Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
If you watch child porn does that make you a pedophile?
Topic Started: Oct 16 2014, 12:09 AM (616 Views)
split decision
Member Avatar
Porn savant
Renowned author John Grisham says not necessarily.

I'm going to reserve judgement until we hear from Bulldog...


Watch child porn? That doesn't make you a pedophile, claims author John Grisham in astonishing attack on US judicial system

-The novelist and lawyer, 59, believes many men have been wrongly sent to prison after watching child porn online
-Claims they 'would never touch a child' and have 'never harmed anybody'
-References a friend of his who drunkenly watched child porn one night but was sent to prison after a FBI sting
-Statements made in an extended interview with The Telegraph
-Grisham maintained he has 'no sympathy for real pedophiles'



Celebrated crime-fiction writer John Grisham has attacked America's judicial system for wrongly locking up men he believes 'accidentally' watched child pornography.

The best-selling author and lawyer - who penned novels like The Rainmaker, The Firm and The Pelican Brief - has given an astonishing interview to The Telegraph defending some child sex offenders, saying they have become victims of a legal system that has 'gone crazy'.

The 59-year-old then called for lighter sentences for those caught downloading images and videos of children being sexually abused.

'We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who've never harmed anybody, would never touch a child,' Grisham told The Telegraph.

'But they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into child porn.'

Grisham - who is preparing to release his new tome, Gray Mountain, next week - said he feels so strongly about the issue because his friend was involved in a child porn sting about 10 years ago.

He said his 'old buddy from law school' became involved in an operation organized by the FBI in Canada.

'His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website,' Grisham told The Telegraph.

'It was labelled ''sixteen-year-old wannabee hookers'' or something like that.

'And it said ''16-year-old girls''. So he went there. Downloaded some stuff - it was 16-year-old girls who looked 30.

'He shouldn't have done it. It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys.

'He didn't touch anything.

'And God, a week later there was a knock on the door: ''FBI!'' and it was sting set up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to catch people - sex offenders - and he went to prison for three years.'

'There's so many of them now. There's so many ''sex offenders'' - that's what they're called - that they put them in the same prison.

'Like they're a bunch of perverts, or something.

'We've gone nuts with this incarceration.'

Grisham was sure to say that he has 'no sympathy for real pedophiles' and believes anyone caught committing such a crime should face harsh penalties.

However he believes many men have been penalized too harshly for doing too little.

Questioned about the fact that viewing child porn fuels child abuse by placing a demand on creating new material, Grisham replied that sentences should still be lower for people who only download the content.

The Telegraph - who will publish their full interview with Grisham this weekend - also noted a major increase in the sentences of people charged with possession of child pornography over the last 10 years.

Between 2004 and 2010, sentences doubled from 54 months to 95 months.

However, a report published in February by Reason magazine claimed that offenders caught viewing child pornography often received harsher sentences than offenders caught sexually abusing children.

It didn't long for Grisham fans to express outrage over his controversial comments.

Many readers immediately went online to crticisize the author's stance.

'After being a firm favourite of mine for over 20 years, Mr Grisham, I can state with all certainty that I will never purchase another book of yours ever again,' Karen Hanna wrote online, according to stuff.co.nz.

'I am absolutely disgusted at the stance you have taken over child pornography and have lost all respect for you.'

Another fan, Bernadine Denham wrote: 'So watching child porn isn't an offence? What a disgusting thing to say. You've lost me.'

Grisham is a married father-of-two.

He and his wife, Renee Jones, were wed in 1981.

They split their time between homes in Oxford, Mississippi, and a Charlottesville, Virginia.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794858/john-grisham-claims-men-view-child-porn-not-real-pedophiles-astonishing-attack-judicial-system.html#ixzz3GGNJUqE9




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
best80smovierad
Member Avatar

is this him planning a sequel to A Time To Kill??

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Juggernaut
Member Avatar

This argument has been made before in legal journals, philosophy classes, and debate societies. Few people would make it as openly a he did.

The case he's making boils down to the following:

1) Viewing a picture is not harming someone, even if the person taking the picture did harm that person greatly. So for example, even though children can never consent, neither could a guy like James Foley when he was killed by ISIS. Someone arguing Grisham's position would ask why - if you think it's okay to watch the Foley video without being prosecuted - one is wrong but not the other.

2)That even if viewing the pictures is morally repugnant and psychologically troubling, viewing them doesn't mean you're going to physically engage in pedophilia.

3)That the nature of computers makes it more likely for police to spend their time doing sting operations and setups, and not focusing on more dangerous criminals.


The arguments for the other side are as follows:

1) Viewing child porn incentivizes more child porn being made, i.e. more rapes and kidnapping and exploitation. These people have online communities wherein they share pictures and videos. If it were legal to do so, these things would grow, and ultimately more children would be violated.

2) Children are re-victimized when the pictures are seen. The initial exploitation was bad enough, but it grows more serious and traumatizing the more these images are passed around. These children would be worse off if they had to live with it being legal and easy to pass around the pictures of the crimes committed against them on the internet.

