Be careful about photographing your kids!

"gr" wrote in message
...
"Jeremy" wrote

The security of children has more importance than your supposed
"freedom"
to
take photos of someone else's naked kids.

Again... how is the "security" of a child affected by whether someone
takes
a picture of them? Does it only apply to photographs? What about drawings,
or written stories, or even thoughts?

The kiddie-porn thing basically boils down to thought-police. It's an
issue
of a majority of people outlawing something that offends their moral
standards. Even some parts of the U.S. still have laws outlawing
homosexuality.

"Freedom" should not apply only to the majority. The true test of freedom
is
how free are the minorities.


That's right....That's what the constitution really is there for....To
protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority....To return to the
above discussion, how do you guys feel about child pornagraphy where there
are no victoms....No children being photographed....All the images are
constructed digitally....Should it be illegal to manufacture it, posses it,
or both?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jeremy writes:

You must be some kind of pervert, to suggest that, short of RAPE, it is
OK
for children to be exploited in this way.

It's not okay to exploit anyone without his consent, but just taking
pictures of a child isn't exploitation in itself. It doesn't matter
whether the child is dressed or undressed. What matters is whether or
not the child is being harmed.

Too many people are wrapped up in their own perception of what is
"dirty" or "clean," and they don't care at all about what is "harmful"
or "harmless." The two are not the same thing.

Your trying to associate PARENTS with the radical far right, because we
are
opposed to anyone's children being USED just so creeps like you can get
off,
is typical of the agenda of most sexual miscreants.

The emotion of your reply is unwarranted with respect to the original
post.

Are you a member of N.A.M.B.L.A., too ("The North American Man-Boy Love
Association"), whose motto is "Sex before eight, or it's too late."

Grow up and get yourself a real woman, you sick *******.

See above.

The people who worry me are the ones who fly off the handle at the
slightest misperception.

Or people who "protest too much".......

"Sloopy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"gr" wrote:

It's not
the "kiddie-porn" that sickens me, it's the self-righteous attitude of
the
"moral majority".


We'll mark you down as someone who is *not* sickened by kiddie porn.

That, of course, makes *you* sick.

-Sloopy

"Sloopy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"gr" wrote:

It's not
the "kiddie-porn" that sickens me, it's the self-righteous attitude of
the
"moral majority".


We'll mark you down as someone who is *not* sickened by kiddie porn.

That, of course, makes *you* sick.

-Sloopy

It isn't whether or not you're sickened by it......It's whether, because
you're sickened by it, you feel compelled to make a law that forces everyone
to be sickened by it.....That's what sickens me........

"Jeremy" wrote in message
k.net...
I believe that it does great psychological and emotional harm to children
to
have them pose in suggestive positions--regardless of whether the photos
show genitalia or sexual activity. Remember, these are children!

I couldn't care less what consenting adults do, but we have a
responsibility
to protect children from the grave damage that would be done to them by
smut
peddlars and ordinary "horny old men."

Just look at some of the Calvin Klein ads for underwear, if you want a
good
example of pushing the envelope. Those kids all look underage, and they
are
always posing in sexually suggestive attitudes.

Trying to attack our child protection laws, by suggesting that they go
against your view of what a "free" society should be, is simply without
merit, and irresponsible.

Despite our shortcomings, the United States wrote the book on how to be a
free society, and we are the model for many other cultures that are
striving
to become more free. Part of being a "free society" is keeping our
CHILDREN
FREE of being EXPLOITED.

Yes, but there are some who are against (would make laws prohibiting)
computer generated child pornagraphy....Where the images are totally
manufactured within the computer, and no models are used.....On the basis (I
presume) that the mere existence of this type of material is, "bad" for the
society....Or, IOW, it promotes pedophilia.......They would outlaw not only
the manufacture of this type of material, but also its
possession.......Parsonally, I believe this is overstepping the bounds of
government regulation of a free society, since it presumes that a crime will
be committed before the fact.

"gr" wrote in message
...
"Jeremy" wrote

Just look at some of the Calvin Klein ads for underwear, if you want a
good
example of pushing the envelope. Those kids all look underage, and they
are
always posing in sexually suggestive attitudes.

Oh... shudder!

Here's a suggestion: turn off your T.V. if it offends your moral
standards.
Don't go around forcing everyone else to turn off their TVs.

Burn any good books, lately?


Yes....The question is not that the, "kids all look underage"....The
question is, are any of them underage? - If not, then no one was hurt, and
no crime has been committed. The presumption that others, looking at those
ads, will go out and commit a crime, has no place in a free society.......

"J C" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:32:25 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Still, were I to dig it out, I wouldn't take it to WalMart for printing.

