John Grisham's twisted views

[Stressing]

So fuming about John Grisham airing his twisted views on child porn. /www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/10624453/John-Grisham-child-porn-argument-wrong

Especially this part, whilst referring to his friend who had the book thrown at him apparently: "So he went there (to the site), 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."

WTF? So it's okay apparently to get pissed and wank off over images of young teenagers who may or may not be around the age of consent, so long as they look 30. And, more importantly, it's okay to do this so long as they are not male.

The fact that we live in a world where there is any kind of grey area surrounding child porn depresses me. How the male need to be sexually gratified is SOOOO important that it presides over the innocence and well-being of a child makes me utterly sick to my stomach.

JG has the arrogance and self importance to put the US justice system on trial due to his version of what he thinks is acceptable and not acceptable - of who is worthy of law enforcement based on age and gender.

You can bet your life that his mate didn't just view a site depicting consenting age females. He went there because he was drawn to the borderline element of the site, obviously, and probably went elsewhere - which is why he had the FBI knocking on his door.

But, according to JG, the fact he wasn't looking at boys means he wasn't really doing anything wrong.

It incenses me.

JG has shown that he really shouldn't be allowed to speak without an interpreter handy.

Anyone who thinks that white collar crime or viewing images of child abuse (sorry, it's not child porn, it is always abuse) is victimless needs to be kept away from society for their own protection.

This explains what I was trying to say much more clearly

Yes Puffins, that post is great. He such a fucking wankbadger. 'Friend' my arse.

When the sentences are harsher for viewing pictures than actually abusing a child - he has a point. The US put a lot of people in prison comparatively.

Scallops, I was nearly sick when I read what he'd said, honestly, anyone who tries to justify what he's saying needs to go and give their heads a wobble.

That is a very good article puffins - there is no such thing as child porn. The correct term is images of child abuse, or indecent images of children.

They depict a real child being abused. The more men that search around the internet and drunkenly wank off to these pictures of children being abused, the more images are made, the more real children are abused.

He doesn't have a point at all Brighton. The answer is to increase the sentences for abusing children not lower the sentences for viewing sexual abuse.

Yes Puffins so was I. It was vile.

Thought you were off for the night, Brighton?

This report indicates that is partly because many viewers of child abuse images also practice abuse and in cases where a viewer is deemed to have a high chance of recidivism, harsh sentences may be used.

www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/199606-rtc-sex-crimes-against-children/199606_RtC_SCAC.pdf

No such thing as child porn.

His comments are a perfect storm of middle aged white male patriarchy. His enemy couldn't have come up with better.

Middle aged wealthy white male patriarchy

I think that there is such a thing as child porn, people know exactly what is meant by the phrase even if it isn't very technical.

I don't agree that more jail is the answer.

Sigh.

What's "technical" about "images of child abuse"?

And what is the answer?

42?

'technical'. Yeah that's what we are objecting to

Still being the MRA 'the voice of reason' then Brighton.

No there is no such thing as child porn. Children are under the age of consent, and so what is being filmed/photographed is not pornography, it is child abuse.

You're really on a roll today, aren't you brighton?

Ah, sorry, feminist quite like to name the actual problem. What those images which you see as being not so problematic, are in fact pictures of children being abused. Therefore we tend to call them what they are, images of child abuse.

You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it doesn't make it a penguin so that people's feelz aren't hurt.

I didn't use that phrase, I just meant that everyone knows what is meant by child porn - so it does exist! There are lots of things where the public use language that isn't strictly accurate.

I actually agree with JG to an extent. Jail is not the right sentence for anyone who has just accessed a website, be it child porn, terrorism or what ever.

I actually agree with JG to an extent.

Quelle surprise.

I for 1 will never ever read one of his books again

It won't make a difference but its a start what an absolute arsehole

Oh, and they all minimise their crimes, they all say they would never touch a 'real' child, while conveniently ignoring the fact that real children were in fact harmed producing the images that they are getting off on.

I just don't have a season pass for the outrage bus! As a rule I think fewer people in jail is a good thing.

They won't have just accessed a website. And if you think that then you really aren't understanding the problem.

I don't have a season pass for minimising crimes against children, and the defending the men who prop up the demand for them by viewing such images.

what will they have done scallops?

You don't think outrage is deserved against child sexual abuse? Wow! Did you used to work in Rotherham?

Why would someone want to view it?