Ex Harper Aide Flanagan Blows Minds

[cog]

Anybody catch this story?He feels viewing child porn should not be punishable by jail time.Apperantly he was also on that Man boy mailing list.Just what the conservatives need.

[rickerred]

Yeah, saw him on the news last night. He needs a kick in the junk.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/02/28/calgary-tom-flanagan-child-porn.html

[tiramisu]

Definitely controversial. "I saw an event" defined as a criminal offence punishable with incarceration. From a political perspective he definitely took the wrong side of the debate but from a legal perspective you have to wonder about the validity of the law. That the act is criminal and the appropriate punishment is "needs killin" is fairly clear BUT is seeing the act, thinking about the act, communicating about the act criminal? At what point does an uninvolved individual become complicit in a criminal act? I enjoy a good witch hunt as much as the next guy but the whole thing raises some tough edge questions.

[rickerred]

"At what point does an uninvolved individual become complicit in a criminal act?"

If a person has first hand info or knowledge (not hearsay) of a criminal act (didn't participate) and decides to inform the authorities said person should not be held accountable or responsible, however there is the "what if" scenario. Very slippery slope from the legal and moral side for the informer and the authorities.

[cog]

The consumers of this perpetuate the trade.He knows some young person was harmed to produce it.Besides the fact that consumers of this might eventually act out their fantasies.Another wingnut from the U of Calgary.

[tiramisu]

The consumers of this perpetuate the trade.He knows some young person was harmed to produce it.Besides the fact that consumers of this might eventually act out their fantasies.Another wingnut from the U of Calgary.

Don't get me wrong I do agree with the wingnut comment BUT...

Does simply watching ****ed up shit on the internet make you a "consumer"? If you aren't paying then how are you perpetuating?

Does watching ****ed up shit on the internet that you don't know who they are/where they are/if they are real or faked/etc provide you with "first hand knowledge"... Seems pretty close to Hearsay to me.

The acting out on fantasies argument doesn't really wash from any kind of moral perspective. Having a deviant thought and acting on that thought are entirely different animals. An extreme example.... Though most serial killers were animal abusers, most animal abusers are not serial killer killers.

It's not obvious to me that the simple consumption of this vile crap is or should be criminal within our legal system despite it being morally repulsive.
Creation and distribution on the other hand should definitely be capital crimes. Of course Distribution is another slippery slope. I can't remember who it was that finally conned me into watching "two girls in a cup" but it could be argued that the were responsible for Distribution and should be shot.

[cog]

Two girls in a teacup?Im afraid to look that up.End up on a list or something .

[faller]

Two girls in a teacup?Im afraid to look that up.End up on a list or something .

LOL! You have to watch it, you've not lived until you do. You won't be put on any list, unless they have a list for really f'ed up shit. :)