Should viewing of child porn be illegal?

[TridenT]

Let's do a comparison. You watch a video of ISIS decapitating a person on liveleak or whatever. Completely legal and that video is freely distributed with no problems whatsoever. Hell, they'll show a blurred version of that shit on the news! You watch a video of a minor (17 or less; no distinction in age, just 17 or less. Could be 17 and 364 days...) performing a sexual act, in the nude, or whatever else constitutes as child pornography in your jurisdiction... You're now looking at 5+ years in prison. You didn't even pay for the porn just like you didn't pay to watch that person's head chopped off by ISIS. So, this leads me to the question:

Why is it that viewing people getting murdered is completely fine but watching child porn isn't? Some people say that by viewing child porn you're supporting the supplier. Usually that implies somehow the supplier is gaining monetary support. What if you don't pay for it? And, am I supporting ISIS by viewing the murder video? Is CNN/Fox News/CBS/ABC/every-fucking-news-station supporting ISIS along with the rest of America by watching some person get their head decapitated by a member of ISIS? So now virtually everyone in America is considered a traitor because they're supporting a terrorist group?

We can talk about the ethics of what is ethical to record later. (e.g. is putting a camera in bathrooms without the consent or knowledge of people who go into that bathroom ethical? If not, then how is recording someone who is being murdered against their will ethical? Does it matter if they know the camera is there or not? Is it merely a matter of privacy or is it a matter of consent to being recorded or both?)

Instead of personal attacks toward the OP, perhaps explain to him why this is wrong. Personal attacks are not allowed in Discussion Club. -Admin DrPizza

 

[Craig234]

I think there are some valid questions around this, and the answers to the reasons for the laws are not that rational.

The first thing in any discussion that might lessen the penalties at all, is a reaction of 'then you're for those things, you criminal!'

But I think a couple factors are:

- The link to the desire for child porn with the harm to children to create it.

We could get into a discussion of 'already existing' material, but it runs into issues of the violation of privacy of the children filmed, and the general opposition to the material.

- The degree to which the violent videos are 'for general consumption' not for the limited audience of pedophiles, and the 'news value'.

I refuse to watch them and don't find there's much news value, but those are issues.

I'm more concerned about the censoring of the 'messages' of the groups, putting the desire to prevent any recruiting ahead of the right of citizens to hear the messages.

Usually free speech discussion says 'the answer to bad speech is a better argument', and the issue is how money and control of media limits fair discussion, but when it comes to these groups, that is thrown out and replaced with 'the public must not hear what their statements are'.

Sometimes there are discussions of whether the use of existing child porn might be able to be used to prevent pedophiles from committing acts on children, but those discussions don't seem to get far when most of the public reacts with 'who gives a crap, put them all in jail' if not 'kill them'.

The difference in American treatment of sex/nudity and violence in media (not just child porn) is a longtime issue much of the world has a different view on.

There's long been an appetite, since the earliest films contained 'westerns' with violence against natives and 'bad guys', and crime and gangster movies, and war films.

Those appetites continue, as tv shows there seems to be an endless appetite for things like murder and car chases.

Most Americans mock things like French movies' character dramas. We import a lot from England, but not much from anywhere else.

Of course, I don't know anywhere that really condones child porn, though it seems to get more of a blind eye for a black market some places, as does the minor sex trade.

 

[chimaxi83]

Back in the day when I was unemployed, I spent my free time finding a job instead of justifying my love for kiddie porn with a retarded comparison... Just saying. Creep.

No personal attacks in the discussion club. -Admin DrPizza

 

[JEDIYoda]

Let's do a comparison. You watch a video of ISIS decapitating a person on liveleak or whatever. Completely legal and that video is freely distributed with no problems whatsoever. Hell, they'll show a blurred version of that shit on the news! You watch a video of a minor (17 or less; no distinction in age, just 17 or less. Could be 17 and 364 days...) performing a sexual act, in the nude, or whatever else constitutes as child pornography in your jurisdiction... You're now looking at 5+ years in prison. You didn't even pay for the porn just like you didn't pay to watch that person's head chopped off by ISIS. So, this leads me to the question:

Why is it that viewing people getting murdered is completely fine but watching child porn isn't? Some people say that by viewing child porn you're supporting the supplier. Usually that implies somehow the supplier is gaining monetary support. What if you don't pay for it? And, am I supporting ISIS by viewing the murder video? Is CNN/Fox News/CBS/ABC/every-fucking-news-station supporting ISIS along with the rest of America by watching some person get their head decapitated by a member of ISIS? So now virtually everyone in America is considered a traitor because they're supporting a terrorist group?

