tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post2365128135823395699..comments2024-01-14T11:45:23.991-05:00Comments on Occasional Superheroine: Man Convicted Of Possessing Simpsons PornUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-38664073386821859332008-12-15T11:34:00.000-05:002008-12-15T11:34:00.000-05:00*sigh*I officially remove myself from this discuss...*sigh*<BR/><BR/>I officially remove myself from this discussion. Guh.Hysanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03085593008609914782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-74846661838209146722008-12-14T16:11:00.000-05:002008-12-14T16:11:00.000-05:00Ok we know OS wants this crap treated like real ki...Ok we know OS wants this crap treated like real kid porn and I do think she has the majority view outside of the comic book world but I wounder about a few things.<BR/><BR/>If she could get rid of Simpson porn but at the cost of Lost Girls is that a fair trade?<BR/><BR/>Maybe something a little more close to home then. A man has been picked up for breaking obscenity laws. He is on trial for having Lolicon AND Yaoi manga. <BR/><BR/>If you could arrest people for Lolicon manga but Yaoi manga was dragged down with it who's side of the battle would OS take and more importantly who's side would Friends of Lulu take?Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05978203867938237982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-29828854811731358462008-12-12T16:55:00.000-05:002008-12-12T16:55:00.000-05:00Or to put it another way, Hysan, do you believe Me...Or to put it another way, Hysan, do you believe Meltzer or Didio should be jailed for Identity Crisis (seriously)?JMYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016847165500501360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-20492446144959280302008-12-12T16:53:00.000-05:002008-12-12T16:53:00.000-05:00Hysan,This is the problem I had with Val's charact...Hysan,<BR/><BR/>This is the problem I had with Val's characterization of the opposition. <BR/><BR/>It is absolutely OK to be up in arms about illustrated child porn. It is not OK to jail people for creating or owning it. Social ostracizing is fine by me.JMYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016847165500501360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-11106138798250887732008-12-12T13:03:00.000-05:002008-12-12T13:03:00.000-05:00Sorry, but the others were taken up. I really agre...Sorry, but the others were taken up. I really agree with you on most parts of your new post, but the whole illustrated child porn. Alan Moore's Lost Girls came under fire of this, but they were depicted as older in the book. It came down to the Miller Test, which is a judicial act of what is considered obscene and can over-ride the first amendment. Which is subjective due to the fact that it confides in the local's view of what is obscene. Like this "Butt Bandit" who's been leaving butt marks on things with vasoline. He may be fined very harshly or get jail time in Nebraska. The Miller Test thingy is very vague or absent in alotta countries, and I think the posters didn't think about that. Miller vs. California is a U.S. law, not part of other countries' laws.<BR/><BR/>I didn't read everyone's thingy, but to me, I believe most's defense wasn't for the porn or the guy, but that the government would arrest those who technically haven't done or harmed anyone. (Given, they probably harm themselves.) For instance, in your latest post you put the image of Homer and Lisa into people's heads. Should you be arrested? Of course not. You've done nothing, absolutely nothing wrong. I believe that is most's argument. And that, that is a "thought-crime", which is not a crime. The guy wasn't distributing...so their is no harassment towards anyone. <BR/><BR/>What should be done is to locate these the site putting these pics out and confining them to their site with major I.D. proof for entry. That way, it keeps kids or people not in the know out, and will really deter the people who have a problem. Google, specifically Google-Image, and other search-engine types are problematic. But, if they can keep all of us on file, you'd think they could take out the trash every now again. <BR/><BR/>Again Val, I don't support the loser or the stupid, tasteless images, I support the freedom to think. Please don't hate me because my opinion...sincerely. It just seems the most logical in my mind.BlueMaxxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637794337198969483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-14660111476787956052008-12-12T10:42:00.000-05:002008-12-12T10:42:00.000-05:00Remember when Sue Dibny was raped via flashback in...Remember when Sue Dibny was raped via flashback in Identity Crisis? Wasn't the blog-o-verse up in arms about that? Brad Meltzer was clearly a woman hater and a sick person? <BR/><BR/>But Sue Dibny isn't *real*. It's not a REAL rape. Why so serious?<BR/><BR/>Clearly, there is a difference between the depiction of rape in a comic and reality. Don't get so excited over it!<BR/><BR/>And Sue getting murdered by Jean Loring...stop bitching about it.<BR/><BR/>It's not *real*.