3 ms·

>> "As to the legality or morality of viewing these images; I choose not to comment. Because I suspect we differ entirely there." Are you saying you believe si

by axod 17y ago

>> "As to the legality or morality of viewing these images; I choose not to comment. Because I suspect we differ entirely there." Are you saying you believe simply viewing particular light patterns should be a crime? It's just bizarre. But as you say, I guess we disagree on that point. Should "thinking inappropriate thoughts about minors" be a crime also? Should we develop brain monitors and all wear funny hats? If you believe viewing such images should be illegal, then even law enforcement officers should not be able to view them - otherwise how do we know if they secretly 'enjoy' looking at them. The whole sorry exercise is one of thought policing.

ErrantX 17y ago
> Are you saying you believe simply viewing particular light patterns should be a crime? I think your deconstructing too far. And I think your not equating the act of viewing with the effect further up the chain; aka the abuse. > Should "thinking inappropriate thoughts about minors" be a crime also? No, clearly not. But I think there isn't a single line in the sand regarding this. Would you be comfortable with someone interacting with your kids who goes home and uses them in his/her sexual fantasies? There is a hazy line and we must use common sense to ensure minors are protected. In the case of thoughts, no I dont think they should be illegal. But if someone admits to having such thoughts I think it should be legal to say "I dont want to around my kids". > If you believe viewing such images should be illegal, then even law enforcement officers should not be able to view them This is where your missing the point entirely; the whole issue is context. Think of it this way; viewing the images is, perhaps, impossible to define as illegal. However viewing and distributing these images feeds the cycle of abuse and so the viewers are directly or indirectly perpetrators. If XYZ person viewed an officially indecent image with no sexual motive (either accidentally, in the course of their job or for whatever reason) do I think they should be prosecuted? No!
- axod 17y ago
  >> "And I think your not equating the act of viewing with the effect further up the chain; aka the abuse." I know there's a multitude of complexities here, but I think 'viewing images' should never be illegal. Paying for someone to obtain images that involve illegal activities should definitely be illegal. So maybe we sort of agree after all...

by axod 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

> Are you saying you believe simply viewing particular light patterns should be a crime? I think your deconstructing too far. And I think your not equating the act of viewing with the effect further up the chain; aka the abuse. > Should "thinking inappropriate thoughts about minors" be a crime also? No, clearly not. But I think there isn't a single line in the sand regarding this. Would you be comfortable with someone interacting with your kids who goes home and uses them in his/her sexual fantasies? There is a hazy line and we must use common sense to ensure minors are protected. In the case of thoughts, no I dont think they should be illegal. But if someone admits to having such thoughts I think it should be legal to say "I dont want to around my kids". > If you believe viewing such images should be illegal, then even law enforcement officers should not be able to view them This is where your missing the point entirely; the whole issue is context. Think of it this way; viewing the images is, perhaps, impossible to define as illegal. However viewing and distributing these images feeds the cycle of abuse and so the viewers are directly or indirectly perpetrators. If XYZ person viewed an officially indecent image with no sexual motive (either accidentally, in the course of their job or for whatever reason) do I think they should be prosecuted? No!

axod 17y ago
>> "And I think your not equating the act of viewing with the effect further up the chain; aka the abuse." I know there's a multitude of complexities here, but I think 'viewing images' should never be illegal. Paying for someone to obtain images that involve illegal activities should definitely be illegal. So maybe we sort of agree after all...