How interesting to read a letter suggesting, "Pornography laws misused [Nov. 29 Letters, TIMES]."
Apparently, the thought is that one can film an under-aged person having sex and distribute the video - but yet, that isn't really filming or distributing kiddie porn because it was consensual.
Am I incorrect in the notion that adult film-makers are not forced to film or distribute what correctly is labeled porn, the creation of which is a consensual act?
Is it the setting that makes the crucial difference - sex inside is okay, but outside it's porn?
I don't even get the thought process: "Hey, there's a couple having sex. I'll film it then send it to friends..."
Yeah, let's make the voyeur the victim.
What an utterly flawed attempt at reasoning. It ranks right up there with a person who wrote in earlier in the week chastizing a newspaper for describing someone who had died as being "dead at age. whatever" [Death notice not appreciated, Nov. 27 Letters, TIMES].
Granted, when my mom died and I was grieving, the last thing I needed was a reminder, but that didn't make my mother any less dead - it certainly isn't something I could argue or debate.
(I love you mom : )
Besides which, news media aren't supposed to be all warm touchy-feely - they are supposed to be neutral and unbiased; it's a double-edged sword.
Is it my perception that requires fine tuning? I don't think so.
Robert Adams, Maple Ridge