<BR/><BR/>There. I feel better already.Hysanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03085593008609914782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-62947415645454259082008-12-11T23:03:00.000-05:002008-12-11T23:03:00.000-05:00I am glad he got busted. Maybe now him and sickos ...I am glad he got busted. Maybe now him and sickos that like Yaoi comics and stuff like Lost Girls can go spend some time with the other rapists. <BR/><BR/>If anyone tries to stop us we can just point out they are defending someone who likes to look at little boys and girls. <BR/>Who would be willing to have there name smeared just to defend some abstract fuzzy slippery slope concept... Well other then maybe Batman? <BR/><BR/>After we deal with the more harmful concept of sex we can then deal with people like Frank Miller and the way they treat girls in comics. <BR/>The way Frank Miller beats girls (in his books) Is just like a loaded gun and will only feed the blood lust.<BR/><BR/>PS I feel the need to inform you that I have found a crude depiction of child porn right here on your site! It would be wise of you to deal with that before you get reported. <BR/>If you don't think some sick man will use that image to get his jollies I have images to prove that at lest one man already has... I do ask that you only ask for this proof as a last resort. :blush: <BR/> <BR/>PPS If you want to look for grounds to censure out this post I am sure you can find them but I ask from one (poor) artist to another that you don't censure my thoughts.... on the matter at hand.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05978203867938237982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-7369290337855059832008-12-11T17:13:00.001-05:002008-12-11T17:13:00.001-05:00Here's the problem I have with the "thoughtcrime" ...Here's the problem I have with the "thoughtcrime" argument.<BR/><BR/>In some countries and states it *is* a crime to view any images depicting minors engaged in sex acts. "They're not real" is not a valid argument. If you get caught with a comic book showing a baby being raped by a grown man, you can go to prison.<BR/><BR/>I have a big problem when depiction of sex between _two consenting adults_ is banned or leads to someone's arrest.<BR/><BR/>This, not so much. If that makes me a fascist, so be it. But the laws are already on the books. Calling someone's beliefs wrong or claiming they're trying to create a "thought crime" doesn't change that.<BR/><BR/>It's not only morally wrong, it's wrong IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, folks.Hysanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03085593008609914782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-60410443377483673162008-12-11T14:43:00.000-05:002008-12-11T14:43:00.000-05:00From the other thread..."1) You spend your life th...From the other thread...<BR/>"1) You spend your life thinking these views that you hold are self-evident. You hang around people who think that those views are self-evident. And then somebody comes along and challenges these assumptions. And it really bothers you. It almost feels as if someone is accusing you personally. And you just need to get rid of that dissenting opinion, change it, something!" --Val<BR/><BR/>This knife cuts both ways. Look, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but you seem to be, how shall I say, calling the kettle black. <BR/><BR/>In the end there just lines on paper to quote R. Crumb. I think they're awful drawings, but you should be able to send someone to prison for drawings. And drawings that aren't even of real people. The Simpsons aren't real. <BR/><BR/>Real kids = prison and good riddence.<BR/>Cartoons =/= prison but you're a sick person if you like this stuff. That's all I'm saying. <BR/><BR/>Forget the Simpsons for a second. What if this guy had been brought up on murder charges for owning the movie Saw? He hasn't killed anyone. Most likely will never kill anyone. Too bad it's 5-7 in the pokey because after all a murder on film is the same as a murder in real life. Do you see how ridiculous this whole thing is? <BR/><BR/>Don't let our dissent get you down. We don't all have to agree and thank god for the 1st admendment. <BR/><BR/>Agreeing to disagree,<BR/>willwillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942668981055464854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-21014802969032363362008-12-10T12:49:00.000-05:002008-12-10T12:49:00.000-05:00You know, I usually will think spoof-cartoon porn ...You know, I usually will think spoof-cartoon porn is usually funny, but sometimes it's usually weird because they make it pedophilic and incestual(speleeng?). Like, I've seen some things that are unneccary, like Bart and Lisa, George Jetson and Judy...those are really wrong. And, in a sense, they are child porn and pretty disgusting. It is technically a depiction of...so.BlueMaxxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637794337198969483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-80693366005994591552008-12-09T18:50:00.000-05:002008-12-09T18:50:00.000-05:00Val, in response to your response to Jim, none of ...Val, in response to your response to Jim, none of us believe you should not be condemning the creators and devourers of such works. The point is that the article is about the government's right to jail you for doing so. <BR/><BR/>I have absolutely no problem if you want to shame, boycott, or otherwise take legally acceptable action against such people. However, to make the production and consumption of such materials illegal is describing a form of thoughtcrime.JMYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016847165500501360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-61895423207155922462008-12-09T15:55:00.000-05:002008-12-09T15:55:00.000-05:00@Canek: I worked for Vid as a translator long ago,...