>>288163
Too bad both GG and /pol/ failed to capitalize on the Salon article. The author is lying through his teeth about this "I'm not pro-contact, I just want to protect the kids" crap.
http://debateunlimited.com/Debate/viewtopic.php?t=2613&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=175#pq=ZatM9V
Look for a guy named "Markaba". That's the same person as the one who wrote the Salon article. This is proven here, where he talks about losing his job at Lowes because of Perverted Justice, just like the author of the Salon article:
http://debateunlimited.com/Debate/viewtopic.php?p=164879&sid=bae825e17ae8af25fb85cb7c65353cfd
Now in case he tries to pull the "THAT WAS 10 YEARS AGO I WAS JUST BEING AN EDGELORD" defense, read this thread, less than 4 years old, where he defends child porn.
http://debateunlimited.com/Debate/viewtopic.php?t=14305&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=100&sid=ac123ce8c629ba9e06958a176688aaee
>It is a thought crime in the sense that you are being punished for your consumption of media (which is pretty much the definition of a thought crime, isn't it?) rather than a hands-on offense. You might not like what thoughts it leads to in some people, or what actions, but they weren't the ones who committed the original offense against the child. I don't buy that the crime of sexual contact with minor is de facto so heinous that it warrants the curtailing of First Amendment rights. Each case is different. I think something could be worked out that was fairer. Perhaps the porn could be held until the child is determined old enough to decide what to do with it, in which case they could choose to keep it under lock and key or they can choose to release it (they would stand to make a substantial profit off it, I bet.) As it stands, it is currently illegal even for those children who participated in the porn to possess it. There's something seriously skewed about that, where the person who was in it as a child can go to prison for a long time for owning the porn they were in.
>Be honest: these laws aren't really about the kids at heart anyway, are they? They are about society's need to control something that it finds morally reprehensible. The fact that children who are involved in sex abuse cases are frequently subjected to probes and interrogations, both mental and physical, which are often worse than the actual sex they experienced demonstrates this amply. Add on top of that the brainwashing they are subjected to, and if kids weren't traumatized before (odds are they wouldn't be if the sex was consensual) they will be by the time they go through the system. They might well be by the time they reach adulthood anyway, given the sociogenic effects in play.