Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda
this is what i don't understand. how is viewing child pornography a crime (which i do agree with) but viewing snuff films not? how do those gore fetish websites continue to operate openly while an 18 year old kid could be put in jail for posting a video of his 16 year old girlfriend?
it's an ugly double standard when it comes to if what you watch is a criminal offense or not
|
Emotionally I get why there's a double standard, but that's what I'm trying to understand, not the emotion, but the
reasoning behind some things, because basing a response off emotion is ultimately a bad idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Again, this sort of Millsian individualistic conception of "harm" seems too limited to me. What about harm to society and social life?
|
I had to google Millsian (though I now remember seeing the concept elsewhere), but that doesn't really tell me any more than you think a utilitarian view is too limited. Why is it too limited?
In the peeping tom case I could see how having lots of peeping toms out there is harmful to society, but how else can you police or enforce that in any other way THAN a utilitarian view? Unless they're caught, you can't (and shouldn't be able to) do anything about them anyway.
Now if they were taking videos...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
In any event, the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly rejected restriction of Parliament's criminal law making power by Mills' harm principle.
|
Ok, but that doesn't really mean anything to me. What standard do they use then?