Bestselling novelist John Grisham says child porn shouldn't always mean jail

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MeMyselfandBi 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ernestbelfortbax 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Supercrushhh 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imperial_Forces 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Supercrushhh 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poooooong -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

It's a matter of the creation and consumption of child pornography.

Right, and what about the creation and consumption of videos depicting real violence?

Why is possessing one involving sex considered "encouraging" a crime to a degree that you are guilty of your own crime, but possessing one of violence not considered a crime for encouraging violence?

I guess the difference is that, in one case a party may be able to profit directly from the sale of a video that the same person had a hand in creating, but if you possess a video of a mass shooter shooting people, and you know the person wanted fame, attention, etc. (or even if you don't know that's what they wanted, because if it were a video about minors instead, it wouldn't matter if you knew if it was made for profit or not, you would still be just as guilty), how are you not guilty of encouraging mass murder, and why is that legal when the other is not?

Besides, there are people who make money from violent videos, and so there is obviously a profit motive and a demand that you could (if we're comparing to the other kind of video) partly blame on anyone who possesses such a video.

Those people are the news.

Why is the news and "entertainment news" allowed to profit of off the crimes of others, such as mass shootings?

The only distinction we can make is that it's ok for the news to present a video of a crime to you, and profit off of it, I guess as long as the video was never created for the purpose of money at any time (?). (It doesn't have that much to do with who actually created the video, because in the event of the kind of porn we're talking about it wouldn't matter if the person who is selling it is also the person who created it - the person selling it is still guilty of something) But if that's true, then why would the news not be allowed to show videos where minors are abused sexually, as long as those videos were not created for profit?

Would the news be guilty of "encouraging" the production of such videos if they possessed it and showed it? Then why are they not guilty of "encouraging" the production of videos featuring violent crimes?

Why is there no other crime where it is illegal to possess a record of said crime?

[–]Supercrushhh 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Supercrushhh -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Supercrushhh -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Supercrushhh -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I never said whether violent videos should or shouldn't be made illegal. Someone else asked, "what is the difference between looking at CP and looking at a video depicting real violence? Both include crimes committed before a person watches them." One of the differences I gave is that people seek out and view CP with intent (it is very difficult to find, therefore if you do find it, chances are you didn't "accidenally find it"). Videos depicting violence, however, are not difficult to find, and people stumble upon them all the time, without purposely seeking out a video that depicts a crime.

The only people who search for child pornography are people who want to view child pornography. Child pornography is a very specific thing. "Violent videos" is an extremely broad term that could mean many things.

[–]poooooong -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Supercrushhh 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]poooooong 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Supercrushhh 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Child pornography is made one way: rape, forced sex, or sexual assault of children. ONE. WAY. One horrible fucking way. No variation. None. (Edit: Except in cases where children themselves make it, and it somehow ends up on the internet. However, this is VERY UNLIKELY because no site is going to knowingly host child porn.) The ONLY PEOPLE who download it are people who WANT TO WATCH child pornography, i.e. a child or children being raped. Therefore, it is very easy and makes sense to completely outlaw and prosecute anyone who consumes it.

"Violent videos" can be on a CCTV, bystander witnessing something, perpetrator's recording device, etc. It can be made purposefully, or not purposefully. It can be shown to relay information about an event, i.e. news. It may or may not involve minors - if it does involve minors, chances are people will say "what the fuck" and try to identify the perpetrators. Completely different fucking story.

And guess what? I am totally fine with CP being illegal to produce, and to consume. Totally fine. Please tell me: why should CP not be illegal to consume? Or, do you think it should be, and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?

[–]poooooong 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The ONLY PEOPLE who download it are people who WANT TO WATCH child pornography, i.e. a child or children being raped. Therefore, it is very easy and makes sense to completely outlaw and prosecute anyone who consumes it.

Lol, I don't know why you're repeating this. You've put so much effort into making all these comments and you still haven't addressed the issue.