We can talk about the ethics of what is ethical to record later. (e.g. is putting a camera in bathrooms without the consent or knowledge of people who go into that bathroom ethical? If not, then how is recording someone who is being murdered against their will ethical? Does it matter if they know the camera is there or not? Is it merely a matter of privacy or is it a matter of consent to being recorded or both?)

You actually believe that you can equate the two to being the same...sick minds I guess

No personal attacks in the Discussion Club -Admin DrPizza

 

[mikeymikec]

You watch a video of a minor (17 or less; no distinction in age, just 17 or less. Could be 17 and 364 days...) performing a sexual act, in the nude, or whatever else constitutes as child pornography in your jurisdiction... You're now looking at 5+ years in prison.

Why did you feel the need to add all the "17" bits in? It's a wee bit disturbing, because it makes you out to be a paedo apologist.

Why is it that viewing people getting murdered is completely fine but watching child porn isn't?

First you need to ask yourself why would one watch a paedo vid, as opposed to say a vid of ISIS beheading someone. The reasons are entirely different (unless one is into snuff vids), which I'll go into after the next quote.

Some people say that by viewing child porn you're supporting the supplier. Usually that implies somehow the supplier is gaining monetary support. What if you don't pay for it?

Completely irrelevant. It's the opinion of almost everyone that CP shouldn't be available because it's morally reprehensible. It's not informative or topical either (except possibly to specialists in that field attempting to help wipe it out).

A video depicting terrorism in the way I described earlier is considered topical and informative, that's why it's on the news and mostly OK to seek it out (though comparing it and the exceptions based on jurisdiction would constitute a more interesting discussion IMO, for example there are laws in the UK prohibiting the viewing of certain 'terrorist' materials).

 

[Craig234]

Back in the day when I was unemployed, I spent my free time finding a job instead of justifying my love for kiddie porn with a retarded comparison... Just saying. Creep.

Who was that inappropriate reply addressed to?

 

[rommelrommel]

I'm going to answer with a very strong no.

Every study I've seen indicates that virtually every consumer of child sex abuse images (what it really is, not "porn") is also a hands on abuser. Consuming the images normalizes the behaviour and emboldens the consumer to either move on to hands on abuse or escalate their already existing abuse.

And, while "kill them all" isn't a solution, these people are broken. They can no more stop being attracted to children than a hetro male can stop being attracted to women. They can chose not to act on it, but they can't be fixed outright.

I strongly believe that we need to find a non-stigmatizing way for these people to self identify and get help with not acting on their impulses. What that would look like, I don't know.

 

[TridenT]

I'm going to answer with a very strong no.

Every study I've seen indicates that virtually every consumer of child sex abuse images (what it really is, not "porn") is also a hands on abuser. Consuming the images normalizes the behaviour and emboldens the consumer to either move on to hands on abuse or escalate their already existing abuse.

And, while "kill them all" isn't a solution, these people are broken. They can no more stop being attracted to children than a hetro male can stop being attracted to women. They can chose not to act on it, but they can't be fixed outright.

I strongly believe that we need to find a non-stigmatizing way for these people to self identify and get help with not acting on their impulses. What that would look like, I don't know.

Allowing them to get help would be good but the stats are not reliable. The reason is that coming out about watching child porn is very illegal and will get your thrown in jail. Pretty much no one would sympathize with you and so the only people you can study are those who are in jail. Those in jail aren't going to be a good sample of all people who watch child porn or have an interest.

