Ron Paul votes to squish small animals

[BoberFett]

A difference is that crush videos fuel the market for the illegal activity. Stopping the distribution of videos dries up the market is the argument. Stopping distribution of what you're talking about does not stop the underlying act.

So rather than have a video circulating on the internet, these people will find others online who share their sick fetish and organize more live events, because they can't share the videos.

Look, we can all grasp at straws.

And Craig, you're an idiot.

 

[CanOWorms]

So rather than have a video circulating on the internet, these people will find others online who share their sick fetish and organize more live events, because they can't share the videos.

Look, we can all grasp at straws.

And Craig, you're an idiot.

Perhaps. But what I posted is one of the factors that made child pornography an unprotected form of speech. It seems reasonable to apply it to another prohibition of distribution of a depiction. Those that make the videos are usually doing the underlying act. The production of the material provides an economic motive for the act. Etc. It's a different situation than what OFFascist described.

 

[BoberFett]

Perhaps. But what I posted is one of the factors that made child pornography an unprotected form of speech. It seems reasonable to apply it to another prohibition of distribution of a depiction. Those that make the videos are usually doing the underlying act. The production of the material provides an economic motive for the act. Etc. It's a different situation than what OFFascist described.

And the same applies to child porn as well. How do we know that banning kiddie porn, as offensive as it is, hasn't resulted in actual abuse because the sicko couldn't get his rocks off at his computer?

Has such a study ever been done? Or are we just going to pass laws based on gut feelings, and without any kind of evidence?

 

[CanOWorms]

And the same applies to child porn as well. How do we know that banning kiddie porn, as offensive as it is, hasn't resulted in actual abuse because the sicko couldn't get his rocks off at his computer?

Has such a study ever been done? Or are we just going to pass laws based on gut feelings, and without any kind of evidence?

I don't think the argument to allow a handful of children to be abused to save the rest would be acceptable regardless of any type of evidence.

 

[bullbert]

Is the OP a total nut job, or is he/she being sarcastic. It is getting harder and harder to tell...

 

[BoberFett]

I don't think the argument to allow a handful of children to be abused to save the rest would be acceptable regardless of any type of evidence.

But if the goal is to do good, aren't we obligated to find out if our methods are actually doing good? What if they just make us feel good, but actually increase the amount of harm done?

And you seem to have missed the point. The act is the harm, and that has already been done. You can't change the past. Punish those who committed the act, but does banning the video truly have a positive impact?

 

[jackschmittusa]

So, if a person figures he'll get a weekend in jail and 10 hours of community service under local animal cruelty laws and make $10k from the video, this could be a business plan?

I think profiting from a crime should not be allowed.