Should viewing of child porn be illegal?

[Dr. Zaus]

Increased production due to legalization of viewing isn't a 1:1 correlation. Y

It doesn't have to be 1:1 to be something that is not acceptable.

You have otherwise failed to address the core issue of why child pornography, rape pornography, incest pornography, and murder pornography, are illegal: making the sale of videos of violent sexual acts legal incentivizes those acts.

I'd bet very few people directly download this stuff

As I've pointed out, even if its .1% the fact that some people pay for legal child pornography will lead to more child rape in order to create said pornography. Same thing with rape, incest, and murder.

Why are these other things legal but this isn't?

Rape, incest, and murder pornography are also illegal. And if beheading videos were being produced and sold for purpose of making money off of people buying said videos then they too would be illegal.

I could jerk off to 18 year olds getting raped and so you think that's going to increase the market-demand/whatever vastly? Skeptical.

The word 'skeptical' is not a counter point.

People respond to economic incentives. For example: the tiny % of wow players that buy gold incentivized the slave-labor of thousands of people in china mining said gold. Now imagine the 100BILLION dollar porn industry (despite being 'free' online) and tell me honestly that an extra 100 million dollars (.1%) isn't going to convince some people to rape children.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Although I understand the misgivings in the OP, I think it's Illegal for good reasons. It does lead to increased exploitation of Children and all those under the current Legal Age in which acting in Porn is allowed. Although the Viewer may not be directly harming anyone, their Demand for such material encourages others to Supply and thus directly harm the under aged. Exploiting the under aged in this way simply should not be allowed, thus the Viewer is culpable.

That said, there really needs to be some distinction and nuance regarding the Crime. I highly suspect that most people who have consumed Internet Porn have inadvertently seen some Under Age material. Many have likely Saved some even, but have no idea that the person(s) are <18, for they may look 18+, but be anywhere from 15ish-17ish. Should people possessing Material within that age range, but also mostly material >18 be treated the same as someone possessing pictures of Toddlers? Definitely not, IMO. In fact, I would say most of them shouldn't be prosecuted at all, just warned about it. Others who have primarily under aged Porn 14-17 are probably knowingly collecting it though and should be prosecuted, but their crime should not be equated to those who are collecting even younger aged porn.

The Law/Courts are probably aware and make these distinctions on their own though, I would hope anyway. However, when charges of making Child Porn are being made against 2 Under Aged kids taking pics of themselves of a sexual nature, I rather think the Law is being an ass. That's not something that should be encouraged, but at the same time, especially when the material was never meant to be distributed, it seems to be a violation of Free Speech.

I also suspect that some people have been charged with possession of Child Porn when they shouldn't have been. Especially in the early days of the internet. When the Police have to scour your PC all the way to recovering Deleted Files, chances are/were good that the person inadvertently came across material they simply did not want. For eg, way back before 2000, I would peruse Newsgroups for porn. At first each category would contain the titled type of porn, but eventually spammers from other genres would begin to spread their wares across many groups. At first it was rather innocuous, but eventually Child Porn, clearly Under 10, began to be spammed across numerous groups. Technically speaking, even though I was in an Adult Group, my browser History and Deleted Files of Child Porn were on my PC. Shortly after that started happening I just quit Newsgroups altogether as at the time the Law seemed to be fumbling about trying to come to grips with the Internet and Newsgroups were just becoming a spammy mess.

So anyway, tl:dr
- Intentionally seeking and viewing Child Porn needs to be Illegal
- Unintentionally viewing and possessing "Child Porn" needs to be assessed on whether the Viewer is aware of the ages involved or perhaps whether they intended for older, but acquired younger inadvertently.
- There needs to be a distinction between certain Age groups within "Child Porn"

Another potential issue is if a girlfriend or wife shows naked selfies from before they were 18 to their boyfriend. Legally, that would fall under the same Child Porn umbrella and punished as such, even though both parties now over 18 have consented.

While I find child porn itself to be deplorable (bad, evil, creepy, etc), the law itself banning it is much too broad so as to stay within it's original intent. Unfortunately, the public tends to react on emotion rather than logic, so fine tuning of child porn laws is unlikely so long as the public thinks what's in place has been successful.

 

[mikeymikec]

You can't have it both ways. It's hypocrisy. Free speech or thought police. Have one or the other. It's really one of the cases where you just can't have it both ways as they are mutually exclusive.

And if you've come out of this with the stance that you want to ban all images of abuse then go for it. If you can manage to get the news to stop putting the imagery up 100% then I'll be floored by the level of thought policing you managed to legislate.

I think you ought to read 1984 before you use terms like "Thought Police" in this context, because the way it's used in that book (being the origin of the term) has virtually nothing in common with how you're using it.

