I am amazed that the most recently prolific antagonist has actually
made the following statement.
[Begin direct quote]
"Yet your solution for the protection of children is to plaster their
nude
photos all over Usenet without their informed consent. You are not a
boylover
at all, are you." (note incorrect punctuation--ed)
[End direct quote]
The conclusion is that, by heavens, children are capable of giving
"informed consent" or the statement would not have been couched in
such verbiage.
Of course, the subsequent argument might revolve not around the term
"consent" but around the intent of term "informed." I have little
doubt as to how our dear protagonist will draw those parameters.
Concurrently, given this statement, if posting pictures of nude
children without their "informed consent" is wrong ... indeed if not a
crime ... then such popular picture sites such as Webshots, Picasa,
Fotki, etc. are filled with perpetrators [the majority of them being
doting parents and relatives] guilty of the same ... literally
thousands of them.
Where then should IWF begin? Quite a conundrum, to say the least.
Cheers,
HMS Victor Victorian NP-g18
God Save the Queen!
God Preserve the Prince of Wales!
Rule Britannia!
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|