@Canek: I worked for Vid as a translator long ago, but as far as I know, Vid has never had this type of problem since they do keep pretty close to the line of what's allowed and what's not -which is why Dragon Ball had censorship, and there are a little bit of changes in almost every single manga they publish, some pretty notable, some not so much. <BR/>The laws have to be changed, but not abolished. I like freedom of press and speech, I hate that I had to change a script I wrote so a gay character would never come out of the closet due to those laws, and that a non-sexual nude drawing I did of a 15 year old girl that showed absolutely nothing and had every single pertinent bit covered caused my editor to pay a huge fine because it was the week a particular lawyer was out gunning against comics. But I do know that I can't shake the feeling that something is very wrong when someone asks in a convention if an artist can make a drawing of a 10 year old naked, tied up and sucking an adult man cock and no one thinks it might be a warning flag that the guy in question should be investigated. <BR/>My position is 'sure, it shouldn't be illegal to have said materials, but if you're investigated for something -say, pedophilia, rape, gender violence- and you have porn referent to those interests? It should be used against you and not just swept under the carpet as 'non evidence'.luxshinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494157103659710340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-28199349491143374432008-12-09T15:05:00.000-05:002008-12-09T15:05:00.000-05:00@Jim Drew:Is there indeed no one "harmed" by these...@Jim Drew:<BR/><BR/><EM>Is there indeed no one "harmed" by these images?</EM><BR/><BR/>Not directly, no. The same as with gangsta rap, or reality TV shows.Canekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149785964223299877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-13923154655998784122008-12-09T15:03:00.000-05:002008-12-09T15:03:00.000-05:00@luxshine: I didn't know that; very interesting. D...@luxshine: I didn't know that; very interesting. Do you work for Editorial Vid? (I understand if you don't want to tell).<BR/><BR/>Anyway,my point remains the same; and it's not confined to Mexico, either. The laws should should not be based on morality.<BR/><BR/><EM>I've worked in two editorials that have payed huge fines for publishing material that is against the law. It's pretty much something that happens every month for some editors, but apparently, the sales enough are good reason to keep publishing those things instead of stoping)</EM><BR/><BR/>Another reason to bring them down ;)<BR/><BR/>(Te laws, not the editorials :D)Canekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149785964223299877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-73060973566058154862008-12-09T14:50:00.000-05:002008-12-09T14:50:00.000-05:00"Ultimately, it boils down to one word, though. Th..."Ultimately, it boils down to one word, though. Thank you George Orwell.<BR/><BR/>"Thoughtcrime""<BR/><BR/>that's right, Jim. me disapproving of a illustration of a child having sex with an adult is me advocating "thoughtcrime." <BR/><BR/>Really, who is truly operating on the "slippery slope" theory here?<BR/><BR/>You are saying that being against drawn child porn images is a "slippery slope" to hating gays, etc. That first I disapprove of the child porn -- then I will tell homosexuals they can't marry?<BR/><BR/>What, because it is all on the same spectrum? Are you seriously putting gay rights on the same line of continuity as the protection of child porn? <BR/><BR/>I don't buy that.Vergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10083468076834391732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-6266953524897054322008-12-09T14:27:00.001-05:002008-12-09T14:27:00.001-05:00@Canek: I know about letra muerta laws. I hear abo...