gary;
I believe you are essentially right and I agree. The issue is, however,
not that simple because of the following part of the legislation;
163.1(6) Defences
(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2),
(3) or (4), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the
representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child
pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or
medical purpose.
Sexual acts are clearly described in other parts of the Criminal code so
establishing that the material depicts an explicit sexual act is a
fairly simple and objective exercise. The problem is, whether or not a
clear sexual act is depicted, the accused has the opportunity to use the
defence of "artistic merit". When the defence introduces that "defence"
it requires the court to decide whether the depiction is or is not art.
That requires a subjective decision and that, IMO, is wrong. The major
change that I believe is needed in this legislation is the removal of
the "artistic merit" defence.
Carter
Ad Astra
> > 3) A child lying on a bed, seemingly asleep, legs spread wide,
exposing
> > prepubescent genitals. Sexual act? Who can say? Subjectively, "YES!",
but
> > in court, with a burden of proof? I don't fancy the prosecutor's
chances.
Carter,
Aha! So, your further clarification of the definition, specifically para
(ii)
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is
the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a
sexual organ or the anal region of a person
under the age of eighteen years.
describes my "is it or isn't it?" example (above) perfectly. I am, ergo,
once again clueless as to where I stand on this matter. Carter, buddy, ya
gotta quit helping me to form opinions, then making me change them: my
head will explode! LOL
Seriously... Although I was obviously incorrect in my statement that the
definition is painfully clear <ahem>, I still maintain that the burden of
proof is on the Crown. The prosecutor must show that the depiction of
genitals or anal region is "for a sexual purpose", so I don't think momma
will ever go to jail over Junior's bath-time photos.
> Sexual acts are clearly described in other parts of the Criminal code so
> establishing that the material depicts an explicit sexual act is a
> fairly simple and objective exercise. The problem is, whether or not a
> clear sexual act is depicted, the accused has the opportunity to use the
> defence of "artistic merit". When the defence introduces that "defence"
> it requires the court to decide whether the depiction is or is not art.
> That requires a subjective decision and that, IMO, is wrong. The major
> change that I believe is needed in this legislation is the removal of
> the "artistic merit" defence.
I'll buy that for a dollar. I gotta ask, though, if the "artistic merit"
defence is removed, what defence is then available for an accused who is
marched off by the aforementioned "Crown's Stormtroopers" for possessing a
painting/picture/sculpture which displays genitals, but not an overtly
sexual act? The Crown says it's porn, and you, the accused say... ?
(Speaking of sculptures, what the hell was it about that water-fountain,
popular in the 80s, which was a statue of a nude little boy peeing in a
pond, with the water emanating from... well, you know. Why did people
actually buy that thing? Beats me. Anyway...)
Or, are you suggesting that the definition also needs to be amended to
remove all ambiguity so that, should a case make it to court, the only
question is "did you have this kiddie-porn in your posession or not?" I
guess what I'm asking is this: could the law be written in such a way that
kiddie-porn is concretely defined like, say, illicit drugs? If you're
caught with drugs, nobody can say "it's not hash, it's, um... mud. Yeah,
it's just a chunk of mud." Once a case goes to court, the question is
never "are they drugs or art?" but rather "did you have these drugs in you
posession (and why)?"
An even better question is "why am I babbling?" heh heh Ya know, we are
kicking the football back and forth for a couple of guys who agree. You
really must stop making me think: it hurts ;)
Lastly, the argument here seems to be along the lines of "the
law/definition is subjective, and open to interperetation." My (admittedly
uninformed) response: Almost all laws are subjective and open to
interperetation. Is that not why we have the Supreme Court?
Cheers!
Gary
Carter Lee
Ad Astra wrote:
> Aha! So, your further clarification of the definition, specifically para
> (ii)
>
> (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is
> the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a
> sexual organ or the anal region of a person
> under the age of eighteen years.
