With Scott Ritter in custody, can 15-year-old girls no longer access online porn?

[Boojatta]

What systems are in place to ensure that 15-year-old girls cannot access online porn?

Alternatively, perhaps the crux of the issue is the difference between live action porn versus pre-recorded porn. Is that an extremely important difference?

[chrisa]

1. Huh?

[Boojatta]

3. I require a question before I can provide an answer.

There are, of course, some things that 15-year-olds cannot in practice do because they are actually prevented from doing those things. For example, there are official academic tests that they are not eligible to attempt:

What is the Minimum Age for Testing for the GED in Maine

The Minimum Age for Testing in Maine is 18 years old. Note: a 17 year old may test if they have been out of school for one year or have an Immediate Need as defined by the State of Maine officials.

Link:
http://www.my-ged.com/ged-testing-programs/maine/default.aspx

[randome]

5. You're surely not suggesting that sex with a minor is 'not so bad'.

Are you?

[Boojatta]

9. What are the facts?

In allowing others to see him on a webcam, was Ritter having sex with anyone who saw him? In that case, if he was actually being watched by a male police officer, then Ritter had gay sex.

[chrisa]

6. I'm sorry. I just don't understand the OP.

What does 15 year old girls not being able to access porn have to do with Scott Ritter?

And the part about live action vs. pre-recorded. What do you mean?

[teddy51]

2. Well I guess he is a pervert, or at least that is what the authorities are saying.

I don't have any girls as my kids, but I would be very upset if they encountered an online pervert.

Edit to add: It would be my wife and my fault for not being on top of what my girls were doing online.

[Boojatta]

7. Your guess sounds plausible; he probably is a pervert.

However, I'm trying to figure out what kind of encounter 15-year-old girls are being protected from. Suppose that a 15-year-old girl communicates online with another 15-year-old girl, and uses a webcam to show pre-recorded porn. Provided that the porn actors don't resemble Scott Ritter, is no harm done?

[randome]

8. I'm pretty sure there are laws against that, also.

Minors cannot have sex with minors. Minors cannot entice minors to have sex, etc.

Just because 2 girls are involved in your hypothetical example doesn't mean it isn't sexual.

[Boojatta]

12. The point of my hypothetical example ...

is that they are the same age, but one of them has access to legal porn (i.e. porn showing adults having sex, adults who presumably might resemble Scott Ritter, unless there is some kind of law prohibiting people who look like Scott Ritter from working as porn stars).

If a website allows people who have webcams to connect, and to display the webcam images to minors, then nothing prevents one minor who has a computer and a webcam from playing a porn video on a computer screen and using a webcam to transmit video of the porn to other minors. The transmitter and the receiver could both be minors. However, the porn (assuming it is legal) shows adults who might resemble Scott Ritter.

To prevent that kind of thing, it would seem to be necessary to prevent people who have webcams from connecting to a website that allows minors to view the website.

[randome]

13. A minor having access to legal porn is likely illegal, too.

Who gave her the porn?

Sorry, this thread is going nowhere fast. I assume you are trying to say Ritter should not be in jail. Not many people will agree with that.

[Boojatta]

14. "Who gave her the porn?"

If she is using an internet-connected computer without somebody watching every moment, then she can probably figure out a way to access porn.

I don't know whether or not Ritter should be in jail. My thought isn't that he shouldn't be. My thought is that if it's necessary for him to be in jail, then there is probably a need for things to be locked down much more securely than they are now.

[randome]

15. Separate issues.

A man who tries to proposition a 15 y/o girl and then masturbates in front of her is unconnected to Internet security issues.

It is necessary for him to be in jail and it is necessary for parents to have meaningful relationships with their children and to keep an eye on what they do while online.

[Edweird]

18. "Minors cannot have sex with minors" Really? Care to substantiate that? I'm pretty sure that's BS.

[randome]

19. I would have thought it was self-evident but here you go.

http://www.sexlaws.org/california_statutory_rape#Q3

3. Q: Is it legal for two minors to have sexual intercourse? Top of page
A: No. Sexual contact while under the age of 18 is not legal. Depending on the age of the parties involved and whether or not there are repeat violations involved, it would either go to juvenile court or, under certain situations a juvenile court judge may recommend the case be moved to adult court. If the violation is under 261.5, it is a misdemeanor offense.

If you want to do further research, do it yourself.

[Edweird]

35. How on earth would that be "self evident"? I don't recall ANYONE in high school that wasn't active.

Considering the reality I find your response odd.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. "Minors cannot have sex with minors." - I guess you never went to high school.

Anyway, from a legal standpoint, I'm not sure that's a correct statement.

[teddy51]

10. I certainly don't have an answer for that, but I only thank someone that I don't have a 15

year old daughter to have to keep safe!