Anyway, I do not think there is a 1:1 correlation of watching child porn and acting on it (I don't think there is any real correlation at all actually). If this was true, rapes would be going up and not down as porn has become more and more mainstream.

 

[TridenT]

Also you're all making no distinction between child porn where someone is forcing them and where the child does it themselves. As the most supplied child porn these days is supplied by the kids themselves.

 

[MongGrel]

Why did you feel the need to add all the "17" bits in? It's a wee bit disturbing, because it makes you out to be a paedo apologist.

First you need to ask yourself why would one watch a paedo vid, as opposed to say a vid of ISIS beheading someone. The reasons are entirely different (unless one is into snuff vids), which I'll go into after the next quote.

Completely irrelevant. It's the opinion of almost everyone that CP shouldn't be available because it's morally reprehensible. It's not informative or topical either (except possibly to specialists in that field attempting to help wipe it out).

A video depicting terrorism in the way I described earlier is considered topical and informative, that's why it's on the news and mostly OK to seek it out (though comparing it and the exceptions based on jurisdiction would constitute a more interesting discussion IMO, for example there are laws in the UK prohibiting the viewing of certain 'terrorist' materials).

I usually avoid even posting in this particular forum, but I'll agree with everything above.

They are pretty much extreme in both cases, but child porn would be more equated to snuff films I would think.

The whole intent behind the ISIS things, NORMALLY, I would think of as being to cast moral opposition to it, rather than promoting it.

I've never watched any of the above, other than some of the blurred news feeds.

 

[MongGrel]

Also you're all making no distinction between child porn where someone is forcing them and where the child does it themselves. As the most supplied child porn these days is supplied by the kids themselves.

Depends, as is the age of the child I guess.

Anyone seeking the stuff out that is an adult is not someone I'd care to associate with personally though in RL myself.

 

[mikeymikec]

Also you're all making no distinction between child porn where someone is forcing them and where the child does it themselves. As the most supplied child porn these days is supplied by the kids themselves.

Are you really likening two minors showing each other nudie pics with an adult forcing themselves on a minor or coercing them?

You seem to be engaging in a meandering defence of CP without any overall thread to your argument as well as supplying some really dodgy comparisons. Do terrorism vids still have any place in your argument or have you dropped that now?

 

[TridenT]

Are you really likening two minors showing each other nudie pics with an adult forcing themselves on a minor or coercing them?

You seem to be engaging in a meandering defence of CP without any overall thread to your argument as well as supplying some really dodgy comparisons. Do terrorism vids still have any place in your argument or have you dropped that now?

The law likens them. The sentencing is equal for looking at material of minors regardless of who publishes or the circumstances of the material. The law has no eyes on content beyond if it's a minor and naked or doing sexual acts.

You guys were the ones who dodged that. It's still a very strong argument. Why is it I can watch a child be beheaded, tortured, and have their eyes ripped out but if they're naked or skullfucked then it's off to jail for you?

 

[rommelrommel]

Allowing them to get help would be good but the stats are not reliable. The reason is that coming out about watching child porn is very illegal and will get your thrown in jail. Pretty much no one would synthesize with you and so the only people you can study are those who are in jail. Those in jail aren't going to be a good sample of all people who watch child porn or have an interest.

Anyway, I do not think there is a 1:1 correlation of watching child porn and acting on it (I don't think there is any real correlation at all actually). If this was true, rapes would be going up and not down as porn has become more and more mainstream.

The studies are fairly reliable in countries that prosecute possession. They have done full amnesty studies (nothing you say can be used against you), and the vast majority of participants in the "just looking at videos" convictions lead to admission of hand on abuse (note, not necessarily full on penetrative rape, but still abuse) or refusals to undergo a poly. It's something like 80% admit to it, 10% say no but won't take a poly, 9% fail a poly, and less than 1% pass.

What the actual rate of child sex abuse is, that's another thing that's very hard to study but there isn't any indication that it's going down, so it's hard to argue that allowing viewing of child sex abuse images mitigates hands on abuse.

Also, viewing revictimizes the victim... so I don't think we should be in the business of allowing that to happen. Maybe if they want to jerk off to CGI or anime that could be considered a harmless outlet IF it actually works as an outlet to deter hands on abuse.