>
> describes my "is it or isn't it?" example (above) perfectly. I am, ergo,
> once again clueless as to where I stand on this matter. Carter, buddy, ya
> gotta quit helping me to form opinions, then making me change them: my
> head will explode! LOL
Your stand Gary is correct. Is it or isn't depicted for a sexual
purpose? That is the key question. In law that is called "Intent" so the
question really is "what is the intent of the painting, photo, video,
etc..
>
> Seriously... Although I was obviously incorrect in my statement that the
> definition is painfully clear <ahem>, I still maintain that the burden of
> proof is on the Crown. The prosecutor must show that the depiction of
> genitals or anal region is "for a sexual purpose", so I don't think momma
> will ever go to jail over Junior's bath-time photos.
That is correct.
>
> > Sexual acts are clearly described in other parts of the Criminal code so
> > establishing that the material depicts an explicit sexual act is a
> > fairly simple and objective exercise. The problem is, whether or not a
> > clear sexual act is depicted, the accused has the opportunity to use the
> > defence of "artistic merit". When the defence introduces that "defence"
> > it requires the court to decide whether the depiction is or is not art.
> > That requires a subjective decision and that, IMO, is wrong. The major
> > change that I believe is needed in this legislation is the removal of
> > the "artistic merit" defence.
>
> I'll buy that for a dollar. I gotta ask, though, if the "artistic merit"
> defence is removed, what defence is then available for an accused who is
> marched off by the aforementioned "Crown's Stormtroopers" for possessing a
> painting/picture/sculpture which displays genitals, but not an overtly
> sexual act? The Crown says it's porn, and you, the accused say... ?
If that defence were removed an accused would have available the same
opportunity to defend himself as he would have in any other crime. In
fact removing the specific defence of "artistic merit" would most likely
prove beneficial to the defence. I don't know if you are aware or not
but when such a specific defence is used, the burden of proof shifts to
the defence. The defence in this case must prove to the satisfaction of
the court (judge and/or jury) that the material is art and therefore not
pornography. That leaves both the defence and the court making
subjective judgements.
>
> (Speaking of sculptures, what the hell was it about that water-fountain,
> popular in the 80s, which was a statue of a nude little boy peeing in a
> pond, with the water emanating from... well, you know. Why did people
> actually buy that thing? Beats me. Anyway...)
What people bought was replicas of a world famous sculpture called
"Manikin Pis" which stands in the centre of Brussels, Belgium. It is
generally considered to be art in the same way that many other
sculptures, such as "Michaelangelo", are considered to be art. They are
not presented for "a sexual purpose" but rather as a wholesome
celebration of the human body. Subjective I know.
>
> Or, are you suggesting that the definition also needs to be amended to
> remove all ambiguity so that, should a case make it to court, the only
> question is "did you have this kiddie-porn in your posession or not?" I
> guess what I'm asking is this: could the law be written in such a way that
> kiddie-porn is concretely defined like, say, illicit drugs? If you're
> caught with drugs, nobody can say "it's not hash, it's, um... mud. Yeah,
> it's just a chunk of mud." Once a case goes to court, the question is
> never "are they drugs or art?" but rather "did you have these drugs in you
> posession (and why)?"
That would be the ideal way to write the law but I fear that in this
case it is not possible because of the emotions generated by the subject
of child porn and the subjective way in which much of the evidence can
be viewed. I think the best we can hope for is that some of the
subjectivity is removed. One would also hope that our legislators would
not lose sight of the purpose of the legislation, the protection of our
children, and create legislation that is effective in doing that.
BTW, there are some who will disagree that the protection of children is
the purpose of the legislation but that is for another thread.
>
> An even better question is "why am I babbling?" heh heh Ya know, we are
> kicking the football back and forth for a couple of guys who agree. You
> really must stop making me think: it hurts ;)
Yeah I know but it never hurts to understand issues such as this, it
cuts down on the hysteria and paranoia if nothing else.
>
> Lastly, the argument here seems to be along the lines of "the
> law/definition is subjective, and open to interperetation." My (admittedly
> uninformed) response: Almost all laws are subjective and open to
> interperetation. Is that not why we have the Supreme Court?
