in my opinion the guy was a sick bastard who wuda done it if he was online or not, they are usuin the internet as a scapegoat. personally i think necrophillia shud be internationally illegal and banned but that is because i find it repulsive. in the real world tho no matter what happens there will still be sites and still be photos u cant stop ppl from doin what they want

~nikki~

__________________
Ravage Me!

Me Time
Long Lonley Night
Tied Up
Teased

http://thesmashedfairy.blogspot.com/

I am coming to the conclusion that the WWW is facilitating actions, whether it be crime, terrorism or sexual crime. There are too many cases of the latter to deny that what would have remained fantasy has been able to become reality because of the net whereas previously it would almost certainly not have happened.

I doubt very much that the German cannibal would have found someone who wanted to be killed and eaten through his everyday contact with people where he lived.

Societies decide how much of their personal freedom they submit for the wider benefit of their community. This site censors what the majority consider the bottom of the barrel in sexual perversion and I presume because we come here, we don't have a problem with this.

In Europe, we don't have an issue about a loss of rights because we don't need to bear arms. Please consider whether this may have an impact on the fact that more people are killed by guns in Florida each year than the whole of Europe. I am not saying that your community can't decide what rights it wants, but there are consequences that you have to live with.

There are consequences to choices.

__________________
Vigil, if you were my husband, I would give you poison.

Madam, if you were my wife, I would take it.

Vigil,

The Internet, and its pretty face, the WWW, is enabling many new activities, some obviously better than others. That’s what new technologies do. Clearly, the technologies used in preparation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons have such terrible risks that access to them is restricted.

Distinguishing between human rights and government entitlements is an interesting discussion. Comparing the number or range of individual freedoms available to Europeans and Floridians is another. The freedom or lack thereof of women, in this instance a religious minority, the Muslims in France, to wear headscarves might serve to launch the debate. Here in the States, we consider such a choice innocuous and entirely within the realm of personal choice. The government of France no longer shares that view.

I’m sure we all agree that there are consequences to choices. Given the coercive power of the state, I’d suggest that the wisest course of action is to leave few rather than many choices for it to make. Which choices should the state make? What is the remit of government?

__________________
Eudaimonia

This is precisely the issue, Jseal.

And my vote will be to forego my right to have access to sexually criminal (and other criminal activity) sites if there is even the slightest chance that they may lead to someone innocent becoming a victim of a viewer who translates the fantasy into reality.

So I put the rights of the victim first.

I quite trust the European Governments to have the debate on where the lines of criminality are (they will be liberal) and to propose thereafter to Europeans.

Incidentally, Jseal, the French won't be allowed to wear visible crucifixes either, or hassidic clothes/skull caps or lord knows what.

But please don't start me on France. The policy is bananas and if taken to its logical conclusion I suppose the Police and others shouldn't wear uniforms?

Fou!!!

The WWW is just a reflection of a changing society.

To argue how many people would not have been killed had the

formula for gunpowder been suppressed, or if the Web had been

better regulated is interesting, but basically irrelevant.

The genie's out of the bottle, Pandora's box is open, the stable

door's open and we shall all live with the consequences.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

OK

So we are not all going to agree - that's fine, in fact preferable.

But there was something left in Pandora's box - hope.

There is a difference between what is clearly fantasy and that which is and is depicted as reality. The latter facilitates others to turn fantasy into reality.

There are laws against some of these subjects being published in magazines or books with the real scenes shown in pictures - so why should we accept it on the internet - you may, I don't.

What is the difference between

1/ A woman having rape fantasies
2/ A man having rape fantasies and
3/ A woman having rape fantasies and imagining that it is you raping her?

__________________
Vigil, if you were my husband, I would give you poison.

Madam, if you were my wife, I would take it.

Vigil,

The proposed legislation does seem intolerant. I hasten to add that such intolerance is not limited to the French, merely that it is a good example of why I tend to be suspicious of government.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Vigil,

Many people share that view.