 

[MongGrel]

The law likens them. The sentencing is equal for looking at material of minors regardless of who publishes or the circumstances of the material. The law has no eyes on content beyond if it's a minor and naked or doing sexual acts.

You guys were the ones who dodged that. It's still a very strong argument. Why is it I can watch a child be beheaded, tortured, and have their eyes ripped out but if they're naked or skullfucked then it's off to jail for you?

No one dodged anything.

You're just not making a lot of sense in reality to me.

 

[mikeymikec]

The law likens them. The sentencing is equal for looking at material of minors regardless of who publishes or the circumstances of the material. The law has no eyes on content beyond if it's a minor and naked or doing sexual acts.

You guys were the ones who dodged that. It's still a very strong argument. Why is it I can watch a child be beheaded, tortured, and have their eyes ripped out but if they're naked or skullfucked then it's off to jail for you?

Can you please start by stating your argument, as if no discussion has even happened yet. I literally have no idea where you're coming from. Are we talking about the law, or the nature of society, what?

I'm not sure how anything was dodged considering you only just raised the point in the post I just responded to.

Re: Your second paragraph, I already responded to this, here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37111600&postcount=5

 

[TridenT]

The studies are fairly reliable in countries that prosecute possession. They have done full amnesty studies (nothing you say can be used against you), and the vast majority of participants in the "just looking at videos" convictions lead to admission of hand on abuse (note, not necessarily full on penetrative rape, but still abuse) or refusals to undergo a poly. It's something like 80% admit to it, 10% say no but won't take a poly, 9% fail a poly, and less than 1% pass.

What the actual rate of child sex abuse is, that's another thing that's very hard to study but there isn't any indication that it's going down, so it's hard to argue that allowing viewing of child sex abuse images mitigates hands on abuse.

Also, viewing revictimizes the victim... so I don't think we should be in the business of allowing that to happen. Maybe if they want to jerk off to CGI or anime that could be considered a harmless outlet IF it actually works as an outlet to deter hands on abuse.

You're going to have to get the studies and quote specifics from them since I am not believing it. I don't think the studies are capable of handling scrutiny. Who would study such a thing when child porn has such a bad reputation? How would you even get funding and funding from a legit organization?

It doesn't matter who it victimizes. Plenty of shit online that victimizes people but is clearly legal to watch. Again, beheading, rape videos, and everything. All perfectly legal to watch. Child porn is about the only thing that is illegal to watch.

 

[rommelrommel]

The law likens them. The sentencing is equal for looking at material of minors regardless of who publishes or the circumstances of the material. The law has no eyes on content beyond if it's a minor and naked or doing sexual acts.

You guys were the ones who dodged that. It's still a very strong argument. Why is it I can watch a child be beheaded, tortured, and have their eyes ripped out but if they're naked or skullfucked then it's off to jail for you?

The law is lacking when it equates raping a 2 year old with consensual sex between 17 year olds. In my experience in these cases (which is limited) the judge usually gets it right and the sentence is equivalent to the offence.

Where is anyone watching children be tortured anyways? It's kind of pointless to bring up a virtual non-issue to distract from a very pervasive issue.

 

[TridenT]

The law is lacking when it equates raping a 2 year old with consensual sex between 17 year olds. In my experience in these cases (which is limited) the judge usually gets it right and the sentence is equivalent to the offence.

Where is anyone watching children be tortured anyways? It's kind of pointless to bring up a virtual non-issue to distract from a very pervasive issue.

Plenty of places to find the material... 4chan, in my experience, is a great place to start asking for where you can find it.

Regardless, you're not getting to the issue. You're evading the question. Why is it illegal/immoral but these other acts aren't illegal/immoral to watch? You can jerk off to anything. So why does child porn have to be sacred ground and all these other videos (some of which are vastly worse than a lot of what is considered CP) still get a thumbs up from everyone that you can watch them? (And jerk off to them to your hearts content!)