Well....no not really, not all laws are subjective. In fact, as I have
said before, subjectivity has no place in a courtroom. Think about it,
if you were an accused person would you want subjective decisions being
used to determine your fate? I think not.
Cheers
Carter
Ad Astra
<TRIM, SNIP, CUT-ER-OONIE>
> > I'll buy that for a dollar. I gotta ask, though, if the "artistic
merit"
> > defence is removed, what defence is then available for an accused who
is
> > marched off by the aforementioned "Crown's Stormtroopers" for
possessing a
> > painting/picture/sculpture which displays genitals, but not an overtly
> > sexual act? The Crown says it's porn, and you, the accused say... ?
>
> If that defence were removed an accused would have available the same
> opportunity to defend himself as he would have in any other crime. In
> fact removing the specific defence of "artistic merit" would most likely
> prove beneficial to the defence. I don't know if you are aware or not
> but when such a specific defence is used, the burden of proof shifts to
> the defence. The defence in this case must prove to the satisfaction of
> the court (judge and/or jury) that the material is art and therefore not
> pornography. That leaves both the defence and the court making
> subjective judgements.
Nope, I sure wasn't aware of the shift (burden of proof), but reading what
you said makes sense. So, if the accused simply said "no, it's not porn",
the Crown has to prove it is. On the other hand, if the defence says "we
claim that this piece has artistic merit under section X, subsection X,
..." then the defence is now responsible to prove the claim. I can see
where, as you say, removal of that defence wouldn't hamper one's, um,
defence. That said, are there not other "standard" defences which run
along the same lines? For example, the insanity defence would also shift
the burden of proof, no?
> > (Speaking of sculptures, what the hell was it about that
water-fountain,
> > popular in the 80s, which was a statue of a nude little boy peeing in
a
> > pond, with the water emanating from... well, you know. Why did people
> > actually buy that thing? Beats me. Anyway...)
>
> What people bought was replicas of a world famous sculpture called
> "Manikin Pis" which stands in the centre of Brussels, Belgium. It is
> generally considered to be art in the same way that many other
> sculptures, such as "Michaelangelo", are considered to be art. They are
> not presented for "a sexual purpose" but rather as a wholesome
> celebration of the human body. Subjective I know.
Thanks for the history. My grandpa had one of these in his foyer, and I
always wondered why. He explained that the little boy had disappeared, and
the sculpture depicts what he was doing when they (the villagers?) found
him. I always thought "That's nice, but it's still just a statue of a kid
pissing, and it's in your house. Wierd." Anyway, sorry for the sidetrack.
I didn't mean to imply it was porn, but was just what people found
attractive about it. (One o' them transient thoughts...)
> BTW, there are some who will disagree that the protection of children is
> the purpose of the legislation but that is for another thread.
Yup, as long as there are criminals, there will be those who insist that
laws are solely designed to impinge on their "rights." Oops: as you said,
another thread.
> > Lastly, the argument here seems to be along the lines of "the
> > law/definition is subjective, and open to interperetation." My
(admittedly
> > uninformed) response: Almost all laws are subjective and open to
> > interperetation. Is that not why we have the Supreme Court?
>
> Well....no not really, not all laws are subjective. In fact, as I have
> said before, subjectivity has no place in a courtroom. Think about it,
> if you were an accused person would you want subjective decisions being
> used to determine your fate? I think not.
I'll need some convincing here. I am of the opinion that, as long as
people are at all involved in the process, laws are open to
interpretation, and therefore subjective. I think that if laws were not
subjective, a flow chart could be used to determine guilt. Simple yes or
no answers would be used to follow the flow chart to one of two possible
conclusions: guilty or not. Better yet, a cop could sit at a computer,
input data as demanded by a "trial program", and the computer would render
the verdict. The cop could then consult the "sentence program" and lock
the perp up for the electronically determined sentence. I think that the
laws must be open to interpretation, and therefore subjective, because the
world isn't black-and-white, but rather mostly grey. Is it not the
function of the courts to determine which "end" of the grey scale an
accused is on?
