Apap codeine. Codeine online. Codeine combined pseudoephedrine. Codeine vicodin. Codeine. Allergic symptoms signs codeine.

I read it. Back then, and a number of times since then. So? I disagree with your facile and self-serving spin on it.

>few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice.

Well, that’s not psychiatry, that’s merely judicial opinion. In fact, the claim that fictional images will be enough to sate the pedophile is given the lie by this judicial opinion, and that’s a good thing.

And the story isn’t at all over yet, and there will be other legal attempts to refine or reverse Ashcroft due to two factors — the boom in child porn and studies that show correlation between offenders and porn viewers — and that might well be appropriate if one can demonstrate that virtual worlds are enablers. The article Kryss posts suggests that they are. Even if the sample studied are those caught and charged, and there’s this putative other larger percent of those not caught and not offenders but viewers, there is still *enough* of a correleation at least with *some percentage* that it’s not worth fooling around with. I just don’t get the zeal with which people rush to defend the virtual enactment of destruction of innocence; it’s morally repugnant and as an act, shouldn’t be defended on grounds of “art” as it is not socially redeeming.

“o even having people look at mere copies that they didn’t pay for of RL porn helps contribute to the overall crime and criminality.
o therefore one can make a stronger case for virtual porn being something that should be outlawed”

One can make a “stronger case” against “virtual child pornography” with that reasoning all they want, but for US citizens at least, that type of case was already REJECTED by the US Supreme Court in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition. When are you going to get around to actually reading that case decision?

Quoting (minus citations):

“The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles’ appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct. The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all.”

Posted by: protozz | June 01, 2007 at 04:54 AM

______________________________________________________________________________________

Well, I guess some people will have to review their concepts. I did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html

Majority Opinion, Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition:

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” and imposing a criminal sanction on protected speech is a “stark example of speech suppression.” At the same time, sexual abuse of children “is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people.” “Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has.” The great difficulty with the two provisions of the CPPA at issue in this case was that they included categories of speech other than obscenity and child pornography, and thus were overbroad.

The Court concluded that the “CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” In particular, it prohibits the visual depiction of teenagers engaged in sexual activity, a “fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages.” Such depictions include performances of Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare; the 1996 film William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet, directed by Baz Luhrmann; and the Academy Award winning movies Traffic and American Beauty. “If these films, or hundreds of others of lesser note that explore those subjects, contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, the possessor of the film would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the work’s redeeming value. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene.”

Thus, the CPPA prohibited speech for a different reason than anti-child pornography laws. Laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. But speech prohibited by the CPPA “records no crime and creates no victims by its production.” Child pornography is not necessarily without value, but it is illegal because of the harm that making and distributing it necessarily inflicts upon children. Ferber expressly allowed virtual child pornography as an alternative that could preserve whatever literary value child pornography might arguably have while at the same time mitigating the harm caused by making it. The CPPA would eliminate this distinction and punish people for engaging in what had heretofore been a legal alternative.

The Government countered that without the CPPA, child molesters might use virtual child pornography to seduce children. But “there are many things innocent in themselves, however, such as cartoons, video games, and candy, that might be used for immoral purposes, yet we would not expect those to be prohibited because they can be misused.” The First Amendment draws a distinction between words and deeds, and does not tolerate banning of mere words simply because those words could lead to naughty deeds. Although the CPPA’s objective was to prohibit illegal conduct, it went well beyond that goal by restricting speech available to law-abiding adults. And if the goal was to eliminate the market for all child pornography, the Court ruled that the government could not accomplish that goal by eliminating lawful speech in the process. The burden should not, however, fall on the speaker to prove that his speech is lawful, instead of on the government to prove that it is not. Furthermore, such an affirmative defense is “incomplete on its own terms” because it “allows persons to be convicted in some instances where they can prove children were not exploited in the production.”

[quote]Can you point to anyone who has been banned soley for sexual ageplay that was not related to real-life child pornography?[/quote]

[url=http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/05/09/accusations-regarding-child-pornography-in-second-life/]Yes.[/url]

“The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.” US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

Can you point to anyone who has been banned soley for sexual ageplay that was not related to real-life child pornography?

You haven’t “warned us” or “told you so” because we’re not stupid, and can see what is involved in policies like this. The challenge is to see how they will enforce them.

>which appears to contradict your claim. Alas, putting text in all caps does not constitute evidence or proof.

People work overtime to contradict this claim. Law-enforcement and experts in the field see it. It seems persuasive to me, what they’re saying. I have no reason to DIS-connect what looks pretty obviously connected. I realize pedophiles have every reason to justify, rationalize, whitewash, prevaricate and DIS-connection what others see with common sense as connected, and they work overtime to “educate them”. I don’t see why I need to accept their argumentation. Societies in RL find pedophilia wrong, and outlaw it. As they do in virtual life. Normal, all of it, and reasonable.

