(April 6, 2011 at 6:45 am)tackattack Wrote: @Ash - I'm not quite sure how that response fits in. Does faking illegal acts in porn break the intent of child pornography laws?
@RevJ- Intent is importnat and it is what this is about. The isn't about intent of a person though. It's the intent of the law. It's also different than the FL preacher because what he did was legal and society thought it was generally morally wrong but legally permissable. This convo is about pretending to do something illegal, which general society finds morally wrong however legally permissable if faked. I'm not saying punish people for their thoughts or intent, even though I'd like to (that's another topic), It's about faking illegal acts in porn still violating the reason for the law in the first place.
For instance I wrote a silly law that said something along the lines of:
"It is illegal to film people eating hot dogs because of the phallic shape"
You then film yourself sucking on a sausage. It didn't break the law as a sausage isn't a hot dog, but it did break the intent.
I then would have to reword my law like so
"It is illegal to film people eating anything hot dog shaped"
That's how I see the failure of the child protection laws at this point.
Hum no, the intent of the law is to protect children and teenagers, otherwise we would illegallise faked rape porn too.
