Re: ALERT -- Boston Public Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:41:09 04/23/02 Tue
Author: FleetAdmiralJ
Subject: Re: ALERT
In reply to: Josh 's message, "Re: ALERT" on 00:08:12 04/23/02 Tue

Also, he seems to have gotten some facts mixed up.

1) A student group at Penn State had someone who was a known supporter of NAMBLA Speak. However, she was a transsexual, not homosexual (if it even matters, you have misrepresented who it was). Secondly, I saw nothing in the article I read that said that she even spoke about child-adult sex. Besides, this was a controversial group that invited her anyway (one about sexuality in general, not about homosexuality).

2) Child porn was illegal not because it was child porn, but because children were used when making it (thus harming the children). However, with computer generated child porn and picutres of adults who look young, there are no children being used (thus no children being harmed) so the reasons behind banning it are now lost.

3) I researched the British Columbia case a little bit, and that one worked in much the same way. They struck down a child porn law because it was too broad (it included things like virtual child porn that didn't harm children). It did NOT say that child porn was universally acceptable. (In fact I think they made clear that child porn using actual children should be banned)

Also, the vast majority of child porn is of girls downloaded by old 40 year old guys...hardly a arguement in favor of your anti-homosexual rhetoric.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: ALERT -- Saleem, 15:54:51 04/23/02 Tue
- Re: ALERT -- FleetAdmiralJ, 16:16:10 04/23/02 Tue
- Re: ALERT -- Kari, 17:19:47 04/23/02 Tue
  - Re: ALERT -- Saleem, 19:50:39 04/23/02 Tue
    - Re: ALERT -- FleetAdmiralJ, 20:25:05 04/23/02 Tue
      - Re: ALERT -- Saleem, 20:55:48 04/23/02 Tue
        Re: ALERT -- FleetAdmiralJ, 21:25:20 04/23/02 Tue
        Re: ALERT -- FleetAdmiralJ, 21:29:05 04/23/02 Tue
        Re: ALERT -- Saleem, 21:36:29 04/23/02 Tue
        Re: ALERT -- Saleem, 21:37:56 04/23/02 Tue
        Re: ALERT -- FleetAdmiralJ, 22:08:22 04/23/02 Tue
        Re: ALERT -- Saleem, 22:25:02 04/23/02 Tue
        Re: ALERT -- FleetAdmiralJ, 22:33:27 04/23/02 Tue
        Re: ALERT -- Clare, 00:43:15 04/24/02 Wed
        Re: ALERT -- Saleem, 08:42:49 04/24/02 Wed
        Re: ALERT -- Dan J, 03:30:33 04/25/02 Thu
        Re: ALERT -- FleetAdmiralJ, 13:10:25 04/25/02 Thu
        Re: ALERT -- Kari, 13:20:15 04/25/02 Thu
        Re: ALERT -- Saleem, 17:51:18 04/25/02 Thu
        Re: ALERT -- FleetAdmiralJ, 19:03:27 04/25/02 Thu
        Re: ALERT -- FleetAdmiralJ, 19:17:43 04/25/02 Thu
        Re: ALERT -- Clare, 00:04:46 04/26/02 Fri
        Re: ALERT -- Kari, 01:19:26 04/26/02 Fri
        Re: ALERT -- Saleem, 14:14:54 04/26/02 Fri
        Re: ALERT -- Josh, 17:50:35 04/26/02 Fri
        Re: ALERT -- FleetAdmiralJ, 13:06:48 04/27/02 Sat
- Re: ALERT -- BrianF, 03:10:14 05/11/02 Sat