Tom Flanagan is okay with child pornography

[photon]

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.

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...

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?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, masturbating in public is an offence, but it isn't at all a thought crime.

I meant they do it after getting at home from the gym, which is why I contrasted it with doing it in front of the other person.

Originally Posted by Makarov

The criminal behaviour in your second example is totally different than the behaviour in your first example.

Sorry, which examples?

[HOOT]

Next he is going to tell everyone there is nothing wrong with rape as long as you are just watching from the sidelines.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think the point she is trying to get across is it is still a violation for that person, even if they are unaware of it.

Completely different issues. If someone has nude pictures of them distributed against their will there is obviously a violation, and I can understand the reasoning that each viewing is another violation, although that's a reaching argument.

The other situation she has put forth is that anything can become porn simply based upon the way the viewer processes it. As photon pointed out, we're now entering into a realm where absolutely every single thing that someone witnesses has the potential to be porn. That's ridiculous.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, masturbating in public is an offence, but it isn't at all a thought crime. The criminal behaviour in your second example is totally different than the behaviour in your first example.

Aren't there criminal elements beyond public lewdness in that second scenario? If that happened in a private space are there not crimes that apply?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CarlW

Quick question reading through all this arguing about the definition etc. of child porn, just curious would it be illegal if a 16 year old had say nude pics of their 15 or 16 yr old girlfriend? what if it was video? When they get older and marry and look back at their personal teenage pics and vids would that also be illegal?

I remember a case not that long ago where a young teen girl sent pictures of herself to an older man and she was in fact charged with distributing child pornography. I do not know how that case turned out though.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by valo403

Aren't there criminal elements beyond public lewdness in that second scenario? If that happened in a private space are there not crimes that apply?

I see what you're saying. For example, if a person installed a two-way mirror (or secret cameras) in their bathroom to observe a guest (or family member)?

That type of behaviour would be an offence pursuant to s. 162:

162. (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if

(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;

(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or

(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

The key limit here of course is that the complainant must be "in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy".

[Canehdianman]

backpedal, backpedal, backpedal!

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Em...677/story.html

Longtime conservative pundit and strategist Tom Flanagan has apologized for comments questioning the harm of child pornography that drew scathing criticism and led to his ouster from posts with the Wildrose Party and CBC Thursday.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by photon

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.



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.

Ok, let's use this hypothetical to avoid some of the practical issues here. Peeping Tom surreptitiously observes a nude Bathing Bill through Bathing Bill's bathroom window. Bathing Bill is not at any time aware that he is being observed and blissfully continues to bathe himself. Some time later, Bathing Bill dies. Some time after Bathing Bill's death, a neighbour finally summons the courage to report that she observed Peeping Tom in the window outside Bathing Bill's bathroom window that night some time ago. So Bathing Bill never ever becomes aware that he was watched that night. Should Peeping Tom be guilty of a criminal offence?

I say yes. I say so because I think it is harmful to society and to the lives of all Canadians if we cannot bathe and carry on with our most personal actions because we are afraid that someone out there might be observing us. That is a harm to society writ large.

I would also argue (and this is where the SCC and I agree) that the state has a valid interest in criminalizing conduct in order to avoid preemptively avoid harm. In this case, criminalizing the behaviour of Peeping Tom, whether Bathing Bill is aware his privacy is being infringed or not, seeks to avoid Bathing Bill ever having to become aware that his privacy was infringed.

Originally Posted by photon

Ok, but that doesn't really mean anything to me. What standard do they use then?

As alluded to above:

131 In other words, avoidance of harm is a “state interest” within the rule against arbitrary or irrational state conduct mentioned in Rodriguez, supra, at p. 594, previously cited, that:


Where the deprivation of the right in question does little or nothing to enhance the state’s interest (whatever it may be), it seems to me that a breach of fundamental justice will be made out, as the individual’s rights will have been deprived for no valid purpose. [Emphasis added.]

132 The conclusion that the state has a particular interest in acting to protect vulnerable groups is also consistent with Charter jurisprudence affirming the state’s power to intervene to protect children whose lives are in jeopardy and to promote their well-being: New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, at para. 70; B. (R.), supra, at para. 88 (per La Forest J.).


