Re: NY AG--defender of children?

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:X4%jk.13791$LG4.4511@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
[snip]

Can we admit to ourselves that we really want to censor it (and
should do so) even if it can be proved to have been
computer-generated? Or do we have to huff and puff and say that
computer generated fantasies cause
abuse of real children? (I'm not saying that's impossible--but our
deep moral feeling about it wouldn't go away if it were shown not to
be the case.)

What do you think--should digitally generated child p__n be legal?


Probably they shouldn't. It can do the same thing as violent animated
games, turn "normal" people into monsters because people can't discern
anymore, don't want to discren anymore, or maybe their parents failed
to teach them what discernment is.

That sidesteps the question, tho', of what an adult might do with his or
her own software at home.

I can't remember the details, but I recall thre was a case where some guy
had scanned pictures from the Sears catalogue, and photoshopped them on
his home computer; I don't recall whether he disseminated them. IIRC, he
was convicted and jailed for posession of CP. Now, personally, I think
it's rather sick to do that, but, IIRC, there was no evidence or even
suspicion that he'd actually abuse any children.

There is also an argument related to porn in general that, for people who
do have certian predilictions, it's a sort fo pressure valve - IOW, form
what I've read and head, it's just as liklely that porn might stop
assault, as it might be that it could inspire assault. In essence, I
haven't seen that there is statistical/sceintific data which proves that
porn causes sexual assault, and the most that can be established is that
it can give ideas to someone who is already thinking along those lines.


But the sledgehammer method is a behavior that is generally linked to
incompetence. Just like back in the schoolyard where some guys settled
everything with their fists. If one can't figure out a way to deal
with something one just squashes the whole thing. Well, were violent
games or movies banned? Of course not. After all, where do some of the
usual campaign monies come from?

I do think there is a problem with *realistic* violence. I grew up
watching roadrunner, but it was obviously just fake. Same for the old
movies. I seem to recall that there are studies linking *realistic*
violence in games and movies viewed by children, and violent actions,
with some fo those actions being an inability, as you noted above, to
discern between what is fake, and what is actually hurting someone else.


Taking about dumping the kid out with the bath water. I'd hope more
people would write to this AG. Sometimes it helps, although in this
case I have my doubts.


It's probably a case wherein a lto fo people don't want to make
exceptions, becasue exceptions are always pucshed, taken advantage of -
there is a fear (and I'm not absolutely sure it's without foundation)
that, if computer-generated CP is permitted, epople will push the limits
of that in a ways that *does* end up harming children. And personally,
I'm not convinced that the risk of that is acceptable. Yes, I fear
erosion of the First Amendment, but I also have *very* strong personal
concerns about child welfare (which already is IMO insufficient in this
country) - it's quite a quandary.




.

Quantcast