10 Cups of Crazy!

[stephenh2oman]

I'm watching this whole child pornography special on CNN right now, and it's pretty interesting. (Haha, I just realized that I'm always very intrigued by discussions on child pornography. Read into that what you will.) Anyway, they started talking about this kid who I guess was like the all-time champion of child pornography named Justin Berry. I

Comments

[cescalynne]

I saw that special on Justin Berry awhile ago. It was all pretty appalling. I think you're way oversimplifying the main issue though. I don't think the rationale behind child pornography laws is that "being naked" is wrong for a ten year period during child/adolescent life. I mean, as you know (I think we discussed it recently), some photography of naked children is considered art (and legal), but there is a difference between that and pornography (and that's ultimately up to lawyers to persuade and judges to decide). Sometimes what is art and what is porn is very clear. Sometimes it isn't. Anyway, it's all about the initial victimization of the child by the pornographer and the repeated victimization of the child by the viewers and circulators of child pornography. It is NOT, as you suggest, simply about being naked. Child porn involves children sometimes in suggestive poses totally age inappropriate and very clearly staged by an abusive adult and it often involves the rape of the child.

[stephenh2oman]

The special was appalling? Or you mean the acts, I hope. The special seemed all right, but I was only paying attention to it about 55% of the time

ugh.

[leilei2]

i dont have the patience to sit and write out a lengthy response like tina and francesca did, but let me just say that you are absolutely ridiculous.

the reason it's a problem has very little to do with any "overcomplication." rather, the reason it's a problem is because this exploitation clearly exists and young children who are too adolescent to understand the complications and adult motives behind this abuse fall victim to asshole perverts who find solace in arguments such as yours.

like tina kind of said, of all laws to question, why would you ever choose one so controversial and sensitive as this? un-american, you say? i believe any american is the first to say that children are our future, they are innocent and unassuming, and should be protected from such violations of their youth.

it's as SIMPLE as that.

Re: ugh.

[stephenh2oman]

Well, I'm not really interested in making someone lose their patience or stir up controversy, so, I'll spare you a lengthy response.

Why did I choose to question this law? 'Cause it was on TV, so I wrote about it. I'm just that impressionable. When did CNN become the Child Nudity Network anyway? Haha, I'm sorry, I just wanted to make that lame acronym since yesterday. Hehehe. The end.

Re: ugh.

[leilei2]

ooooh, snap.

Re: ugh.

[stephenh2oman]

Haha, wait, what are we "ooh, snap"ing about? That I got CNN good? Yeah, take that Larry King!