I may be misusing terms here, and we may be talking apples and oranges; I
dunno. I do know that you are the subject matter expert here, so I am
inclined to think that I am barking up the wrong tree. Let's say that I
may be using the word "subjective" in a different way; I take it to mean
that people are involved in a decision making process, so the results are
dependent on what that person thinks. I agree that, in a perfect world,
the involved persons would have the ability to be wholly objective, but I
can't see that ever happening.
Anyway, in response to your last question, I will say this: If it weren't
for the subjectivity of the law, I think OJ Simpson would be facing the
"Big Needle" instead of being out golfing. (I know, I know: another
thread! <grin>) Subjectivity, in my opinion, is necessary, and it works
both ways. Gimmee a panel of subjective jurors over a black-or-white,
yes-or-no system any day. Especially if I'm guilty. (um, which I'm NOT!
lol)
Cheers!
Gary
Carter Lee
Ad Astra wrote:
> Nope, I sure wasn't aware of the shift (burden of proof), but reading what
> you said makes sense. So, if the accused simply said "no, it's not porn",
> the Crown has to prove it is. On the other hand, if the defence says "we
> claim that this piece has artistic merit under section X, subsection X,
> ..." then the defence is now responsible to prove the claim. I can see
> where, as you say, removal of that defence wouldn't hamper one's, um,
> defence. That said, are there not other "standard" defences which run
> along the same lines? For example, the insanity defence would also shift
> the burden of proof, no?
Yes it does. Many of the criminal code sections (read offences) have
built in defences and in many cases there are descriptions of things
that cannot be used as defences. A general rule is criminal court
proceedings is that if you bring it up you must prove it. Many people
have difficulty believing that. The crown or prosecution "brought up"
the indictment (charge) so the crown is under an obligation prove it.
The defence is not under an obligation to do anything but usually tries
it's best to discredit the crown's evidence. If the defence "brings up"
a "defence", whether it is one allowed by the code or one dreamed up by
the accused, then the defence must prove it and the crown counsel will,
of course, attempt to discredit it.
<big snip>
> I'll need some convincing here. I am of the opinion that, as long as
> people are at all involved in the process, laws are open to
> interpretation, and therefore subjective. I think that if laws were not
> subjective, a flow chart could be used to determine guilt. Simple yes or
> no answers would be used to follow the flow chart to one of two possible
> conclusions: guilty or not. Better yet, a cop could sit at a computer,
> input data as demanded by a "trial program", and the computer would render
> the verdict. The cop could then consult the "sentence program" and lock
> the perp up for the electronically determined sentence. I think that the
> laws must be open to interpretation, and therefore subjective, because the
> world isn't black-and-white, but rather mostly grey. Is it not the
> function of the courts to determine which "end" of the grey scale an
> accused is on?
Yes laws are open to interpretation but not by you and me. We cannot
pick and choose the ones we will obey because in our opinion the others
are unconstitutional. That would be subjective interpretation. The
interpretation of laws is objective interpretation done when necessary
by learned judges in a court, even the Supreme Court of Canada. The grey
areas that you speak of are very often the reasons laws, or portions of
them, have to be interpreted. Another reason is of course when there is
a Charter challenge to a particular law. That is what is presently going
on in the SCC in relation to the child pornography laws.
You are right it is one of the functions of a court to determine which
end of the grey scale an accused is on. The courts are required,
however, to do that in an objective way.
>
> I may be misusing terms here, and we may be talking apples and oranges; I
> dunno. I do know that you are the subject matter expert here, so I am
> inclined to think that I am barking up the wrong tree. Let's say that I
> may be using the word "subjective" in a different way; I take it to mean
> that people are involved in a decision making process, so the results are
> dependent on what that person thinks. I agree that, in a perfect world,
> the involved persons would have the ability to be wholly objective, but I
> can't see that ever happening.