As I’ve noted to various trolls like Csven, I put links for people to study. People often click on links and then hasten back like squealing schoolgirls screaming, oh, but it doesn’t say what you think it says! To which I can only say, that’s fine, I put links for people to study, they will have pros and cons, keep looking and reading. Keep googling. Follow links. Follow up. Study. There are studies that show these links. They are of course disputed by pedophiles — but why are we surprised. I think if God himself descended from the heavens and said there is an indisputable link, somebody would ask for a URL.

1. It doesn’t take any indisputable link for me to find it offensive and be concerned there is enough of a chance of a link to remove it.
2. The New York Times quotes those finding a link not in the sense of a “causal link” but in the justification, rationalization, and lowering of barriers to inhibition which Internet porn and chat groups create– that’s enough of a problem for me to act.
3. Other links contain studies linking the two, althoug not finding some 100 percent linkage. That’s fine, even 1 percent linkage is 1 percent too much.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Dyerbrook/morton_salt.jpg

Only maybe the deaf-mute-blind person does really want to know the facts. Prok and the others are only interrested in their own opinion, which they convince as being the utter, absolute truth.

Even if they themselves know they’re making shit up.

I have never, never seen anyone of them actually coming back, and rectifying their ‘truth’ after having a little chat with an ageplayer, but who wants to talk to a pedophile anyways, right?

I’ll be laughing SOOO hard when Prok gets AR’ed for being broadly offensive and banned. I think I’ll start now, just to get a headstart and not run out of breath when the time comes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (to be continued)

“I do RELATE a sickening real life crime with simulation of that crime because the connection IS DEMONSTRATED.”

I went to your blog and read what I presume is the post in which you deal with the topic. It includes the statement

“Studies show that viewers of child pornography take out their destructive attractions to real life…”

with each of the words “Studies” and “show” having a link to a paper on child pornography. If the first link is any indication, I have to wonder why you included it, save possibly to impress the rubes, because the conclusion of the first linked document states

“In other words, sex offenders may become involved with pornography for a variety of reasons. Despite this involvement, there is no evidence of a causal link between viewing adult or child pornography and the commission of sexual crimes.”

which appears to contradict your claim. Alas, putting text in all caps does not constitute evidence or proof.

I am not in the slightest bit interested in your slanging match with csven, or whoever. Nor am I making any sort of apology for any sort of sexual ‘age play’ in SL…i have spoken out against it directly when i have encountered avatars who fit this profile and will have nothing to do with any resident whose group profile has anything in it that at all that gives any indication of participation or support of such behaviour. In that regard I am totally behind any moves to rid SL of that form of perniciousness

What is utter nonsense is your statement that ‘Gays and AIDS do sometimes go together. To say they are unrelated would be retarded. BDSM and pedophilia go together often too, more’s the pity. And both are reprehensible lifestyles intellectually indefensible in a democratic and free society.’

Your insinuation that people with an interest in BDSM (and i notice that you even fail to make any effort to even differentiate between the different genres falling within that umbrella) are likely to be pedophiles , ie those who desire sexual contact with children and young people who are below the age of consent, is insulting and detestable, being so far from the truth as to be risible. Most would shop any sign of pedophile activity without any hesitation at all.

On that, and the more general point on the intellectual indefensibility of BDSM practice, you need to do your homework properly. Certainly there is nothing that shows any signs of journalistic integrity in that. It’s merely a prejudiced rant. Many of the other writers here have also challeged you on this and you clearly do not know what you are talking about

Whatever, I should be grateful if you would have the good grace to apologise for the abhorrent linkage made and your acknowledgement that it is not evidentially sustainable.

As far as your having difficulty understanding or accepting the ways in which other peoples’ sexuality functions, FWIW, a local Durex survey reported recently that approximately 35% of the population had indulged in/desired to participate in sexual practice that encompassed some place along what might be described as the spectrum of BDSM activity, so the depth of your ignorance and intolerance is either quite profound, or, and here I should like to give you the benefit of the doubt, you are at least significantly uninformed.

I am sure that even though there might be an understanding why, and forgiveness for you for the fact that you may not fully be able to comprehend, or bring yourself to acknowledge that, for the greater part people who do indulge in the range of BDSM activities do so willingly (there will be a small number, as in EVERY area of human life, for whom a universal statement might not be true and I would not stoop to endangering my general point by implying otherwise). These people are not some form of evil incarnate stalking the earth, or SL for that matter. That this is so should be even more self-evident from the SL experience, from the mere fact that, in SL, nothing can be done non consensually, so there has to be a mutual willingness.

I trust that you can at least exercise the common courtesy of retracting your original assertion.