 

[rommelrommel]

You're going to have to get the studies and quote specifics from them since I am not believing it. I don't think the studies are capable of handling scrutiny. Who would study such a thing when child porn has such a bad reputation? How would you even get funding and funding from a legit organization?

It doesn't matter who it victimizes. Plenty of shit online that victimizes people but is clearly legal to watch. Again, beheading, rape videos, and everything. All perfectly legal to watch. Child porn is about the only thing that is illegal to watch.

Frankly a lot of it I can't cite specifically. I work in law enforcement and obviously as you noted child sex abuse is a very sensitive topic, not everything is for internet consumption. I'm sure that you would not accept the studies because they generally cannot be peer reviewed because of the stigma of even studying it. I can tell you that I've watched many video interviews of these guys and many of them are remarkably frank about how the internet, the prevalence of child sex abuse images, and the associated discovery that they were not alone (there were other guys like them out there) lead to them normalizing the desire/behaviour in their own mind and moving on to physical abuse.

 

[rommelrommel]

Plenty of places to find the material... 4chan, in my experience, is a great place to start asking for where you can find it.

Regardless, you're not getting to the issue. You're evading the question. Why is it illegal/immoral but these other acts aren't illegal/immoral to watch? You can jerk off to anything. So why does child porn have to be sacred ground and all these other videos (some of which are vastly worse than a lot of what is considered CP) still get a thumbs up from everyone that you can watch them? (And jerk off to them to your hearts content!)

It's a subjective decision across most cultures and societies that children are deserving of more protection, and that sexual violence is more abhorrent than regular violence.

Also note that in many countries the laws are different and you can be prosecuted for viewing torture porn, rape, etc... or even just good old fashioned normal porn.

 

[MongGrel]

Plenty of places to find the material... 4chan, in my experience, is a great place to start asking for where you can find it.

Regardless, you're not getting to the issue. You're evading the question. Why is it illegal/immoral but these other acts aren't illegal/immoral to watch? You can jerk off to anything. So why does child porn have to be sacred ground and all these other videos (some of which are vastly worse than a lot of what is considered CP) still get a thumbs up from everyone that you can watch them? (And jerk off to them to your hearts content!)

So what is it you're really trying to say ?

That sexually abusing or throwing a 2 or 3 year old in a microwave in a civilized society and posting video of it should be allowed and unregulated ?

Get out of here.

 

[TridenT]

Frankly a lot of it I can't cite specifically. I work in law enforcement and obviously as you noted child sex abuse is a very sensitive topic, not everything is for internet consumption. I'm sure that you would not accept the studies because they generally cannot be peer reviewed because of the stigma of even studying it. I can tell you that I've watched many video interviews of these guys and many of them are remarkably frank about how the internet, the prevalence of child sex abuse images, and the associated discovery that they were not alone (there were other guys like them out there) lead to them normalizing the desire/behaviour in their own mind and moving on to physical abuse.

Maybe that is true for the people who have already committed such acts but clearly there are a lot of people out there (and unknown amount) who watch but never act.

I mean, it doesn't even need to be child porn to say this. There are so many people out there who watch typical legal porn all their lives and never act on it. Why does child porn suddenly need to be different? Because it's demonized, highly taboo across many cultures, and children are considered highly sacred ground. Yet... I am cautious to say that all people who watch child porn are evil, sick, or need help. You may watch some child porn but still fuck adults or fuck nothing but your hand all your life. You may never touch a soul.

To me, the reaction people have now to the idea of others viewing (not creating of) child porn is the same as to that of people who watched anything kinky 50 years ago.

I don't think watching it is inherently any worse than watching anything else.

 

[TridenT]

So what is it you're really trying to say ?

That sexually abusing or throwing a 2 or 3 year old in a microwave in a civilized society and posting video of it should be allowed and unregulated ?

Get out of here.

Do it to a 18 year old, perfectly legal and you'd watch it.

 

[MongGrel]

Do it to a 18 year old, perfectly legal and you'd watch it.

No I wouldn't, do not try imposing your values upon me.

You seem to have some pretty skewed ideas of Ethics.

Consent after a certain age, and abuse are also completely different things.