Tom Flanagan says he's not sure merely watching child porn does harm to others: http://o.canada.com/2013/02/28/tom-flanagan-is-okay-with-child-pornography/#.US-LeqLvugY …. (h/t @iainmarlow)
-
-
Replying to @simonhoupt
@simonhoupt@iainmarlow Flanagan has a ridiculously narrow focus. How can photographic child porn exist without child abuse?2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
@HeerJeet@iainmarlow I presume he's trying to argue that passive viewing doesn't encourage the production of the porn. Which is wrong.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @simonhoupt
@simonhoupt @iainmarlow Yep, completely, stupidly wrong. The consumers are part of network that extends to production.
9:13 AM - 28 Feb 2013
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.