@Canek: I know about letra muerta laws. I hear about them every time I have dinner with my mother, who is among the legislators that want to 'clean up' our laws: update the ones that needs updating, erase the ones that make no sense anymore, add the ones we need. Incidentally, the same people who want to prosecute illustrated images of children as child porn are the ones who want to keep abortion legal. <BR/>I live in Mexico City too, and unfortunately, half my family are lawyers. I mean unfortunately, because I work in the editorial business so sometimes, I find myself in the position of defending myself for things my office do, like publishing Hentai. Now, I think that adult publications are necessary and not exactly porn by themselves, but try to explain to a table of six lawyers that no, not all anime is erotic and no, they aren't underage and no, not all the guys who buy violent rape fantasy stories are in fact rapists... unfortunately, that rapist they just caught and it's about to be tried did had a huge collection of violent porn... <BR/>Now, the case against underage cartoon porn is not that someone is hurt in its production, but that it normalizes the sexuality of children. That's why if the case had been tried in Mexico City, the veredict would've been the same. (Also, while the cases against printed media aren't publicized that much, they exist. I've worked in two editorials that have payed huge fines for publishing material that is against the law. It's pretty much something that happens every month for some editors, but apparently, the sales enough are good reason to keep publishing those things instead of stoping)luxshinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494157103659710340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-76078163833643056852008-12-09T14:27:00.000-05:002008-12-09T14:27:00.000-05:00Is there indeed no one "harmed" by these images?Th...Is there indeed no one "harmed" by these images?<BR/><BR/>The argument is two-fold: first, that *society* is harmed by the existence of these images, that we are all lessened by them and by their implications. And second, that they have the potential to lead to real harm to real people.<BR/><BR/>That second is the same thing as the "slippery slope" argument: if you allow same-sex marriage, then by God, before you know it, you'll have people demanding to marry sheep and ship figureheads, and blacks will want to marry whites, and Jews will want to marry Christians, and think where that will lead.<BR/><BR/>And it's the same thing as the "gateway drug" argument: if you smoke pot, you're going to be shooting up heroin with dirty needles tomorrow, and super-heorine the next day, and then what? "Here, lick the anus of a mongoose! You could get high!" (Thanks, Ellen DeGeneres.)<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, it boils down to one word, though. Thank you George Orwell.<BR/><BR/>"Thoughtcrime"Jim Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00987446462436563788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-68999961103929150612008-12-09T14:01:00.000-05:002008-12-09T14:01:00.000-05:00By the way; I forgot to mention the really importa...By the way; I forgot to mention the <EM>really</EM> important thing about this kind of situation.<BR/><BR/>Besides being stupid to discuss if a "underage cartoon" having sex is or not child porn (which, I repeat, is not), the real problem is that it distracts from the very serious and very real problem of <EM>actual</EM> children being abused to make (real) child porn.<BR/><BR/>In Mexico we have a real problem with that; thousands of children are forced to enter rings of child prostitution, and to make child porn. <EM>That's</EM> the real problem; the people that forces those children are the <EM>real</EM> criminals.<BR/><BR/>Wasting time and resources because someone gets a laugh watching Bart doing Lisa is not only <EM><STRONG>stupid</STRONG></EM>; it's irresponsible because there are <EM>real</EM> criminals out there harming <EM>real</EM> children.Canekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149785964223299877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-50203303487804323582008-12-09T13:39:00.000-05:002008-12-09T13:39:00.000-05:00@Val: you said:And I think they were better off wi...@Val: you said:<BR/><BR/><EM>And I think they were better off without any of it.</EM><BR/><BR/>And <EM>that's</EM> the core of the matter. Who are <EM>you</EM> to say what is better or not to someone? Who I am myself, for that matter?<BR/><BR/>Just because something offends you (or myself) or disgust you (or myself), or some personal experiences with some acquaintances makes you (or myself) believe that something is "wrong" or "bad", it doesn't make it automatically "wrong" or "bad" in absolute terms.<BR/><BR/>That's been my point all along; the laws cannot be enabled just because someone can be offended by something. Almost <EM>anything</EM> can offend <EM>someone</EM>. They <STRONG>should</STRONG> be enabled only when something concrete (like the rights of someone) are being harmed.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><EM>I hope when somebody comes out with a comic book that Gaiman and the rest find personally hateful and offensive, they will step up to the bat and defend that too.</EM><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://xochitl.matem.unam.mx/~canek/pensadero" REL="nofollow">My blog</A> is in Spanish, but there I speak a lot about this kind of thing. To me, organized religion is one of the worst things that had happened to humanity: it literally <EM>offends</EM> me that a lot of hate, fear and obscurantisms can be (and it's) extrapolated from any of the major religions out there.<BR/><BR/>But I would <EM>never</EM> suggest to <EM>anyone</EM> to believe or stop believing in <EM>anything</EM>, no matter how stupid or wrong it appears to me. And I actually have defended that right for people with completely opposite convictions to mine.