I've made it clear to my teenager that sexting is a crime and they could be charged with child pornography.
Because it is, and they could.
And, as a teacher, if I knew about it, I would have to report them.
The law is the law.
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Fisherman
In one jurisdiction in the US, it is a crime for someone over the age of 21 to have sex with someone under the age of 17. In Australia the age of consent is 16. Can a 16 year old boy legally consent to sex with a 54 year old in Australia?
-
Fisherman
The law is the law.
When reporting is compulsory by statute, not reporting is a violation of the related statute.
-
Richard Oliver
If you want to talk about the legality of Watchtower reporting cases of child porn then stick with the legality of it. If you want to speak about the morality then stick with that. Just because it is pointed out again it is a complex issue and a worldwide directive has to vary to some degree based on jurisdictions and how certain governments view it then you immediately switch. Is child porn showing the abuse of a child of course. but it is not that simple anymore.
There is a segment of porn that depicts legal performers that look exceptionally young in porn or the fantasy of some people to watch porn that fantasies legal performers who pretend that they are high school students. It is the law defines what is allowed depending on the jurisdictions. Then you have some countries where even the sex acts of not 18 year olds but only 21+ is allowed. It is a complex situation.
-
OrphanCrow
So. Let's be clear about this.
Both of you, Fisherman and RO, you both think that viewing child pornography is not considered child sex abuse?
Let's use a narrow definition. "Child pornography" will refer to images of children less than ten years of age, engaging in sexual acts with an adult.
Would viewing images of children being raped be considered child abuse? Answer this personally. From your own conscience. Speak to us with that and forget the legalism mumbo jumbo. Tell us what you really think.
Yes. Or no. Which is it? Is it child abuse to look at images children/babies getting raped? Or is it not? For sexual pleasure. Not for some other kind of excuse you want to throw up. No legalism allowed in your response. Just one word.
-
Fisherman
morally or legally?
Legally maybe. Morally, some people would be forced to view them for law enforcement, in that case no. IF the viewing contributed to the child abuse then yes. It is unthinkable how someone can get sexual gratification from harming children sexually. I cannot understand that.
-
Richard Oliver
OC in your narrow definition yes that is child abuse. But again in your narrow definition, which is not the legal definition, of someone under 10. -
OrphanCrow
RO: If you want to talk about the legality of Watchtower reporting cases of child porn then stick with the legality of it. If you want to speak about the morality then stick with that.
Goose and gander, huh, Richard?
Check that those holy guidelines that were released by the WT. They are chock full of scriptures. Who is mixing up moral and legal now?
This is exactly what the problems are with the WT. They stand on their Bible but won't accept anyone else using it. Clearly, they chose which words of Jesus to follow - keep the two witness rule but ignore the ones that don't suit them.
The WT is the one who needs to quit mixing morality with legality and then maybe we would get somewhere.
-
Richard Oliver
Ok OC. Do you want governments to regulate morality or laws?
-
OrphanCrow
Fisherman: morally or legally?
Why does that matter? Is not the law based on our moral codes? Is not the law a living thing? Do you not understand the fundamental nature of law itself?
I find it paradoxical that the WT, with their army of JWs, will have no problem taking a stand outside the law and scream until the rights and freedoms of their precious organization is ceded to, and yet when it comes to the rights and freedoms of the very most vulnerable in society, the children, they fall back on...legalism. The JWs could be making great strides in changing those laws that they so neatly hide behind, but no. They won't. They will let their children die for lack of blood. They will go to hjail rather than fight for their country. They will sue all sorts of entities for their right to spread literature. They are ALL about changing laws.
But they won't help change laws to protect children.
Assholes.
RO: OC in your narrow definition yes that is child abuse. But again in your narrow definition, which is not the legal definition, of someone under 10.
You couldn't do it, could you? You had to add your caveat to your response. Just a tiny bit of honesty is shining through, though. We have a start.
I don't care if my definition is narrow - it is supposed to be. That narrow definition fits inside the broad definition that feels the most comfortable to you. It is that simple. You have finally admitted that the WT is wrong. Viewing child pornography (yes, the narrow definition) is child abuse.
Go tell the Watchtower that. And open that crack just a little bit more. Don't slam it shut. I have high hopes for you. That was a big step, Richard. Congratulations.