Canadian Politics IV
View Single Post
02-28-2013, 10:06 PM
Join Date: Mar 2004
Originally Posted by
I don't have a problem with his comments. In fact, in an academic setting it would lead to legitimate discussion, as it concerns issues of 'liberty' and its parameters.
For a law and morality class, we were discussing John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle', where (roughly put) he argues that the restriction on liberty should only be towards actions that harm other individuals. Another student raised the question of pornography, and if it would be allowed or disallowed following from Mill's principle. As you can probably see, this is an academic discussion, and I do not think that far away from Flanagan's comments.
For the record, his comments were (from the
I feel that if he clarified his point to be that he feels there is no problem for persons to be looking at child pornography, since it is in their 'taste' and 'liberty', then he would be fine. Of course people are going to disagree because of their moral views, but legally, if someone enjoys child pornography, then what should the law say? The extent of the law being applicable is debatable, since this a person's personal pleasure.
But instead, I think people read his comments as him suggesting there is no problem with child pornography and that the law is incorrect on this regard. This is different from the above, which concerns people viewing child pornography. This would be about the legality of child pornography, meaning if it should be legal or illegal in a state. And obviously this is wrong; it should be illegal. There is a clear issue of consent, invasion of privacy, and other various external forces put onto a child.
I am not sure I follow your oppinion: are you arguing that viewing child pornography does not harm other people?
View Public Profile
The Moose's albums
Find More Posts by The Moose