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.

This is outrage over John Grishams views on sentencing of people who have accessed illegal images - not outrage over child abuse per se.

No one gets put in jail for viewing one website Brighton. I can't believe you think that. You are minimising. As usual.

Wow Brighton, you really are hard of thinking. They are images of children being abused. The term child porn is used by perverts to justify and legitimise the I images.

JG is a disgrace but typical of the patriarchal bullshit we are subjected to daily.

Why would they view it? Because they have peadophilic tendencies?

It is outrage over minimising the damage that viewing child sexual abuse does.

Hi Glen - I would bet my house that more people use the phrase 'child porn' in day to day parlance over 'images of child abuse' - not just perverts as you say.

And where should people with paedophilic tendencies be...? Go on you can do it!

Scallops - I meant websites as opposed to website.

More people may use that phrase. Doesn't make it accurate.

Scallops - they should be where ever they like unless they are convicted of committing a crime.

There are a lot of words used in general vocab that are not accurate - people still know what it means.

Viewing images of child abuse is a crime, brighton. Weren't you aware? Or do you just not think it should be?

Yes it should be a crime - I'm just not convinced of the merits of jailing a first time offender.

Well we are talking about those that are convicted of the crime Brighton .

Just not a crime I think should lead to prison for a first time offence.

So this 'first time offender' will have viewed faaar more than 1 website over a period of time. Are they really a first time offender? Or is this just the first time they've been caught?

And some crimes warrant jail sentences for first time offences. Perpetuating child sexual abuse is one of them.

Just because its used by lots of people doesn't make it right. And the fact that out is in everyday use proves my point that it has been wrongly legitimosed

clip clop, clip clop.

The media are always using language that minimises sexual crime. It makes you wonder why...

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.

As a rule I think more people who want to rape children should be in jail.

BUt that's cause I'm not an idiot or a pedophile.

Scallops - they should be where ever they like unless they are convicted of committing a crime.

They have been. HTH

And encouraging child abuse, yes it needs to carry a prison sentence first time.

Yes, I take your point there, and if someone has hard drives full of child porn then like many crimes it can be committed to degrees. I would suggest in many cases for a low level first time offence incarceration is not the answer.

I disagree - many crimes against the person don't mean automatic jail and I would argue a low level offence of the nature being discussed is less harmful.

I know MRAs have agendas, but is defending pedophiles really on the agenda now? Surely we can all get together and say that people who want to rape kids are bad.

Is it because he doesn't approve of sexually assaulting male children you don't think it's a big deal?

Glen - it is a fallacy to suggest that use of the phrase child porn is some kind of endorsement.