3) Children deserve special protection because they are the most vulnerable. Other awful things happen too, but children are inherently more fragile and at risk than grown adults, and as a such the legal system should protect them more.



____

There are more and more counter-arguments and responses that each side could lob. It's an interesting argument. What I personally wish though is that it's an argument that could be had without outrage and personal demonization. Obviously it's an extremely emotional issue for a lot of people, but it's not some crazy debate. Both sides have legitimate arguments.
Edited by The Juggernaut, Oct 16 2014, 12:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Strongo
Member Avatar
cockcrusher
watching a young child for your sexual pleasure is fucked but if you're into their cute dimple bum bums then whats the big deal.

*edit* disregard the sig.
Edited by Strongo, Oct 16 2014, 12:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
split decision
Member Avatar
Porn savant
^^^ Well, that pretty much leaves little ground for anyone else to cover! ;)

I wonder how his wife, Renee Jones, feels about his public statements on the subject.

I imagine them at home:

"John, come down here and get your dinner. It's ready."

"I'll be right there, Renee. I'm just, uh, filing some photos."

"%$#&ing perv..."

"What's that, honey?"

"Nothing. It's pot roast and potatoes, that's all."


EDIT: My arrows were pointing up at Juggz' post but Strongo and his friend Tom Selleck slipped in there while I was typing.
Edited by split decision, Oct 16 2014, 12:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
best80smovierad
Member Avatar

I was just thinking if i watch the video of a girl I slept with when we were 16 today, am I a pedophile??? It's sitting next to my old disney vhs tapes, I should fix that
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
split decision
Member Avatar
Porn savant
best80smovierad
Oct 16 2014, 12:35 AM
I was just thinking if i watch the video of a girl I slept with when we were 16 today, am I a pedophile??? It's sitting next to my old disney vhs tapes, I should fix that
But you have no moral dilemma over whacking off to The Little Mermaid and Pocahontas?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
best80smovierad
Member Avatar

split decision
Oct 16 2014, 12:37 AM
best80smovierad
Oct 16 2014, 12:35 AM
I was just thinking if i watch the video of a girl I slept with when we were 16 today, am I a pedophile??? It's sitting next to my old disney vhs tapes, I should fix that
But you have no moral dilemma over whacking off to The Little Mermaid and Pocahontas?
everyone on here is okay with tom selleck but not jasmine, ariel or pocahontas???
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

You're a pedophile if you enjoy watching porn with little kids.

Fuck that.

Now - like with everything else - there's gray area. For example - a super hot and stacked 17 year old. I don't see the issue with that.

Or Asian babies. Ok there too.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Skeletonrock
Member Avatar

Yeah, John Grisham's story sounds a little suspect.

The guy went to one site, one time? And got locked away for three years? That sounds ridiculous and I wonder if there isn't more to the story.

But, yeah, I don't think someone should be locked up for watching 16-17 year old girls. Are they children? Legally yes, and should be protected as such. But some teens are physically "older" and look like 25 year olds. Your biological wiring can't tell the difference and doesn't care.

Maybe he did something gross and dumb, but he shouldn't be incarcerated and have his life destroyed over it.

Now if you look at little kids and shit? Fuck man. That's some pedophilia shit and you need serious help. If you ever offend you should probably be put down.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
best80smovierad
Member Avatar

Tallica
Oct 14 2014, 09:46 PM
Posted Image


BDW
Oct 15 2014, 12:01 AM
Tallica
Oct 14 2014, 09:46 PM
Posted Image
I'm not the only one with a boner right now, am I?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
19nate79

Well there is the double standard that pedophilia pretty much only applies to men in the cases people joke about. 30 year old teacher fucks a 14 year old boy and she can expect to see as much as 3 seconds in jail. Reverse it and people call for the chair.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
19nate79




Who can pass up a sale like that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ash
Member Avatar
5 Shovels
I think human sexuality is too complicated to simply say if you watch child pornography you're definitively a pedophile. If you have a sexual attraction to children that's definitely not good and cause for concern, but what even is child pornography? I think what constitutes child pornography needs to be more clearly and properly defined, because it's too broad of a term for as caustic a label it is.

I don't know if Grisham's story about his buddy having a mental lapse and then having the FBI jump up his asshole is true or not, but I do know for certain people have been both charged and imprisoned for owning art or imagery that was reputed to be child pornography using the loosest definition of the term possible. Paul Reubens was charged taking great liberties with the term, I feel. As already mentioned, I think a lot of people feel anything involving a 16-17 year old girl shouldn't be held to the same standard than anything scandalous involving a nude child, but the law considers those things one and the same. That's problematic because quite frankly they aren't the same thing at all. Does anyone really think seeing an old porno video of Traci Lords being fucked is the same thing as seeing a child under the age of 11 being sexually assaulted? Maybe I'm wrong, but those things seem much, much different to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cbear
Member Avatar

I remember when Traci Lords was the hottest thing going and she was everywhere. Then she was kryptonite literally over night and the witch hunt was on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4