Actually no I am not an expert on this subject but I think you are
correct, you may be misinterpreting the word "subjective". Any result
that is dependant on what a person thinks is subjective if what he
thinks is not supported by law or fact. If it is supported by law and/or
fact it is objective. A judgement rendered by a court, even though it
may be rendered by one individual, a judge, must be supported by law and
fact therefore objective in nature.
>
> Anyway, in response to your last question, I will say this: If it weren't
> for the subjectivity of the law, I think OJ Simpson would be facing the
> "Big Needle" instead of being out golfing. (I know, I know: another
> thread! <grin>)
It was not the subjectivity of the law that was in OJ's favour it was
the ability of a very good team of defence lawyers to discredit the
district attorney's evidence mostly by introducing the very subjective
element of racism. See what subjectivity does in a court of law when the
judge fails to bar it.
Subjectivity, in my opinion, is necessary, and it works
> both ways. Gimmee a panel of subjective jurors over a black-or-white,
> yes-or-no system any day. Especially if I'm guilty. (um, which I'm NOT!
> lol)
Hell yes me too. You would never be found guilty if members of the jury
were allowed to make completely subjective decisions, they could never
be unanimous. Jurors are required to base their decisions on the law as
explained to them by the trial judge and the facts in issue as presented
by the crown and the defence. That is all any court deals with, law and
fact. After so much doubt was cast on the district attorney's evidence
in the O.J. Simpson case the jurors had little choice but to objectively
bring in the verdict they did.
If you want to see and hear something really subjective find some tapes
of media discussions of the daily happenings during the Simpson trial.
Carter
Ad Astra
> If you want to see and hear something really subjective find some
tapes
> of media discussions of the daily happenings during the Simpson trial.
Carter,
Thanks for the education; I'm going to chew it over for a while.
Re: the OJ trail, are you speaking of media discussions which occurred
outside of the mainstream coverage of (and during) the trial? (I was one
of the gazillions who watched that miscarriage from start to finish (I
was on Auroras then, and so had too much time on my hands (heh heh)))
(Holy Numerous Parentheses, Batman!)
Cheers!
Gary
Carter Lee
Ad Astra wrote:
>
> "Carter Lee" <cr...@istar.ca> wrote in message
> news:38938AE3...@istar.ca...
>
> > If you want to see and hear something really subjective find some
> tapes
> > of media discussions of the daily happenings during the Simpson trial.
>
> Carter,
>
> Thanks for the education; I'm going to chew it over for a while.
>
> Re: the OJ trail, are you speaking of media discussions which occurred
> outside of the mainstream coverage of (and during) the trial? (I was one
> of the gazillions who watched that miscarriage from start to finish (I
> was on Auroras then, and so had too much time on my hands (heh heh)))
> (Holy Numerous Parentheses, Batman!)
I don't think it matters Gary whether it was inside or outside the
mainstream media coverage (actually I don't think either of those terms
could be used to describe the media feeding frenzy surrounding the OJ
trial) or before during or after the trial. There was very little, if
any, objective reporting or discussion done by the media. What the
public was fed was what any particular reporter believed at the time or
worse still what he/she believed the target audience wanted to hear. I
don't remember the reporters names or even the particular subject now
but on a number of occasions I saw and heard reporters express opinions,
their own as well as those of others, as fact and an hour later report
an opposite set of facts to support the same opinions. Objective
reporting? Hardly.
Carter
Ad Astra
> I don't think it matters Gary whether it was inside or outside the
> mainstream media coverage (actually I don't think either of those
terms
> could be used to describe the media feeding frenzy surrounding the OJ
> trial) or before during or after the trial. There was very little, if
> any, objective reporting or discussion done by the media. What the
> public was fed was what any particular reporter believed at the time
or
> worse still what he/she believed the target audience wanted to hear. I
> don't remember the reporters names or even the particular subject now
> but on a number of occasions I saw and heard reporters express
opinions,
> their own as well as those of others, as fact and an hour later report
> an opposite set of facts to support the same opinions. Objective
> reporting? Hardly.
Got ya loud and clear now, and see what you mean. Thanks.
Cheers!
Gary