Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jcky who wrote (9355)	4/17/2002 10:00:14 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Message 17342329

To: jcky who wrote (9355)	4/17/2002 12:02:23 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

"Whether in movies or photographs, it doesn't make a difference whether or not the person engaged in sex is actually a child. If it looks like a child and is said to be a child, pedophiles have found their fix -- and their search for true child pornography will only be enhanced." Well, IMO it does make a difference. Isn't this OK, then? Give the perverts some harmless ersatz and at least it might prevent them using real children... "the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus" Who is this nanny-state censor anyhow? Have they really not got more important things to be stopping, like child labour, misprescription of drugs to children and the like? Sorry, for me this is a nonissue. If actual children are being abused, fine - stamp on abuse and indeed abuser. I could care less about computer graphics, however, Mario can look after himself.