Your statement “Correlation does not imply causation” a denial of cause and effect.

No, I wasn’t denying any possible cause/effect relationship. I was merely pointing out that you hadn’t established it. I appreciate the citations. I will read them and comment later.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1050519,00.html

Your statement “Correlation does not imply causation” a denial of cause and effect. Pornography is a form of propaganda that says sex of various types is OK. They may actually be right some of the time but not a lot of the time. People then become bored with it and accept it as normal.

Pornography is probably one cause of girls having sex younger and younger at it pictures it as acceptable behavior. It is probably also a result of advertising for a girl to be sexy and the desire to copy what they perceive the older generation to be like.

Bad parenting and poor discipline at schools do help the situation any.

They did find out that children that see sexually explicit scenes are more likely to be sexually active.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/e280?gca=114%2F3%2Fe280&sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract(s)&

you deny the Law of Supply and demand

Incorrect characterization. My exact words were:

I do disagree with the John Roberts’ position that “possession shouldn’t be a crime”, but I understand what all the fuss is about.

The only way to believe that possession of child pornography is dangerous is to assume that the demand for possession reinforces and increases the supply. This is not an unreasonable belief, but it hasn’t exactly been proven either.

I personally believe possession should be illegal, but I am not entirely convinced, given the scope of digital piracy these days, that the total demand necessarily increases the supply. There is no compelling reason for anyone to supply demand that only exists at a $0 price point. Also, I pointed out that the current statute has dangerous technical flaws.

and now the rule of cause and effect.

I don’t understand what led you to say this. Please clarify.

Pornography is a huge industry and the average age of when a girl has sex is declining.

1. I’m no expert on the industry, so this may simply be my ignorance, but I’m not aware of any evidence that the pornography industry is growing significantly faster than the total economy.
2. Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on you to demonstrate the cause/effect relationship.

By the way teachers having sex with minor boys is becoming a fad.

I am aware of the current frequency, but I have not studied the history, so I can’t say whether or not the trend represents an increase in the occurrence or simply an increase in general awareness.

“Interesting analogy. Are crime scene photos illegal?”

Interesting.

First you deny the Law of Supply and demand and now the rule of cause and effect. You must live and interesting life fraught with many unseen dangers if you really live life like that.

Pornography is a huge industry and the average age of when a girl has sex is declining. I suppose you do not see the link.

By the way teachers having sex with minor boys is becoming a fad. It is so much of a fad the Paris Hilton put out a music video based on the idea.

The thing we have overlooked on the porn issue, especially the child porn, is act of creation.

We haven’t discussed it, but I don’t think we’ve overlooked it. I think we all agree that the creation of child pornography is, and should remain, a crime. In fact, I would much rather see law enforcement dollars spent pursuing the creators.

Child pornography is what amounts to crime scene photographs in that they cannot be created without a crime having been committed.

Interesting analogy. Are crime scene photos illegal?

This is not a freedom of expression issue.

The child porn issue** isn’t, but the NAMBLA issue certainly is.

* SCOTUS has clearly ruled that child pornography has little, if any, value to society and is thus not covered by the 1st ammendment. I don’t believe any sane person disagrees with that assessment

** It’s quite possible that SCOTUS has ruled or will rule that NAMBLA’s views aren’t covered under the 1st ammendment either, but I am not aware of any such ruling, so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point.

if our statutes are able to properly reflect that or not, is moot.

I disagree wholeheartedly. If the statutes don’t accurately reflect society’s goals, they must be revised until they do. A democratic society with countless vague laws is no freer than a dictatorship. Citizens of both are subject to the abuse of discretionary powers available to appointed bureaucrats.

The only way to believe that possession of child pornography is dangerous is to assume that the demand for possession reinforces and increases the supply. This is not an unreasonable belief, but it hasn’t exactly been proven either.

No. Child pornography is what amounts to crime scene photographs in that they cannot be created without a crime having been committed. To separate the product from the process is mentally lazy and legally questionable.

We are dancing around the handbags here – lets be clear, this is a moral issue. Child pornography is fundamentally wrong – if our statutes are able to properly reflect that or not, is moot. The fact that organizations like NAMBLA are using the likes of the ACLU (and the ACLU is allowing themselves to be used) to effectively avoid justice by hiding behind expensive lawyers is wrong on so many levels.

This is not a freedom of expression issue – it is delayed justice at most.