The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ken Park is dangerous to those most vulnerable to sexual exploitation > Comments

Ken Park is dangerous to those most vulnerable to sexual exploitation : Comments

By Nick Ferrett, published 22/7/2003

Nick Ferrett argues that Ken Park is a child-sex film and serves no useful purpose

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
I am very disappointed in reading your article condoning the censorship of the movie "Ken Park". Not because you condone the censorship, which in itself is disappointing, but because I would have assumed that a man with your higher class education could have come up with more compelling arguments toward your subjective stance.

I could spend many pages arguing the merits of allowing the free men and women of society to choose what they can and can not watch, but since I am sure my space is limited, I will instead argue your sad attempt at giving weight to the misguided arguments the keep this film out of the theaters.

First and foremost, child pornography is illegal because having sex with anyone under the age of consent is illegal. End of story. It is not illegal because it may "titillate those who want to have sex with children." That is not in the law books, and it will never be. The reason? Because a pedophile is a sick individual who sadly, needs absolutely no help in becoming "titillated" when it comes to children. The fact the children exist and walk the earth is enough for them. Watching daytime television, or any film involving children, is enough.

This film does not glorify underage sex, it does not exploit it. If you had paid attention to the film, it simply attempts to explain some of the misguided and chaotic reasons why these young people engage in that activities, and the trauma and stress of living that kind of lifestyle. There are serious repercussions to these activities, and that is a primary focus of this film.

Secondly, the film does not, in any way, "encourage sex among those who are probably emotionally under-equipped to do it." Once again, people who are emotionally-underdeveloped when it comes to sex do not need a movie to be influenced. Watching a beer commercial is enough to confound them. All this movie might do is confuse them more. Not a reason to ban a movie, but a good reason for them to consider professional psychiatric assistance.

"The right to watch child pornography is not central to a free society. In fact, to the extent that it inspires or facilitates sexual exploitation of children it is antithetical."

It is true that a free society does not have the right to engage in the public of private viewing of the illegal activity of child pornography. But this film is a depiction, not an occurrence.

It is also illegal to view snuff and rape films. There are many movies however, that portray the acts of killing people, and moves that show, at times vividly, the act of rape. Some of these movies have gone on to win Oscars.

Maybe you could argue that a disturbed person could be influenced by these films and commit the same acts on others because of them.

But that argument would not stand up in court.
Posted by Xander, Wednesday, 19 January 2005 5:46:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy