My work is discussed on CYD!

[pyesetz]

Here is a thread on CrushYiffDestroy.com about my Pedophilia essay.  Clearly the CYD folks are much classier trolls than the SomethingAwful goons.  Hi, jinx_mouse!

<Donotsue> The end makes sense.. =)

Thanks for your support!

<weird_guy_in_the_corner> But what happens when the pedophile gets sick and tired of the pictures? Then he goes out and starts looking for the real thing.

What happens if the pedo *never* gets sick and tired?  Should we kill all pedos because some of them sometimes hurt people?  Why not kill all Arabs because some of them sometimes become suicide bombers?

<Mastertran> You know I'll bet just maybe he's got another agenda... It's kid fucking

Nope.  Wrong ulterior motive.  The essay was actually aimed at one or more of the pedophilia victims on my LJ-friends list.

<Pyesetz> In the United States it is a crime to bring a gun into a school. In many schools, under the "Zero Tolerance" policy, it is also a crime to draw a picture of a gun while in a school.
<Dogthing> That's silly, I used to draw a lot of guns in school, and they were typically being wielded by ninja-masked stick figures and slaughtering countless small animals or possibly jews or goblins. My teachers saw some and thought they were hilarious. :]

Okay, I was overgeneralizing.  There have been several news reports of kids being expelled for drawing pictures of guns, but this is a local issue and some schools aren't as uptight about it as others.  But nobody at the Department of Education ever steps forward to say "That's not what we meant!  Zero Tolerance isn't supposed to be about punishing kids for having impure thoughts!"

Comments

[cassander42.livejournal.com]

If we are talking about the United States, the Supreme Court did rule that law unconstitutional. I remember celebrating it as a victory for art and some people disagreeing with me.

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

We are, and they did. I was only pointing out that the author did it out of his mistaken belief that it would soon be possible to make images so real they would serve as a defense for those who would traffic in real child pornography, not necessarily to attack art. When the day comes that such technology exists, I would not be opposed to a law that makes all realistic digital images of child pornography illegal ( and can even think of the argument to make to cement it constitutionally).

[pyesetz]

When writing the essay, I couldn't remember enough factoids about the law to find out whether it was still in force.  Do you have any references I could hyperlink?

I would not be opposed to a law that makes all realistic digital images of child pornography illegal
I would.  Two of our country's founding beliefs: "Anything not prohibited is allowed.  It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man."  There is no clause in the Constitution that allows any kind of image to be banned--only abuse of children during a photography session is bannable.  The point of the law we're discussing was to ensure that all guilty pedos go to prison by also sending some innocent ones there too.  Anyone who thinks that's a good trade-off is spitting on our founder's graves.

[cassander42.livejournal.com]

The case is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition... here's a link to the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the law:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/00%2D795.html

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

I would. Two of our country's founding beliefs: "Anything not prohibited is allowed. It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man." There is no clause in the Constitution that allows any kind of image to be banned--only abuse of children during a photography session is bannable. The point of the law we're discussing was to ensure that all guilty pedos go to prison by also sending some innocent ones there too.
Images of child pornography are illegal, actually. It is illegal to possess them, trade them, or produce them. This is because the images fall under an obscenity which is not protected by the 1st amendment. As for laws making 100% real seeming images illegal, if we allow them there will be a very valid defense for actual images of child abuse. There is plenty of legal ground for the restriction of civil liberties for the protection of children and I would be for that in such an instance.