Posted on 07/12/2011 1:31:16 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
What is frustrating is that Congress could pass a bill that would be both constitutional and protecting. But, they just have to pander and get votes. It’s infuriating.
...
Many libertarians are in favor of kiddie porn and this article is proof. Might as well come out supporting NAMBLA
Man, you're just eat up with stupid, aren't you...
You are full of it, dude.
kiddie porn, legalize drugs, homosexual marriage AND they would be masturbating on street corners too.
“If you don’t like it then don’t look.”
Very disturbing from a constitutional perspective, but how does it make us all culpable for on-line pornography?
What? I'm not a libertarian, but even I think that's an incredibly stupid comment.
BRILLIANT quote!!
About the only thing that counts today as bannable kiddie porn (and this proposed law wouldn’t change it because it became a USSC level constitutional challenge) is material in which photography of actual minors performing actual indecent acts appears. I.e. which can be traced back to the sexual exploitation of minors. That it looks like something unspeakable doesn’t count, if “no children were harmed in the filming of this video” and what looks indecent is something else, like consenting adults, trick photography, animation, computer aided simulation, etc. With ever more powerful photograph and movie editing software now available even for free, “authentic” kiddie porn will likely become a very rare bird, making this a vast overkill. In the meantime, all those dossiers kept by “little brother” will be as vulnerable as any computer database to hackers and crackers.
If you’re an ISP and you decline to keep this kind of dossier on your customers, you get socked by Uncle Sammo.
Still now sure how it makes ISPs culpable for child porn, let alone “us all.”
What I mean is that I have debated liberaltarians online who actually do want to legalize the possession of REAL kiddie porn and lower the “age of consent” to 11 or even abolish it.
Taken literally that’s hyperbole, but it makes a lot of little brothers responsible for helping to police it without the secrecy safeguards you’d expect from a confidential government activity. It will be easy to tar people who don’t want these little brothers with the accusation that they must be for kiddie porn. Shoot, just look higher in this thread (unless an administrator has zotted it). This makes a zinger of a sound bite which takes a detailed explanation to refute.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws"
~~Ayn Rand
I keep this on my homepage, unfortunately it come in hand all too often.
But is this a fair representation of the whole? Libertarians have their own “big tent” and it doesn’t necessarily mean a strong movement to open the door for child exploitation, any more than the Log Cabin Republicans are represented by Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, or even Mitt Romney. Some libertarians have religious reasons to believe that a return to biblical standards of consent vis a vis actual marriage and its expected relations would not be an evil thing, and among them they would disagree about what kind of sanctions should be placed upon explicit pictures of such relations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.