133 We do not agree with Prowse J.A. that harm must be shown to the court’s satisfaction to be “serious” and “substantial” before Parliament can impose a prohibition. Once it is demonstrated, as it has been here, that the harm is not de minimis, or in the words of Braidwood J.A., the harm is “not [in]significant or trivial”, the precise weighing and calculation of the nature and extent of the harm is Parliament’s job. Members of Parliament are elected to make these sorts of decisions, and have access to a broader range of information, more points of view, and a more flexible investigative process than courts do. A “serious and substantial” standard of review would involve the courts in micromanagement of Parliament’s agenda. The relevant constitutional control is not micromanagement but the general principle that the parliamentary response must not be grossly disproportionate to the state interest sought to be protected, as will be discussed.

SOURCE: R. v. Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74.

EDIT TO ADD: Interesting discussion btw. I love these sorts of issues.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Throwing out more scenarios:

What about if a room of people caught a glimps of a woman who's sitting in a way that exposes her genitals? And some of the men are aroused by this. Porn?

Also, I just noticed the forum's initals CP is a hilariously coincidence to the thread's discussion. Run! Delete cookie! format hd!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

Throwing out more scenarios:

What about if a room of people caught a glimps of a woman who's sitting in a way that exposes her genitals? And some of the men are aroused by this. Porn?

Also, I just noticed the forum's initals CP is a hilariously coincidence to the thread's discussion. Run! Delete cookie! format hd!

The issue isn't whether it is pornography (for a number of reasons.) I suppose the question would be whether or not this amounts to voyeurism. Presuming that the woman in question is exposing herself (inadvertently or not), I doubt that one could argue that she has a reasonable expectation of privacy in these circumstances (since she is placing her genitals in plain view, as it were.)

[Ozy_Flame]

Flanagan got into a war of words with Julian Assange at one point as well, calling for his assassination.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Flanagan got into a war of words with Julian Assange at one point as well, calling for his assassination.

Interesting. He called for assassination by whom? The state?

If so, that would be a rather confusing dose of authoritarianism in his libertarian stew.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by valo403

The other situation she has put forth is that anything can become porn simply based upon the way the viewer processes it. As photon pointed out, we're now entering into a realm where absolutely every single thing that someone witnesses has the potential to be porn. That's ridiculous.

Yeah, you are probably right. I will admit I have a skewed view when it comes to stuff like this.

I was victim to someone who took a photo (face shot) of me and associated it with nudes (not me); they created an online "persona" that was supposedly me. From there numerous others "stalked' this persona, however the real me was on the receiving end.

I won't go into all the details, but it was a two year police investigation and more years of being tormented by it recurring because the internet never forgets.

Originally Posted by photon

And like I asked before, if there was a magic button to be pressed that could remove all of a certain image or video from existence, is that something that should be used?

A thousand times over, I wish such a thing existed.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Interesting. He called for assassination by whom? The state?

If so, that would be a rather confusing dose of authoritarianism in his libertarian stew.

By the U.S., of course.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...s-assange.html

He retracted his statements, but just adding more fuel to the fire with this one.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by photon

I understand that, I just don't see how it is still a violation.

If someone goes home and rubs one out after seeing an attractive woman/man at the gym, has that person been violated even though they're unaware of it? If that person did it while watching the other person it would certainly be a violation.

Would it bother you if someone took a picture of your kids and did the same thing?

Obviously there are different levels of violation, and doing it while the person was present would be a much more severe level of violation than the circumstances are are talking about here, but that doesn't eliminate the violation that occurs.

edit: Just to clarify, just because there is a violation, does not mean that it should be considered as pornography related offense.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by Makarov

The issue isn't whether it is pornography (for a number of reasons.) I suppose the question would be whether or not this amounts to voyeurism. Presuming that the woman in question is exposing herself (inadvertently or not), I doubt that one could argue that she has a reasonable expectation of privacy in these circumstances (since she is placing her genitals in plain view, as it were.)

Interesting. I see what you're saying. Would it still be voyeurism if this person happen to be 15 and in the same scenario?

[Jacks]

Flanagan has now been fired by the CBC.

In an age of instant information he has just ended his career at the speed of light.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02...d-pornography/

[evman150]

Libertarians make me sick.

So out of touch with reality. I like Alison Redford's comment:

“It turned my stomach. I’m absolutely disgusted by it. I think that it’s a perfect example of people that take ideological arguments too far, and I have nothing else to say on it”

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Flanagan has now been fired by the CBC.

In an age of instant information he has just ended his career at the speed of light.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02...d-pornography/

He has also been booted from Manning Centre event.