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Stop acting as if he's merely accused... he was convicted by a jury of his peers. n/t

[teddy51]

4. You need to provide a link to your OP so that any that are not informed, will be. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. No, there's just one less pervert to bug them. Nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

16. What's the purpose for the OP? Apparently the authorities gave some public pay-back to

a UN weapons inspector who correctly said, prior to the first Iraq War, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

All those deaths in Iraq for nothing except oil.

Scott Ritter was right with respect to the absence of weapons of mass destruction. But apparently the authorities were able to catch him or otherwise entrap him. Now he's going to serve some time. More time than Dick Cheney ever will.

But what's this got to do with the question:
"... can 15-year-old girls no longer access online porn?"

This just doesn't make sense.

[trumad]

20. public pay-back ?

Look---I was one of Ritters number one fans back in the days before the war---

Followed his speeches, writings, book with Will Pitt, etc....

You're damn right he was right about Iraq...

BUT----BUT--- the dude clearly broke the law---not once, but a couple of times.

They nailed him dead to rights and in his sentencing hearing, he clearly admitted to what he did.

This isn't public pay back--- this is a sick man who broke the law and is not going to pay for it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. I don't know what he recently did, I don't know the details, and I don't care to do so.

He's a criminal of some sort?

OK. So what? He's going to pay for his crime or crimes.

How does the fact that he has been convicted and going to pay for his crimes affect us? Apparently because he was involved in truthfully pointing out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has led some people to gloat or call special attention to his conviction. I don't see how this affects me, and I'm not going to join in doing so.

[geek tragedy]

21. Not payback, justice for his crimes.

He was right about Iraq. He is also a sexual predator.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. OK. But again, what's the purpose for the OP?

Let's agree on the two things that you said.

He is going to pay for his criminal activity.

Because of his history in pointing out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, are we supposed to now gloat? Or join in calling special attention to his conviction?

No thank you.

[geek tragedy]

24. The post is an attempt to claim that Ritter didn't do anything wrong, victimless crime, etc.

My take, anyways.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. Thanks. Maybe that is what was intended.

I don't see, however, any justification for whatever he did.

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. Unless his victims thought there were WMD in Iraq, of course.

Then they needed to see the Throbbing Cock of Truth.

[dionysus]

26. he got caught before for the same type of thing... it's not a conspiracy... the dude has problems...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. Are you relying upon a straw-man? Who, other than yourself, has referred to a "conspiracy?"

[dionysus]

30. relyong on a straw man? i'm laughing my ass off at people desperate to excuse ritter's

pederast behavior because he was right about WMDs in irag...

"who is it hurting that he jerked off to what he thought was a minor... it wasn't a real minor anyway, besides, the iraq war was way worse"

blah blah blah blah...



PS on many ritter threads there are posts claiming it was all a setup by bushco.. it wasn't

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Maybe you are transferring what you saw on those threads to this thread.

No one here is responsible for what you saw elsewhere.

And, yes, you are creating your own straw-men to knock them down. As a debater, with that approach, you can't lose. Go for it.

[dionysus]

25. this is the weakest defense of a pervert that i have ever seen. thanks for the chucks...

[Boojatta]

27. It's not intended to be a defense of Scott Ritter.

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2012, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Perverted thoughts that aren't expressed through any words or actions wouldn't be a crime, at least not in America.

Thus, the issue is some kind of words or actions of Scott Ritter. Is there evidence that at least one person has been seriously harmed by Scott Ritter? Yes is a possible answer. Let me know what you think. It's not a rhetorical question.

If the issue is a hazard, then just as WMDs in Iraq could be a serious hazard or an imaginary hazard, we ought to put things into perspective and ask whether or not locking up Scott Ritter reduces the relevant risk. The risk is that more 15-year-old girls might request and then watch pornographic video. Does locking up Scott Ritter reduce that risk by as much as one part in a hundred million?

[Dreamer Tatum]

32. It is utterly a defense of Scott Ritter.

If he was a republican who wrote books claiming there WERE wmd in Iraq, you'd not have written this silly OP.

[Boojatta]

34. What principle are you relying upon?

Assume that under your hypothetical scenario I wouldn't have written the OP. For example, maybe I wouldn't have been motivated to write the OP, and for that reason I wouldn't have written it. What can you conclude?

Suppose there is an essay contest that is very well publicized, but offers only ten dollars for each of the essays judged to be among the best one hundred submitted. The contest occurs once per year for ten years, and then one year it is announced that the prizes will be $10,000 for each of the essays judged to be among the best one hundred essays submitted. Suddenly a lot of people who previously had not entered the contest submit entries. If you were the contest judge, then would you throw their submissions into the garbage?