As there cannot be a prosecution without a defendant, while there are many without a victim, it seems more appropriate to me that the focus of a criminal prosecution should be on the defendant rather than the victim.

The prosecution of the individual by the state is not for the benefit of the victim. Rather, it is because the defendant is alleged to have fallen so far from the accepted norms of society that the state feels obligated to bring sanctions, through its policing function, of one form or another upon the defendant, thus predisposing him or her to change their wayward behavior.

In a court of law, the results of a successful prosecution, be they fines, imprisonment, or other intrusions into the defendant’s life, have rather more impact upon the accused than comments made by the hoi poloi. As a result, I remain prejudiced towards the defendant, who, until convicted, retains all the rights and privileges of any other citizen of good standing.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Compelling as always, Jseal.

Would a defendant prefer not be to be so if the State had taken its other responsibility and prevented him/her from commiting an offence, if it had the power to do so?

Prevention is better than cure, but where does the State draw the line. I imagine Europe would be far more liberal than the US, or states within the US.

Internationally we have drawn a line under child porn, I would include necrophilia, real rape and bestiality. I appreciate that it is a case of restriction rather than elimination.

__________________
Vigil, if you were my husband, I would give you poison.

Madam, if you were my wife, I would take it.

So how do you guys feels about chemical castration as a preventative for child molesters or rapists?

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

Vigil & Lilith,

A strong juxtaposition of posts!

I am, as I’m sure you are aware, deeply suspicious of preemptive government efforts on my behalf.

That being said, sex offenders, such as rapists, pedophiles, and even exhibitionists, commit crimes that put fear into the general public and pose a threat to people that live in their neighborhoods. They are a clear and present danger to the population, and particularly to the children.

Chemical castration is an effective technique . When the testosterone levels of men convicted of sex crimes is lowered, recidivism rates fall from greater than 45% to less than 5%.

http://www.crime-times.org/95d/w95dp6.htm

Their sexual fantasies are lessened as a result of the reduction of testosterone levels. It is an "offender friendly" way of reducing sexual violence. It is also cost effective. Some estimate that the injections cost $21 a day, while incarceration costs twice that. This is not to say that the cost of the sanction (imprisonment vs. chemical castration) should determine the sanction, but it is a factor that should be considered.

Finally, the treatment is not permanent, so if the conviction is reversed on appeal or for any other reason, the convicted can return to his normal, if that is the appropriate term, functioning.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/1/18


Still, there are ethical issues involved. Physicians should avoid administering a drug to a patient if that drug is not clearly beneficial to that patient. This drug would be administered for the benefit of other people, rather than the patient himself.

Historically, the Federal government is rather liberal, insofar as it has had a limited range of direct involvement with its citizens. This has changed of late, but most of the draconian legislation here is dished out by the states, which reflect the enormous range of acceptable or appropriate behavior in this very variegated nation.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Don't quote me on this, but I think that this form of treatment is available to offenders if they choose - and that is where I would leave it, with the individual rather than the state. We seem to have far more lenient parole in Europe than you do in the States and there is great unease about the way we allow people back into the community whilst they still represent a danger.

But I don't believe the old feminist mantra that all men are rapists.

Existing European censorship on other media is very liberal in that anything performed by two consenting adults is ok. Therefore bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia are no no's. The problem area is the rougher stuff.

Having the internet consistent with this position does not seem repressive to me.

I see what you mean Vigil, but I don't think that the availability of the media covering these acts not involving consenting human adults actually precipitates the acts.

__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters

Another thread discussed the correlative increase in practised bestiality in Sweden after they finally criminalised child pornography.

Even if there was no evidence for the depiction facilitating the practice, I would still censor these activities as they include a criminal act against, a child, animal or dead body (god help us).

I think we would have something to say if N. Korea legalised crack cocaine and forging the $ and started making them available over the internet.