I Guess There Is No "Subjective" Discussion on Child Porn?

[Cap'n Cat]

[dbackjon]

I guess the only one would be what age makes it child porn, in the eyes of the law...

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I just pm'd Willie on the very subject. There are some discussions like that, that I don't have a problem if they are not on the board after a little fun is had. I don't need every discussion I've ever had to follow me around infinitum. If threads start disappearing around here for a little PC bullshit then I'm done with the fucking boards altogether. I would have conceded to this one however.

[dbackjon]

A thread disapeared?

[travelinman67]

The content of that that thread had "crossed over" the line of reasonable discussion. I supported the decision and PM'd the Mods letting them know I supported their action.

[dbackjon]

OK - what did I miss?

[Cap'n Cat]

Well, I musta went to bed before it "crossed over", so..........

Regardless, I'm not advocating it, I have a hard time, though, with people getting thrown in jail for "viewing" it. Buying it is one thing, it creates and perpetuates a market that will need to be filled, one that is clearly illegal.

[travelinman67]

Well, I musta went to bed before it "crossed over", so..........

Regardless, I'm not advocating it, I have a hard time, though, with people getting thrown in jail for "viewing" it. Buying it is one thing, it creates and perpetuates a market that will need to be filled, one that is clearly illegal.

Short of D1B brand anarchy...something will always be verboten by a government or community group or spouse or...??? There will always be a "black market" for illegal/taboo objects, material, topics or whatever.

But humanity and physiology dictate certain conduct, such as monogamy within certain animal species, mechanism to prevent inbreeding, and development of "naturally induced" age limits for reproducing.

...unless, of course, you're ceding that JSO was correct?

[bench]

Only if you're conversing with St. Onge, patron saint of pedophilia

[Cap'n Cat]

Well, I musta went to bed before it "crossed over", so..........

Regardless, I'm not advocating it, I have a hard time, though, with people getting thrown in jail for "viewing" it. Buying it is one thing, it creates and perpetuates a market that will need to be filled, one that is clearly illegal.

Short of D1B brand anarchy...something will always be verboten by a government or community group or spouse or...??? There will always be a "black market" for illegal/taboo objects, material, topics or whatever.

But humanity and physiology dictate certain conduct, such as monogamy within certain animal species, mechanism to prevent inbreeding, and development of "naturally induced" age limits for reproducing.

...unless, of course, you're ceding that JSO was correct?

I'm not talking about reproducing with them, I'm talking about fvcking them.



OK, did that "cross over"?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

The content of that that thread had "crossed over" the line of reasonable discussion. I supported the decision and PM'd the Mods letting them know I supported their action.

Problem solved for all concerned Tman as I pm'd as well to find out if there is a solution that does not just remove the thread for the rest of us. They have the ability to remove it from your view in the future so whoever wants to still partake in the discussion may do so as well. It's a win-win. I don't mind that one being gone it's not a big deal, just don't want to see that shit start happening over here now that I am not posting over at AGS any longer. That's what I was trying to get away from.

[grizzaholic]

I take it I missed a juicy topic.

[dbackjon]

I take it I missed a juicy topic.

me too, brotha!

[grizzaholic]

I take it I missed a juicy topic.

me too, brotha!

I guess I will have to stay up later at night and be online to catch these discussions.

[travelinman67]

The content of that that thread had "crossed over" the line of reasonable discussion. I supported the decision and PM'd the Mods letting them know I supported their action.

Problem solved for all concerned Tman as I pm'd as well to find out if there is a solution that does not just remove the thread for the rest of us. They have the ability to remove it from your view in the future so whoever wants to still partake in the discussion may do so as well. It's a win-win. I don't mind that one being gone it's not a big deal, just don't want to see that shit start happening over here now that I am not posting over at AGS any longer. That's what I was trying to get away from.

Yes...I understand...I wasn't trying to be prudish...even though I took offense, I agree that each member takes offense to things from time to time. If it was just MY opinion, I wouldn't say a thing. Obviously, there have been threads here that I thought crossed over the line...the Memorial Thread for the fallen soldier, for example. There were posts in that thread that I definitely felt had "crossed over the line'', but would never have suggested the thread be deleted. IMHO, the "line" between poor judgement and unacceptable content needs to be drawn at the point the posts begin GENUINELY describing commission of, or suggesting viewers commit, felonies. It's one thing to say, "That molester...somebody should kill him." and another to say you are sitting there looking at a picture of a child on that thread, and jacking off to it.
That, IMO goes beyond "poor judgement" and could result in criminal investigation against the website if they fail to intervene or moderate that content. Don't forget...distribution of child pornography is still illegal in the U.S...despite some insignificant regional cases negating the law in a particular jurisdiction.
As with all this stuff...much of it's a gray area, and I haven't seen any "mods" here demonstrate "heavy handed" prudence, much less get personal like some other sites we know. They obviously need to have the ability to remove content that crosses beyond the realm of "questionable" and enters the gray area that may be criminal.

[dbackjon]

I think if there were any questionable pictures, remove immediately. That is one area where there is no mercy/no explaning.

[travelinman67]

One final comment...this whole issue centered around the posting of the picture of the girl. Had it been confined to strictly an academic discussion, less any "examples", the objectionable nature of that thread, and the impropriety, would have been mitigated.

[grizzaholic]

What was the name of the thread?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

One final comment...this whole issue centered around the posting of the picture of the girl. Had it been confined to strictly an academic discussion, less any "examples", the objectionable nature of that thread, and the impropriety, would have been mitigated.

Now hold on here Tman, you're painting this as if there was some criminal "grey area" conduct and there was not. There was a picture of a normal girl that Cap'n probably took off of a JC Penney style website with the question "what about virtual children" which was a moral conundrum type of question posed in the sense of we may think it wrong but is it a crime?

The thread evolved slightly to be a question of what if the girl were 16 or 17 and it was still illegal but you didn't know it and had assumed she was 18 and had viewed it? Should you be arrested for that?

In this vein Slycat posted a question (and a question only) :would you finish JO if you found out in the middle of viewing it?" He didn't say if he would or not and only asked the question.

A couple of over the top jokes were made by myself and Appaholic along with me making the point that young girls did not usually have what I find most attractive about a woman so I felt pretty safe.

Perhaps your mind was in a state that made this seem different to you but that is how it looked to me so to cast doubt on what was happening seems unfair in the telling. There were a couple of jokes made but they were so over the top by me and Appa that I am certain that you had to have seen them as such knowing both of our styles on the board.

You may or may not be familiar with a couple of girls that were posing for fully clothed pics but very sexy pics designed with a prurient interest in mind by the names of Christina Model and Pixie. Completely legal pictures that were designed to be very suggestive. Now once they turned 18 the tops came off and so forth but what Cap'n and Slycat were refering to in my mind were girls like this.

[Appaholic]

One final comment...this whole issue centered around the posting of the picture of the girl. Had it been confined to strictly an academic discussion, less any "examples", the objectionable nature of that thread, and the impropriety, would have been mitigated.

I'd a still tagged it.....