______________________________
A. You have no way of knowing who saw the video of these local children, what the fallout to them might be or if anyone who did see the video might be emboldened by it.
B. You might as well argue that peeping tom activity is just fine since nobody gets hurt.
C. In only one case were real children involved. It is disconcerting that you cannot get your mind around the fact that SP is a cartoon.
Really? I’ve seen you logicians trying to argue that this clip will trigger child molestation. It’s a ridiculous argument. If you like, you can explain how that works.
Explain how emboldening takes place from an obscure videoclip. It’s just silly. DU looks at this and says “Conservatives are stupid” And I’m going “I hope “conservatives”, who don’t really believe in Limited Constitutional Government, or, in other words, Conservativism don’t say anything like pedophilia and songs about pedophilia are the same thing.” There is depravity in culture. It comes from the AntiChristians in Hollywood. They’re been doing it for close to 100 years. Hollywood is most certainly the enemy of Conservatism.
C. In neither case were Children engaged in pedophilia. Are you arguing that cartoon pedophilia cannot influence people, that only having real children in a video, that’s the only thing that’s going to have that “emboldening” effect? Because your argument isn’t that kids were hurt. Your argument is that the video might cause bad outcomes. A national TV show doesn’t embolden, but a local youtube does?
By the way, this particular youtube clip does not make the existing laws against pedophilia go away. The law is the stopper there, not the nonexistence of an obscure youtube clip.
Invasion of privacy I think is the hurt with peeping toms and here. Not a crime in this case, but. That might be where the civil c/a lies, somewhere around there.