Should viewing of child porn be illegal?

[sm625]

There is a slippery slope issue that applies to child pron that does not apply to murder videos. When one person distributes a decap video it is not very liekly to make someone else want to distribute such a video. Its not the same with pron. More begets more, so you have to draw a hard line somewhere.

 

[Fern]

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?
-snip-

I believe your analogy is imprecise and faulty.

The beheadings, burnings etc are news.

Here's a famous photo of a naked girl that was in the news and, to my knowledge, no one was ever prosecuted: https://www.google.com/search?q=fam...-girl-photo-Vietnam-War-turns-40.html;634;406

Now, if someone performed/filmed (or possibly even just watched) a murder for pleasure/profit they could be prosecuted under the "Snuff Laws'.

Likewise with child porn.

IMO, this is not a valid example of moral and/or legal contradictions. Rather, it's an example of the imperfection in the process of writing and interpreting laws. Personally, I doubt some of the child porn laws (as well as many others) were written with the expectation of current interpretations as applied to emerging technology. E.g., I doubt they foresaw or intended the prosecution of 17 yr old girls sexting her boyfriend.

Fern

 

[inachu]

You can give a big thank you to Monsanto for her clothes being chemically peeled off her body. Monsanto is the inventor of Agent Orange used in that attack.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You can give a big thank you to Monsanto for her clothes being chemically peeled off her body. Monsanto is the inventor of Agent Orange used in that attack.

Arthur Galston and the US/British militaries would disagree with you. Monsanto, along with Dow and several other companies were under direction to manufacture the chemicals by the government. The military controlled it all.

But enough derailing.....

 

[blackangst1]

This is a very touchy subject with very blurred lines, and one that makes sweeping generalizations.

First, we as a society have gotten into the habit of calling anything nude AND sexual under the age of 18 as "child porn", and those who look at it as pedophiles. We've tainted the word, really. There is a humungous difference in someone being sexually attracted to a 6 year old and a 16 year old. Like, not even in the same ballpark difference. This comes down to societal conditioning. There are so many countries with age of consents far below 18, and who's to say theyre wrong? Those countries sure dont.

That said, the other sweeping generalization that drives me batty is calling those involved in underage video production "victims" and "taken advantage of". This is complete bullshit. Again, obviously a 6 year old cant consent. A 16 year old CAN. Worlds of difference.

I dont seek out underage porn but one particular type I like often has it in it's portfolio. Cams. There is a new trend in cams where the two people having video sex give consent by flashing a peace sign...or holding 4 fingers up...something like that. Many videos Ive seen the girl will give the consent sign and proceed to do her thing for the cam. And many times they are OBVIOUSLY underage. They arent coerced. They arent tricked. They arent pressured. They willingly show their goods knowing it will be recorded.

And then theres the couples cams. Ive seen many where both participants couldnt be more than 15. Again, willingly and knowingly.

The point also should be made that even in the countries where AOC is under 18, its still illegal to video sexual encounters. If two residents of Spain one aged 13 one aged 40 want to have sex, thats fine and legal. They just cant video doing it.

Specifically to the OP, I get your point. But as others have said, the law is the law. I personally think the speed limit on I10 between Phoenix and the CA border should be 100. But its not.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Again, obviously a 6 year old cant consent. A 16 year old CAN. Worlds of difference.

This is a really tricky issue. This matters a lot on what exactly do you mean by consent.
How do you define the quality that allows a 16 year old to do it and a 6 year old can not?

I personally think it is nearly impossible to define that quality, and I think that is why our society picks an age we can agree that the majority of people will have attained it and just draws a sharp line there.

 

[blackangst1]

This is a really tricky issue. This matters a lot on what exactly do you mean by consent.
How do you define the quality that allows a 16 year old to do it and a 6 year old can not?

I personally think it is nearly impossible to define that quality, and I think that is why our society picks an age we can agree that the majority of people will have attained it and just draws a sharp line there.

Right. That speaks to my point of societal conditioning. We in the US draw the line at 18, other countries draw the line younger. Who is right? Us? Why? Because we say so?

I dunno.

Also just thought of the argument that a teen is fueled by excitement and hormones therefore is susceptible to make unwise choices. How about a 20 year old who decides one night to make a porn, then later regrets it? How is that any different?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Right. That speaks to my point of societal conditioning. We in the US draw the line at 18, other countries draw the line younger. Who is right? Us? Why? Because we say so?

It is a societal norm, so in my society I am right, in their society they are. The societies we live in shape us to such an extent that a 15 year old might be capable of consent in Mexico, but a 17 year old might not be quite ready to in America.

Also just thought of the argument that a teen is fueled by excitement and hormones therefore is susceptible to make unwise choices. How about a 20 year old who decides one night to make a porn, then later regrets it? How is that any different?

At some point we simply have to say that a person, ready or not, must take on the responsibility to consent, or be deemed forever unable to do so. Perhaps we should have a better system for determining, perhaps we should do a 'coming of age ritual' of some sort that allows us to determine on an individual level which people should be considered ready, but such things are considered too cumbersome for a society our large.

 

[blackangst1]

It is a societal norm, so in my society I am right, in their society they are. The societies we live in shape us to such an extent that a 15 year old might be capable of consent in Mexico, but a 17 year old might not be quite ready to in America.



At some point we simply have to say that a person, ready or not, must take on the responsibility to consent, or be deemed forever unable to do so. Perhaps we should have a better system for determining, perhaps we should do a 'coming of age ritual' of some sort that allows us to determine on an individual level which people should be considered ready, but such things are considered too cumbersome for a society our large.

Agree on both.

 

[Matt1970]

This thread is disturbing and should actually be in P&N so people can tell you what they really think.

 

[MongGrel]

This is a really tricky issue. This matters a lot on what exactly do you mean by consent.
How do you define the quality that allows a 16 year old to do it and a 6 year old can not?

I personally think it is nearly impossible to define that quality, and I think that is why our society picks an age we can agree that the majority of people will have attained it and just draws a sharp line there.

6 ?

Really, that needs an explanation ?

 

[ThinClient]

How revolting that someone is actually defending the abuse and exploitation of children, or actually defending someone's viewing of said materials.

 

[NetGuySC]

How revolting that someone is actually defending the viewing of videos depicting torture and murder, or actually defending someone's viewing of said materials.

I understand the OP's concept. I do not think he is defending anything, but instead questioning why it is "okay" to view videos of some hideous illegal acts but "not okay" to view videos of other hideous illegal acts.

My answer is that because society saids so..

 

[Dr. Zaus]

My answer is that because society saids so..

Which is precisely the same reason anything is immoral.

 

[rommelrommel]

How revolting that someone is actually defending the viewing of videos depicting torture and murder, or actually defending someone's viewing of said materials.

I understand the OP's concept. I do not think he is defending anything, but instead questioning why it is "okay" to view videos of some hideous illegal acts but "not okay" to view videos of other hideous illegal acts.

My answer is that because society saids so..

No, he's pretty clearly making a (rather poor) case for viewing of child sex abuse images to be legal.

 

[piasabird]

I don't claim to be for child porn, but to me the term child and minor are not interchangeable. When I think of the term child, I am thinking of a 5 year old. Young people 12 and over are not really children. Treating teenagers like little children is not preparing them to be adults.

 

[schmuckley]

Yes..