Ok, fine, let's assume that your quote is true. Sure, let's talk about the people who intended to watch it. You still have to explain what they did that was wrong, and if you can do that, then you have to explain why others are allowed to do the same thing as long as it doesn't involve sex.

It can be shown to relay information about an event, i.e. news.

Yeah, and the news also reports on crimes of a sexual nature with victims who are underage. So why shouldn't they be allowed to show a video of it happening?

Please tell me: why should CP not be illegal to consume?

It doesn't work that way. Everything is not outlawed by default until we find a reason to legalize it. It's the other way around.

[–]Supercrushhh 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You haven't given me a substantial issue to address. You asked a question: why is CP the only crime it is illegal to consume after the fact. The most obvious answer is that it contains statutory rape and sexual abuse of minors. That doesn't seem to be good enough for you (for whatever reason..), because, as you indicate, other crimes are not illegal to consume after the fact, including violent crimes and murder. I'm also commenting on how it is very easy to regulate because it has very specific content. Also, if there is less demand for it, less will be produced. There will be less demand if less people consume it. Less people will consume it if it is illegal to consume.

Why don't you tell me the way you think it should be? Why don't you tell me what you think? I'm sure I'm just dying to know.. I'm also getting really tired of this argument, and I'm feeling a little ill discussing why CP is illegal to consume, while you seem to almost be arguing it shouldn't be. In fact, I don't know why I've carried this discussion on for so long. So please, if you'd like to continue this discussion, be concise, and be meaningful.

edit: words

[–]poooooong -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShitlordAndProud 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Egalitarianmra 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

It seems to me that as society becomes more and more gender equal, concerns about pedophilia - that is, male pedophilia - grow along with it. I'm suggesting a causal link. Women's special status in society comes from birthing and bringing up children - they are the specialists here, the experts. But economic forces press them out of the home into the workplace, and also press men into greater amounts of looking after children. Also, the numbers of children per woman has collapsed, again because of economic forces, and there are relatively fewer of them to go around. Accusations of pedophilia - which is, when you think about it, an intrinsically unlikely phenomenon - are thus a manifestation of female gatekeeping, a resistance to encroachment on their territory. Unless we go back to the good old inequality between the sexes, look forward to a lot more of it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

"When women try to defend children against predators, they're really just trying to defend themselves against attacks on their 'privilege,' because fucking duh."

It seems to me that as society becomes more and more gender equal, concerns about pedophilia - that is, male pedophilia - grow along with it.

My favorite part is how you offer absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. But you know. Obviously the reason pedophilia exists is because feminism. It has nothing to do with the fact that men are statistically significantly more likely to commit such crimes, against little girls and little boys!! Even suggesting such a thing would be misandry!

No one on here even argues with the fact that production, distribution, and viewing of child porn is a male activity. I would have thought that would have been the angle--"Why stereotype the menz like that??"--but no. Even this site accepts that as a fact. The real men's rights issue here is why we should all just be ok with that.

Blood vessels bursting. Can't. Survive.

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

"When women try to defend children against predators, they're really just trying to defend themselves against attacks on their 'privilege,' because fucking duh."

You've missed my point, throwaway. Sorry for not making myself clearer. I'm saying specifically that women are not trying "to defend children against predators" - if anything, it's men who do that - I'm saying that women are manufacturing pedophile hysteria in response to losing ground in their special area, which is the production and nurturing of children.

My favorite part is how you offer absolutely no evidence to support that assertion.

Calm down and read what I wrote:

It seems to me that ...

It's a speculation. You should have been able to tell that from that introduction. I'm tying together the increase in gender equality with the increase in pedophile hysteria. I know it's fashionable to claim "correlation does not mean causation", but, sometimes, correlation does mean causation. What other explanations could you come up with for the general perception that pedophilia is an increasing problem? Have men just been getting nastier in recent years, or what?

Do tell.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShitlordAndProud 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShitlordAndProud 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FEMINIST_VANGUARD -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]poooooong 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poooooong 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poooooong 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]FallingSnowAngel -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]poooooong 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I asked why there was a blanket approval of the kind of child porn that involves real children being raped?

