babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Is it really appropriate to carry this discussion on in stargazer's thread? Could this discussion not, finally, be moved to its own, appropriately titled thread?
All it says about child "erotica" is
None of the above are mentioned in the Criminal Code.
Ohhh but you don't understand Saga. I started such a thread, specifically about this topic, and you intervened in that thread throwing around such delicate sentiments as:
As well you were claiming that the thread was abuot:
So what do you really want here? People to stop talking about this subject, or for it be moved to another thread. Based on your previous sabotage, and extremely loaded and accusatory remarks in the last one, it seems pretty clear you just wanted to end discussion entirely, whatever the venue.
And guess what? Your sabotage succeeded and the mods actually asked that no new thread be started.
No, cue, though from that travesty/incident, I did/do see your point.
Thanks for following through with this jas!
Like I said, it's easy to cut and paste; reading and understanding is harder.
The code says [my comments in red]:
I wonder if, by these standards, Stephen King's novel It, Anne Rice's "Beauty" series and her novel Belinda, or Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita would qualify as child porn.
Frankly, I would say that anything that does not require direct abuse of children as part of its creation to be completely out of bounds to such an extent as it actuate "thought crime" in the law. I would, by the way, argue that what was done to Britney Spears was child abuse.
But when it comes to enshrining patriarchal modes of the sexualization of children in "the market" the law is silent, and I would argue that it distances itself from its roll in asserting the patriarchal model in its everyday practice by criminalizing indivduals. Many of these individuals are clearly guilty and there is not defence for their crimes, but the idea that the law is selflessly pursuing an anti-patriarchal anti-capitalist agenda in it's pursuit of infividual child abusers is absurd.
I somehow managed to live until now without any knowledge of that particular tune. Go figure.
But I just watched the video on YouTube. I guess I'm now guilty of "knowingly accessing" child pornography. And I guess there's evidence of it on my computer in my browser history, and a search warrant could probably get the same info from my ISP. So I'm screwed.
I'm sorry to see you go, Stargazer. I'm sure you'll be back, though. I speak from experience; I left babble for a couple of years and eventually returned.
Anyway, I want you to know how much I appreciated your kind words during that "chucking" fiasco.
Yes. You might well wonder.
Civil libertarians raised exactly those questions when the government was amending the Criminal Code to get rid of the defence of "artistic merit", but of course they were shouted down and denounced as soft on child abuse.
I have repeatedly suggested that you have the discussion in an appropriately titled thread. I never asked for it to be closed down or prevented. The second thread you refer to had the same name as the first one. How was one to know it was a different topic? I sure didn't, but then I didn't wade through all the gory details, not being interested in your discussion.
Why not a brand new start somewhere else? mods?
I never tried to "sabotage"
, just put it somewhere appropriate.
I assure you, I will ignore the new thread. That's what I've been trying to do (since I've already said what I have to say), but it keeps popping up in other threads!
The thread title vaguely referred to the first in as much as I used the first three words from it, to indicate its relationship, but leaving the question of who was being arrested and for what up in the air. It did not specifically reference the story of the first. A little bit of a "Swiftian" literary reference, no more, and certainly nothing worse than any of countless allusions often denied by Martin Dufresne. If you bothered reading the OP you would see that the thread was entirely about the technical aspects of these prosecutions. That was explicit.
Your interventions were sabotage. You are now saying that it would have ok to have a thread called "discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse", and that would have been ok?
Clearly you objected to the content of discussion in whatever form it took, regardless of the title and what was contained in the OP. In other words, you are bullshitting.
As I have noted before, the libertarian philosophy, mainly, if not specifically, benefits white males, as such, I tend to disregard anything they have to say, as what they say is usually only indicative of looking after own interests.
Anyhow...this thread has devolved recently into a place of great distress and discomfort, so I am outta it.
I am sorry Remind, how does drawing sexualized images of children for ones own personal amusement constitute child abuse? After all, you made a big deal about the differentiation between Heroin use, as a "victimless" crime, and the purchase of child abuse images. Where is the victim in the case of someone who draws dirty greco-roman images of young boys or writes lewd stories about children in their journal?
Closing what you call the "loop holes" did nothing to curb actual child abuse.
So why are you glad? Do you think people should be prevented, or at least discouraged, from reading, for example, Lolita?
ETA: OOPS! I posted this before I had read your standard "thread flounce", so don't feel you have to come back and answer.
Stargazer, I've been away for a while and missed most of the toxic stuff - glad I did - and I think you know how sorry I am to see that it has caused you to take a break. Please use the break (and not for too long) to come back with all your passion intact and renewed. I'll miss you.
Don't worry. No one is going to ban Lolita, Spector. That is a property held by a majpr publishing company and makes substantial profit for the right people. If they did that, it would require that they take steps to prevent the recording industry and MTV and the fashion industry from sexually exploiting young teens, and making profits for the right people.
Profit (in the right hands) = Artistic Merit.
Yes, I have no interest in your topic as it is offensive to me, but I really don't care if you have the discussion.
That's why I keep asking that you move it somewhere appropriate, since this is at least twice you have taken over another thread, and the second one looked misleadingly like a continuation of the first, so excuse me for "sabotaging", but I thought I was the one who was on topic.
It's too late now, of course, since this thread is also compromised.
Carry on.
Um, which is exactly what is quoted on their fully up-to-date site. Minus your comments in red. Were they supposed to include M Spector's interpretation, too? WTF? There's nothing out of date about the site that remind referenced.
You are now saying that it would have ok to have a thread called "discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse", and that would have been ok?
Yes or no?
Actually, the Britney Spears song and video, as Cueball suggests, is a good example of how child porn is normalized and popularized in pop culture. Good point.
And I'm not sure I ever grasped the full literary value of "Lolita", so if it qualifies, I wouldn't miss it. But it was created in a different era, when there were few legal or moral codes about abusing children.
Not at all. (Check your pm's)
No joke. But this point is not just about "normalization" and "popularization", this is about actual child abuse that goes on the popular music industry, and the abuse begins with Britney at 15, lets not forget. She isn't just a model pretending to be 17, she is 17.
I said the article was out of date. I made no comment on the site itself.
You will note that the article only quotes paragraphs a and b of the definition of child pronography, and not paragraphs c and d which were added later.
And why the hell are you so keen to establish that the article was up-to-date? What personal stake do you have in proving that I am wrong about making the observation that the article was out of date? Is this really something you feel the need to fight with me about?
First they came to burn Lolita and I didn't speak up because I never grasped the full literary value of it.
Then they came for...
.
ETA: A propos of nothing, am I the only one who sees that after post #54 in this thread the posts ceased to alternate with white-and-grey backgrounds?