Tom Flanagan is okay with child pornography

[Jimmy Stang]

So he was the brains behind all of this "traditional family values" rhetoric during the campaign? And he doesn't see a problem with watching kids being raped? As long as you're not doing the raping yourself?

[Senator Clay Davis]

His ankles are going to be broken from how fast he's going to backtrack from this one.

[jammies]

The title to this thread is misleading and reminds me of something I might see in the Calgary Sun, should I feel the need to numb my brain with its inglorious piffle.

That being said, I'm perfectly fine with punishing the people who watch child porn. Every society has its taboos and this is one we would do well to protect and prosecute, as there is no downside to protecting children's rights from adult exploitation. Flanagan is hypothesizing a slippery slope that doesn't exist. That doesn't mean he is Satan, or a kiddie raper, just a guy who thinks too much in the abstract, so the hyperbole and vilification isn't necessary.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jammies

The title to this thread is misleading and reminds me of something I might see in the Calgary Sun, should I feel the need to numb my brain with its inglorious piffle.

I didn't write it; it came straight from canada.com

That being said, I'm perfectly fine with punishing the people who watch child porn. Every society has its taboos and this is one we would do well to protect and prosecute, as there is no downside to protecting children's rights from adult exploitation. Flanagan is hypothesizing a slippery slope that doesn't exist. That doesn't mean he is Satan, or a kiddie raper, just a guy who thinks too much in the abstract, so the hyperbole and vilification isn't necessary.

He is basically condoning viewing child porn.

Damn right he is going to be raked over the coals.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I didn't write it; it came straight from canada.com

So you copied and pasted the title from their page? Or wait, did the Divine Hand actually do the copying/pasting, so you had no involvement at all? No one forced you to use the same words, so yes, you DID write it.

Originally Posted by First Lady

He is basically condoning viewing child porn.

No, he's not. He's saying it's bad, but punishing people for watching it could be worse. I happen to disagree with him - vehemently - but misrepresenting his argument doesn't actually help in refuting it.

[Kjesse]

Having taken classes from him a long time ago, I always understood he was particularly libertarian, but this isn't even that--- you can't actually justify his position from even an extreme libertarian position unless you also think that creating child pornography is OK.

His views on this are warped and disturbing. And he's on the man-boy love mailing list? OMG.

I expect a crap storm at the U of C over this.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by jammies

No, he's not. He's saying it's bad, but punishing people for watching it could be worse. I happen to disagree with him - vehemently - but misrepresenting his argument doesn't actually help in refuting it.

But the thing is he is in effect condoning child pornography. The production of child porn is no different than most things: Its demand driven. So saying you shouldn't punish people who view child porn is giving them a green light to demand child porn, which in turn drives the producers of child porn to produce even more. He chose his words exceptionally poorly.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jammies

So you copied and pasted the title from their page? Or wait, did the Divine Hand actually do the copying/pasting, so you had no involvement at all? No one forced you to use the same words, so yes, you DID write it.

Well I post on other forums where the rules state news titles cannot be altered.

No, he's not. He's saying it's bad, but punishing people for watching it could be worse. I happen to disagree with him - vehemently - but misrepresenting his argument doesn't actually help in refuting it.

Well here is another for you.

Politicians condemn Tom Flanagan for suggesting child porn viewing is OK

Guess if all these news outlets are "misrepresenting his argument" he will have to request a lot of corrections.

[photon]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Everytime a video or picture is viewed the victim is reviolated.

How? I don't understand this.

If the victim knows person x is viewing the video then I guess that would make sense, but if they don't, then how is the victim harmed?

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Trying to ask some questions here, so bare with me. I'd like to start off by saying I do not condone child porn.


However, what qualifies as child porn? I think we can all agree raping a child and filming it qualifies. What about taking a picture of a nude child? Or how about if a child takes a picture of him/herself and posts it on the internet?


Is that what he's trying to get at? He doesn't make it clear what he's getting at.

Or is all the above wrong (end of discussion)?


To be clear, I am not defending his statements. I am just trying to play devils advocate and also, I just got in trouble with my boss for not asking more why, what, where, how questions, so I'm in the 5 W mode right now.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by photon

How? I don't understand this.

If the victim knows person x is viewing the video then I guess that would make sense, but if they don't, then how is the victim harmed?

The victim knows the pictures are out there and that they continue to circulate.

Think of it like the Amanda Todd case. One photo haunted her for years.

[Jacks]

I see the media is falling over themselves trying to drag Harper into it.

"Ex-Harper aide okay with child porn"
"Former advisor to Harper voices support for watching child porn"

[photon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The production of child porn is no different than most things: Its demand driven. So saying you shouldn't punish people who view child porn is giving them a green light to demand child porn, which in turn drives the producers of child porn to produce even more. He chose his words exceptionally poorly.

