 |
|
OK, here's my rough rendition of pickle's position. I would
Posted on: September 5, 2016 at 12:38:42 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
69636
Member For:
20.86 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
appreciate any corrections, fleshing out of subtle nuances etc. as you think would be beneficial to help people more fully and accurately understand his/your/anarchist/libertarian position on the matter.
child porn
The possession, sale, purchase and distribution of child porn is a "victimless crime". No one is hurt if someone has some pictures of kiddie porn on their computer or in their briefcase or wherever. No one has their rights infringed if they buy or sell these images, videos or recordings.
Arresting someone for the possession of child porn is an infringement of their natural rights. Fining them for possessing it or taxing them for buying or selling it is theft. Laws against sale, purchase or possession of child porn are wrong/immoral.
----
Presumably all of the above would also apply to snuff films, rape films, torture films etc.
----
Putting people in cages/jail for anything is immoral.
Government is intrinsically an infringement of rights.
Government workers are sociopaths.
All laws promulgated by government should be voluntary.
----
One followup question for you and any other libertarians/anarchists/government minimalists etc. who might want to chime in:
Where would you draw the line with respect to child porn &/or the above mentioned other forms of illegal filming etc.?
Would it/should it be against the law for the person doing the filming, or just the person sexually abusing the child? Should the photographer/cameraman be arrested or otherwise penalized, or is he just doing something innocuous by filming the person who is actually doing the illegal/immoral/perverted activity? Once s/he has done the filming, should the film itself be subject to confiscation?
For instance if police happened upon a scene where a child molester and his victim(s) are dressing after filming, should the molester be arrested/fined/charged/admonished and the photographer/filmmaker be let go since he/she had not directly molested the child (or raped or tortured or killed the victims of any of the other types of flicks)? Should s/he be free to continue possessing and selling the film to others, or to show it in a theater for the enjoyment of the local perverts club?
child porn
The possession, sale, purchase and distribution of child porn is a "victimless crime". No one is hurt if someone has some pictures of kiddie porn on their computer or in their briefcase or wherever. No one has their rights infringed if they buy or sell these images, videos or recordings.
Arresting someone for the possession of child porn is an infringement of their natural rights. Fining them for possessing it or taxing them for buying or selling it is theft. Laws against sale, purchase or possession of child porn are wrong/immoral.
----
Presumably all of the above would also apply to snuff films, rape films, torture films etc.
----
Putting people in cages/jail for anything is immoral.
Government is intrinsically an infringement of rights.
Government workers are sociopaths.
All laws promulgated by government should be voluntary.
----
One followup question for you and any other libertarians/anarchists/government minimalists etc. who might want to chime in:
Where would you draw the line with respect to child porn &/or the above mentioned other forms of illegal filming etc.?
Would it/should it be against the law for the person doing the filming, or just the person sexually abusing the child? Should the photographer/cameraman be arrested or otherwise penalized, or is he just doing something innocuous by filming the person who is actually doing the illegal/immoral/perverted activity? Once s/he has done the filming, should the film itself be subject to confiscation?
For instance if police happened upon a scene where a child molester and his victim(s) are dressing after filming, should the molester be arrested/fined/charged/admonished and the photographer/filmmaker be let go since he/she had not directly molested the child (or raped or tortured or killed the victims of any of the other types of flicks)? Should s/he be free to continue possessing and selling the film to others, or to show it in a theater for the enjoyment of the local perverts club?
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
OK, here's my rough rendition of pickle's position. I would - JeffB MU - 9/5 12:38:42