<BR/><BR/>So put aside your personal disgust of the subject, and think: is there anyone being directly harmed because of "underage cartoon porn"? No, there is no one. Can someone being indirectly harmed because of it? Maybe; but it's the same with alcohol, cigar, to much evangelical TV or to many reality TV shows. We have laws to protect underage people from that (well, not from evangelical TV or reality TV shows), and also from pornography. <EM>Any</EM> kind of pornography, including "underage cartoon porn". Consenting adults have the possibility (and the <EM>responsibility</EM>) to decide if they consume or not those kind of things.<BR/><BR/>It's not the State (which is the one that enforces the laws) the one who should decide what is "right" or what is "wrong"; it's the individual, and only the individual, who makes that decision. And he or she should be able to do <EM>anything</EM> as long as it doesn't harm anybody else.Canekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149785964223299877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-48689772445358227012008-12-09T13:16:00.000-05:002008-12-09T13:16:00.000-05:00Val- From Neil's article, he's basically talking a...Val- From Neil's article, he's basically talking about how he would defend any speech, even if he found it personally offensive or hateful. Taking a direct quote from his site:<BR/><BR/><I>If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said.</I><BR/><BR/>I like to think that would defend things he found personally hateful or offensive. I agree that a picture of the Simpson children having sex is icky, but it truly isn't harming any children. It isn't harming anyone except the people who see it and dislike it. I know that I would.Shana Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00977876972903733048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-20677715442373050152008-12-09T13:14:00.000-05:002008-12-09T13:14:00.000-05:00@luxshine: You're right about the (never enforced)...@luxshine: You're right about the (never enforced) laws in Mexico. It's called "letra muerta", "dead writing", in the sense that it's written law, but nobody actually cares about it. Another one is the abortion prohibition in almost all the country (in Mexico City is legal in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy); there has been no case <EM>in years</EM> against anyone who has performed or decided to have an abortion, even when is prohibited and each year dozens of thousands of women do it.<BR/><BR/>But that's not the point; my point is that the laws <STRONG>should not</STRONG> be based on morality, because in any normal country there is no such thing as a "general morality". The laws <STRONG>should</STRONG> be based around the rights of the people. In the case of "underage cartoon porn", the rights of none are being violated, so is stupid (and dangerous) to prohibit it. It's dangerous because then lets make illegal to listen to hip-hop or gangsta rap, or to play video games where we kill fictional people or fictional cops, or see movies where the "bad guys" win, etc. <STRONG>It has no end once is started</STRONG>.<BR/><BR/>That's why we separate religion from government; because the religion (as the morals, or the concept of "good" and "bad") are entirely related to individuals: and if you don't interfere with the rights of anyone, believe in whatever you want, and do with yourself or another consensual adults whatever you like.<BR/><BR/>And the legislators you mention are <EM>only</EM> some, and let me tell you that I'm pretty sure that if a case similar like the one in Australia had been judged in <STRONG>Mexico City</STRONG>, the result would've been different. I'm sure it wouldn't get to a trial, even.<BR/><BR/>The rest of the country I don't know (it can be very conservative in some places), but about Mexico City I'm pretty sure.Canekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149785964223299877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-76448408489926498572008-12-09T12:11:00.000-05:002008-12-09T12:11:00.000-05:00Caneck, I'm sorry to correct you but in Mexico it ...Caneck, I'm sorry to correct you but in Mexico it is illegal to have images of underage characters in sexual situations in comics. And, even when almost no one enforces that particular law, it is also illegal to show adult characters in certain positions. Not only that, but it's the Mexican legislators the ones who are trying to get illustrations of underage characters considered as child pornography, as some of them are being used as pedophile grooming tools (Someone far more experienced than I in the subject tells me that there's a difference between erotic material targeted for adults and erotic material targeted to make children comfortable with the idea of having sex with adults.)