The producers of child porn aren't people operating a business making child porn to sell and that's just their day job.. The only people who would even consider making child porn are the people who want to view it, so I don't think the demand argument applies here.

Adult abuses child and makes a video of it for their own reference, then uploads it would seem to me to be the most likely scenario, not adult films another adult abusing a child for profit but actually is against child porn.

If there was no demand for child porn, is the adult who would do the abusing in the first place stop just because they're not going to get as many downloads on bittorrent?

Removing the demand for child porn isn't going to stop people making it, stopping people from making it is going to stop people from making it.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

Trying to ask some questions here, so bare with me. I'd like to start off by saying I do not condone child porn.


However, what qualifies as child porn? I think we can all agree raping a child and filming it qualifies. What about taking a picture of a nude child? Or how about if a child takes a picture of him/herself and posts it on the internet?


Is that what he's trying to get at? He doesn't make it clear what he's getting at.

Or is all the above wrong (end of discussion)?


To be clear, I am not defending his statements. I am just trying to play devils advocate and also, I just got in trouble with my boss for not asking more why, what, where, how questions, so I'm in the 5 W mode right now.

I think I know what you are trying to say...

To me the defining difference is "what" the picture is used for.

It could be an innocent picture of kids playing on a beach, posted on Facebook by the family. But someone uploads it to a pedo site and it starts to circulate that way.

Now the use of the photo has changed and created victims.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Well I post on other forums where the rules state news titles cannot be altered.

That's not the case here, and in any event, I'm relatively certain that would apply to links in the post, not the title of the thread, as what happens if you put multiple links in the same new thread otherwise? If you don't want the title to be seen as your own, try quoting like this:

"Tom Flanagan is okay with child pornography", says canada.com

In which case I'll still think you agree with that statement, unless you specifically disavow that in the text of your original post.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But the thing is he is in effect condoning child pornography.

That's the same fallacious reasoning all these news outlets are using, probably because reporters aren't taught how to reason from facts, but rather how to make facts sell newspapers. "Condoning" is an inaccurate choice of words - if you said his reasoning would "enable" child pornographers, that's an entirely different argument and one I would agree with.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Everytime a video or picture is viewed the victim is reviolated.

I agree with this. I think if it was me in the videos or pictures, I would feel that way.

Just for arguments sake (and slightly OT), couldn't the same be said of viewing videos of other crimes? For example, I recall that video of the man getting his head cut off in Iraq and a lot of people (and some people on this forum even) said they watched it. To me, that is in the boat with the only difference being that we know the guy is dead now. Both things are videos of terrible cirmes and both are at moments that I would consider to be extremely private and shouldn't be open to public viewing. It's one of the reasons that I could never bring myself to watch them. The family must have felt violated just knowing that it was out there.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I think I know what you are trying to say...

To me the defining difference is "what" the picture is used for.

It could be an innocent picture of kids playing on a beach, posted on Facebook by the family. But someone uploads it to a pedo site and it starts to circulate that way.

Now the use of the photo has changed and created victims.

But it hasn't created child porn, unless we're entering into a realm of thought policing.

[flylock shox]

Lots of interesting issues arising out of this.

If we all accept (and consensus shouldn't be too hard) that the actual molestation of children is horribly damaging to the child and among society's most condemnable crimes, that leaves us with a number of different questions as to where the next line should be drawn:

- if the act is filmed, is anyone who views the film for their own purposes essentially contributing to the offence or re-victimizing the victim?

- does it matter if they paid for the film (thereby encouraging the "industry") or not?

- what counts as child pornography? Do people's pictures of their kids in the bath, if used for nefarious purposes, count? What about cartoons, where no actual people are involved? How young does a person have to be to count as a child?

I think a lot of Canadians would be very surprised by our country's laws on child pornography. Strictly speaking, if you've ever possessed a pornographic image of a person depicted as being under 18 years old (even if it's a 30 year old pretending to be in Catholic school, for example), you've fallen afoul of our Criminal Code and could be prosecuted.

The issue is made increasingly complex by the now-easy dissemination of photographic images in the digital age - the phenomenon of "sexting" among teenagers being an example of how easily the apparently straightforward rules prohibiting possession of such images can become complicated.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by valo403

But it hasn't created child porn, unless we're entering into a realm of thought policing.

Porn comes in many forms.

Regardless, of whether the child is clothed, unclothed, being violated, etc. if it is being circulated and used as porn, it's porn.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Porn comes in many forms.

Regardless, of whether the child is clothed, unclothed, being violated, etc. if it is being circulated and used as porn, it's porn.

Legal precedent please