SunXia, and Dong Zhou, before anything else, I recommend these posts related to this be moved to a new thread, since this is kind of off-topic. If you disagree, no problem, just wanted to point it out. I've self-flagged this post for that purpose.
SunXia wrote:I've found a few links about that particular case here is one from BBC I can't find a more recent one for BBC other than 2008!! Here's one for The Mirror!! Other Links here and here.
Thanks. I haven't had time to get these myself. I hadn't realized the level of realism in the photographs; the places where I saw it talked about before never mentioned it. More information is almost always better, and I would like to know nothing but the facts so that the truth can be found.
Jeez, I sound like an Ace Attorney
But I do actually believe that.
SunXia wrote:I am fully against these images and I do not think they are alright, depicting children being raped and abused, even if it is in cartoon format. In the same vein I am also against the depictions of Bart Simpson having sex with his mother on porn sites and such and there's no change to his child appearance other than he has a penis.
You are one thousand percent within your rights to be morally opposed to such things. Indeed, I suspect most people are.
SunXia wrote:I have never been and never will be, comfortable with depictions of children having sex. It was one of the main reasons I did not want to read Game of Thrones, I am highly against it whether or not it is realistic of the time periods it is attempting to show within the mystical land. (Granted, Martin did handle it a lot better than the TV show where Dany is crying and saying "No")
This is personal choice and you are, again, one thousand percent in your rights to decide for yourself. I've never read or watched Game of Thrones
, but I remember seeing the rape scene in The Other Boleyn Girl
- it was very disturbing to watch; I was pretty uncomfortable, and that was only for a few seconds.
SunXia wrote:I do not know if it's a thought crime since you have material that depicts a child, granted a cartoon child, engaging in sex.
The medium is kind of irrelevant. Does it make it better or worse if it's written in a story format with no pictures? Or if he merely leans back in his chair and thinks about it? It's all the same - he is engaging in non-harmful acts in the privacy of his own home, having no intention to ever commit a crime along these lines.
SunXia wrote:Now I'm not saying that if you view these images you are automatically a sex offender, but I do think standards need to be kept in check.
And this, I think, is the important bit that we need to get to. Firstly, it seems the judge in this case agrees with you.
Judge Tony Briggs wrote:Judge Tony Briggs told Hoque in court after his most recent conviction, "You are an intelligent man. You certainly should have been aware of the risk of indulging in accessing this material, and you acknowledge your foolishness and guilt. This is material that clearly society and the public can well do without. Its danger is that it obviously portrays sexual activity with children, and the more it's portrayed, the more the ill-disposed may think it's acceptable."
Secondly, I completely understand the want of people to stop things like this - you find that someone is engaging in behavior you find morally unacceptable, and think "we should make this kind of thing illegal; it has no place in society!" I totally understand the sentiment. But that's exactly the kind of thing I think we have to fight against if we want to live in a free society. People use the guise of "public morality" to forbid things they disagree with, using the tyranny of the majority to do it through government. In fact, if you truly want to live in a free society, you have to argue for
the things you actually find reprehensible.
Take the Ku Klux Klan here in America - an organization dedicated to white power and getting rid of all people of color. Now, I am clearly morally opposed to what they have to say. It is vile, they attempt to shatter human dignity, etc. But I fully believe in their right to say it. If any attempt to silence them, I would defend their right to speak every time. I believe that's important for someone who's truly committed to freedom.
So, obviously in a society, there has to be lines. We can't allow absolute freedom - that's anarchy, and not what living in a society is about. Why do we congregate in societies, communities, and countries in the first place? To do things collectively that we cannot do individually. This includes many things like arranging public safety (by having police to catch criminals and deter crime), protecting our country against foreign invaders (the army, navy, air force, etc), and arranging a system by which we can arbitrate disputes and prosecute criminals (the courts).
So what becomes important is the line where you feel what's best done collectively ends and what's best done individually begins. As someone who believes in human freedom - and that as long as you are not doing harm to others, you deserve to make your own choices and determine your own life for yourself - I believe that morality is best left to individuals and not government. I don't want someone else to decide for me; I want to decide for myself. I am a free-thinking, sentient, capable individual, and I deserve that right. For that reason, I would not have government legislate against things like this man has, nor legislate against gay marriage (returning to the Indiana law), nor legislate against discrimination like the KKK demonstrates.
In general, I believe that people who really believe in freedom should support this position. If you start thinking that morality should be left up to government to decide, through the voting public/representatives, I would probably say that you're not really interested in freedom; rather you're interested on imposing your morality on others, even if you don't mean to.