<BR/>I'm pretty sure that if the case had been judged in Mexico and not in Australia, the veredict would've been pretty much the same (Unless the man in question was a politician or rich, but that's another problem)luxshinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494157103659710340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-35053572216844079522008-12-09T12:00:00.000-05:002008-12-09T12:00:00.000-05:00I read one of the DeSade works referenced by Gaima...I read one of the DeSade works referenced by Gaiman in his article: "101 Days Of Sodom." It was about an "anything goes" situation which started out with very simple things, got more and more intense, and escalated to the point of cannibalism, murder, and finally burning the house down to the ground. As each taboo was crossed, there was an emptiness and a need to regain that feeling. As a college student, I read that story as an example of what happens when there are no limits, rules, or boundaries.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a delicate flower. I've seen lots and lots of porn in my lifetime. And, at 34, I look back and I say, "some porn is destructive." I've known people addicted to extreme pornographic (but in theory legal) images, and far worse for those addictions, because the search and indulgence literally took up all their time. They were never satisfied, their impulses never put in check, by the so-called "safe" indulgence in these images. Every piece of extreme porn they looked at reminded them how they were not getting the real thing. That was the bottom line. And I think they were better off without any of it. I think they needed to be distracted doing something completely different. I'm not thinking about their "freedom of art" here. I'm thinking about practical, day-to-day matters, like their sanity, their quality of life, and their ability to develop meaningful emotional and physical relationships with other human beings.<BR/><BR/>As for defending free speech, I hope when somebody comes out with a comic book that Gaiman and the rest find personally hateful and offensive, they will step up to the bat and defend that too. Not an art book with beautiful Melinda Gebbie illustrations. But some sort of over-the-top extremely religious comic book full of hate for a variety of topics -- like Jack Chick on speed. If a book like that gets published, and prosecuted for "hate speech," I want to see all these free-thinkers defend their right to be hateful. Because when I see a cartoon image of a little child being sexualized and engaged in carnal acts, I consider it hateful, and "hate speech." <BR/><BR/>I realize I'm just a big square (draws polygon around her head for emphasis)Vergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10083468076834391732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-91192548551238982752008-12-09T11:02:00.000-05:002008-12-09T11:02:00.000-05:00@Lewis sadid:"Begging your pardon, Canek, but ther...@Lewis sadid:<BR/><BR/><EM>"Begging your pardon, Canek, but there IS a moral argument there: that abusing children is wrong. And I of course realize it's wrong, but that's the point - laws ARE based on ethics. You are correct, however, in the fact that that same morality is rooted in the idea that abusing children is wrong and that drawings do not actually harm real people."</EM><BR/><BR/>I never said there is no moral argument; my point is that the laws <STRONG>should not</STRONG> take into account such arguments. Not because laws are "amoral", but because: the morals of whom are we going to use? Yours? Mine?<BR/><BR/>The laws are NOT based (or should NOT be based) on ethics: the laws should be all about the rights of the people. That's why prohibiting alcohol is something <EM>really</EM> stupid (as it is prohibiting drugs, but that's another discussion); is drinking alcohol bad? Maybe; but if you don't mess with the rights of anybody (i.e., DUI and killing or hurting somebody else), do it if you like. "Wrong" and "right" (I repeat, whatever that means) has nothing to do with it.<BR/><BR/>And that's why drawings of "underage" cartoons is not child pornography, and should not be any other crime for that matter. "Morality" laws or "thought" laws are stupid, in the first place; and <EM>really</EM> dangerous in the second place. You <EM>cannot</EM> (and <EM>should not</EM>) regulate what people think or what people perceives as morally right or wrong. That's for each one to decide.<BR/><BR/>You enable laws to protect rights; if you don't mess with the rights of anybody, we have a say in Mexico: <EM>"haz con tu culo un papalote y hazlo volar"</EM> ("do with your asshole a kite and take it to fly"), if that makes you happy. Nobody should mess up with what you do if you don't mess with anybody else.Canekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149785964223299877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25566450.post-63297408749454202842008-12-09T10:11:00.000-05:002008-12-09T10:11:00.000-05:00As for Daisy and Daffy and Mickey...I guess once y...As for Daisy and Daffy and Mickey...<BR/><BR/>I guess once you go black, you never go back...<BR/><BR/>(And if you want something really wicked, Google [mickey mouse divorce joke])<BR/><BR/>Or... even better... Wally Wood:<BR/>http://flickr.com/photos/25308024@N08/2509508040/sizes/o/<BR/><BR/>and if I could find it, there's a cartoon of What If Disney had colonized Times Square in the 1970s...Torsten Adairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01003810809542196460noreply@blogger.com