Because if you look at it, it's always possible for someone to possess such a video without actually having victimized a child in any way.

The only argument against that is that the child's privacy is being violated, but that's never the argument we are presented with. We are presented with the encouragement and demand argument, which is an obvious double standard when compared to other types of media.

Threads like these are why the MRM is so passionately hated - one of the top goals around here seem to be minimalizing the harm caused by sexual predators...unless they're women, of course.

I think the person you are responding to is saying that it WOULD minimize the harm caused by sexual predators. What I would say is that these realizations would at least make us rethink how we treat the crime - if we see it only as an invasion of privacy.

But then again maybe I'm responding to you incorrectly, because I really don't know if you're trying to say that "one of the top goals around here" is a MRM goal or a general Reddit goal.

I've never heard the stereotype that one of the main MRM goals was to stop men and only men from preying on children. I'm not sure if you're trying to call us hypocrites or backwards traditionalists or what but it's pretty batty.

[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Once you calm down

Starting with shaming language is always a good tactic :)

why there was a blanket approval of the kind of child porn

What the holy heavens are you talking about??? Blanket approval of child porn? I've never seen such a thing in my life. (Admittedly I don't visit pedofile circles much, but still.) The argument is this: if you have sex with a child, you go to prison. If you film it, you go to prison for even longer. But if you just browse the net and happen to find something that is legally child porn, that's not the same thing as raping a child. You shouldn't be punished with a prison sentence for something trivial like looking at pictures. A fine, maybe, or a few weeks of community service, okay, but years in prison? That's ridiculous. And if you follow the sick logic of "viewing material like this creates demand for it" then everybody who saw the ISIS beheadings should go to prison.

Kind of a personal issue for me.

That's one reason why you can't think about it calmly, which is not a good start.

Threads like these are why the MRM is so passionately hated

Well duh... Most people are fucking idiots, thinking with their dicks, pussies and guts, instead of using their brains. They couldn't find a reasoned thought in their skulls if their life depended on it. Child porn, child porn, bring the pitchforks!!! Like bulls in Pamplona.

Your argument can be condesed to this: I hate child porn because personal reasons so anyone even remotely connected to anything about child porn must be hated, imprisoned, or preferably executed.

one of the top goals around here seem to be minimalizing the harm caused by sexual predators

The article is talking about 50-60 year old guys sitting in their own homes who have never hurt a child in their lives. They are not "sexual predators" by any means.

People like you are the cause of immeasurable suffering. The biggest fiasco in police history was "operation ore", which led to at least 33 suicides and the destruction of hundreds of lives and families of mostly innocent people. Great fucking job. If I have to choose between people who look at pictures on the net, or people who ruin the lives of thousands with their fanatical, overbearing histrionics, I'd say the latter deserves much more hate than the former.

[–]FallingSnowAngel 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poooooong 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

works like a chemical addiction. Study the neuroscience

Everything works like a chemical addiction when you look at it from a neuroscience level.

But we still make distinctions between actual intoxicating substances and behavior, personality etc. We even make distinctions between different types of drugs, some are emotionally addicting while others are physically addicting, even though you could say "if you look at the neuroscience emotionally addicting drugs are physically addicting" - yeah but we have to know the difference between heroin and things that are emotionally addicting, like, oh, I don't know, pretty much anything in the world, potentially.

But differences like that don't seem as clear to me when you're saying that one kind of encouragement to commit crimes is different from another, such as giving a mass shooter the attention they want or giving someone who produces that kind of porn the money they want.

But even if you were more specific, only looking at financial encouragement, it still comes out to be a double standard as far as I can tell.

[–]FallingSnowAngel -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]poooooong 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg57 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poooooong -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Bestselling novelist John Grisham says child porn shouldn't always mean jail
Author	anutensil
Upvotes	16
Comments	82
Date	October 16, 2014 6:10 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2je8sr/bestselling_novelist_john_grisham_says_child_porn/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/bestselling-novelist-john-grisham-says-child-porn.994615 https://theredarchive.com/post/994615

Comments