Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

So I don't respect the concept of speech because I use my likely freedom of speech to disagree?

Certain Points:
Mere possession of certain images is not the same as making it. And hell, doesn't the federal law treat it differently too.

Mere possession of certain images does not by default equal "intention to promote".

There is no evidence that mere possession of certain images actually hurts a child miles away by default.
___
If you freak the fuck out and say I shouldn't be allowed to give any legal thoughts on that, then it's clear you don't respect free speech.
Free speech isn't meant to appeal to your feelings by default unless all legally protected speech is something you love.

"-Possession of child porn is wrong.
-Well, it SHOULDN'T be!
-Why not?
-Because the sky is blue!!"
Even though my arguments are about how far punishment goes, can you prove that mere possession alone of certain pictures is "wrong"?
What proves it to be "wrong"?

I know making such content is wrong because a child is hurt in the process of it. Though I'm not sure about the sexting court cases.

In one example where no abusive events are happening, someone finds a piece of illegal porn on the street.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.