Yes. Too bad really.

I think that most loud voices posting in this thread don't want to
acknowledge (or simply don't see) that freedoms are being erroded.

Here's another example of government gone wild:

In the early 1960s (or thereabouts) Chrysler puts seatbelts into some
of their cars and touts it in its marketing as a safety feature.

Soon thereafter the government mandates seatbelts in all cars.

In the 1980s the government decides that you must wear them, and if
you are stopped for any violation and are not wearing a seatbelt, you
get an extra fine. They also, however, stipulate that you cannot be
pulled over and fined solely because you are not wearing a seatbelt.

In the 1990s the government changes the laws. Now you can be pulled
over for simply not wearing one.

Our government takes small but ever increasing incremental steps
toward controlling our lives.

Now they we have cameras installed at stoplights and in some downtown
areas. And this too will spread.

We are being watched.

George Orwell was a prophet.


-- JC

Yes....I call these, "padded cell laws".....The government is steadily
marching toward the ultimate in protection of its people.....Putting all of
us in our own padded cell, so that we can't hurt anyone, including
ourselves.....The problem is, the ones who are making these laws (usually
congressmen who are bought off by insurance companies) aren't affected by
them......They play golf, and don't ride cycles....So, they make laws
forcing cyclers to wear helmits, but don't make laws forcing you to wear one
on the golf course. They will only stop this process when the laws affect
them.....I like to say that I will be only too happy to usher them into
their padded cell...........

"Gregory W. Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
J C wrote:

In the 1990s the government changes the laws. Now you can be pulled
over for simply not wearing one.

Are you offering to pay the car insurance rate hikes for all those
accidents where people
were not wearing them ?

This is a typically liberal thing to say....It is the business of insurance
companies to insure us against accident. Not to change our lives so that
they can make more money. When the insurance companies lobby our
representatives to make laws (padded cell laws) that restrict our freedoms
so that the insurance companies can turn a larger profit, then they have
overstepped their bounds.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Gregory W. Blank wrote:

In article ,
J C wrote:


In the 1990s the government changes the laws. Now you can be pulled
over for simply not wearing one.

First, I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt, have since they started putting them
in cars. But I would MUCH rather see the laws just allow insurance
companies to NOT PAY if the person injured wasn't wearing one. Put the
onus on the individual.



Are you offering to pay the car insurance rate hikes for all those
accidents where people
were not wearing them ?


Our government takes small but ever increasing incremental steps
toward controlling our lives.


Do you vote? About 50% of Americans don't.

Usually. Sometimes the candidates available don't make it worth the
trip to the polling place (less than 1 mile).



Now they we have cameras installed at stoplights and in some downtown
areas. And this too will spread.


Maybe a good thing, maybe bad, some intersections have a lot of people
running
yellow and red lights.....it only takes one head on accident to change
your attitude.


Our local police could write tickets all day at the signal light closest
to where I live. We wouldn't even need property taxes! But they don't,
it would obstruct traffic. The cameras get around that, and still get
that revenue for the city/county/state....

Not from me, they don't....I commonly drive with garage-sale license plates
on my car.....These tickets, as well as parking tickets, go to never-never
land when I get them....You just have to learn how to fight, "Big
Brother".....

"Gregory W. Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ron Hunter wrote:

Are you offering to pay the car insurance rate hikes for all those
accidents where people
were not wearing them ?

First, I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt, have since they started putting them
in cars. But I would MUCH rather see the laws just allow insurance
companies to NOT PAY if the person injured wasn't wearing one. Put the
onus on the individual.

Good for you, after all it does make sense.......and yes that would be
ideal.


Usually. Sometimes the candidates available don't make it worth the
trip to the polling place (less than 1 mile).


If you don't vote you can't complain, all else I consider, bs,...
but I understand what you mean.

Now they we have cameras installed at stoplights and in some downtown
areas. And this too will spread.


Maybe a good thing, maybe bad, some intersections have a lot of
people running
yellow and red lights.....it only takes one head on accident to change
your attitude.


Our local police could write tickets all day at the signal light closest
to where I live. We wouldn't even need property taxes! But they don't,
it would obstruct traffic. The cameras get around that, and still get
that revenue for the city/county/state....

The police have an inordinate amount of work if traffic watching is
included
I agree and would rather have the Police available to stop crime or assist
when needed.
If you don't commit crime you don't have to worry about being caught doing
wrong on camera
plain and simple concept.


Just as is the typically liberal concept that we shouldn't have a fourth
amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seisure.....If you
haven't committed any crime, then why would you care? Yes....George Orwell
was a visionary allright........