Here's one quote from Wikipedia on that topic just to point out as concisely as possible just how incorrect your use of the term is:

Every Party member has a telescreen in his or her home, which the Thought Police uses to observe their actions and take note of anything that resembles an unorthodox opinion or an inner struggle. When a Party member talks in their sleep, the words are carefully analyzed.

But then, you're bandying around terms like "Nazi Germany" in the same context with about the same amount of relevance.

 

[brandonb]

I'd just like to make two comments to the OP:

1) Children are a protected class. Much more than any other group of people. We protect children because their minds have not developed, and do not have the experience necessary to make sound judgment calls. Minors are also easily influenced due to their lack of worldly experience. It's well known it's easier to coerce younger people because they are more gullible and trusting. There is a reason why minors have their faces blurred, records are sealed, and their criminal records purged once hitting 18 years old. In today's age where information is stored forever on the internet. Somewhere we have to draw the line to where the person is a minor and when they are an adult. That line is 18 years old. Technically there isn't much difference between someone 17 years old and 364 days and someone who is 18 years old. But we draw the line in the sand. Personally I don't believe people have actually matured into an adult until age 30, but that's just me. Maybe we never really mature. But that's another discussion for a different day.

2) I downloaded child porn about 15 years ago, by accident. Back in those days there was a lot of porn on newsgroups (and free) while porn sites were trying to cash in on subscriptions. Today porn is all over the place on the internet and free. But back then I remember going to some newsgroup and clicking the download all in a directory while I went to work that day. I had dialup modem so by the time I got home I would have had maybe 1000 .jpgs or whatever. When I got home from work. I took a look. In the mix of what was downloaded there was child porn. It was absolutely disgusting because it involved a man and like a 3 month old baby. I felt sick to my stomach, and as the phrase goes, scarred me for life. I immediately formatted my hard drive and reinstalled windows. I thought for sure I'd be arrested for child porn. I cancelled my newsgroup service and never used it again. Lesson learned. It's like that old Friedrich Nietzsche saying: "if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. " I was gazing into the abyss.

Honestly. If you start thinking it's acceptable to view child porn, where will it stop? Will you be ok with what I seen?

It seems like things always escalate in life. We become tolerant to what we're exposed to. If murders on tape no longer shock us, we bring ourselves to the next level of shock, and the previous level is now acceptable because it's no longer shocking. Before in the 80's. Porn was porn. That level of porn is boring today. So now we have fetish videos. We keep escalating and raising the standards. Apply that to really anything, and we witness the human condition. But at what point do we put the breaks on it?

What's interesting to me, is we started out that way (like barbarians) and over the course of time realized we are better off being prudent and proper. Now it seems we are shifting back to barbarism. That is scary to me.

 

[mikeymikec]

It seems like things always escalate in life. We become tolerant to what we're exposed to. If murders on tape no longer shock us, we bring ourselves to the next level of shock, and the previous level is now acceptable because it's no longer shocking. Before in the 80's. Porn was porn. That level of porn is boring today. So now we have fetish videos. We keep escalating and raising the standards. Apply that to really anything, and we witness the human condition. But at what point do we put the breaks on it?

I don't think escalation has anything to do with the increased availability of fetish videos. Simply, the Internet (and mail order before it) has made distribution to a niche audience steadily easier. Saying that an interest in a fetish is due to 'escalation' is like saying that if someone watches enough of a certain type of porn, they'll become gay. The definition of a sexual fetish is someone finding a non-sexual item sexually appealing, like say getting turned on by looking at peoples' feet or by the feel of a certain material.

The only thing that has changed in this respect is the probable increase in acceptance of fetishes in society. Those with fetishistic inclinations have always been around, either they indulged in them very privately, or they repressed them, or they never discovered them.

IMO, escalation/increased availability could however play a role in someone knowing that they have a sexual itch that they can't scratch, and therefore searching for different materials until they find it.

What's interesting to me, is we started out that way (like barbarians) and over the course of time realized we are better off being prudent and proper. Now it seems we are shifting back to barbarism. That is scary to me.

Aren't relevant crime figures dropping in both the US/UK?

 

[rommelrommel]

To be fair I did make the argument that consumption of child sex abuse images normalises the behaviour and does lead to more abuse occurring than would have otherwise. But, watching it certainly does nothing other than turn your stomach and make you want to catch the abusers even more. The difference is that kink is two consenting adults and what we are talking about is a child.

 

[werepossum]

OP's question hurts my head. I'm going to come down and say it should be illegal, although honestly I don't know I can articulate a logical reason.

Beyond that, I can't imagine why anyone would watch either.

 

[johnwick]

What the hell is that question! For christ's sake somebody delete this thread!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

What the hell is that question! For christ's sake somebody delete this thread!

I think he should be banned form DC for failing to recognize and reply to the points made that defeat his argument. It's a clear sign that the OPs question was intended to be a troll and not an honest discussion.

 

[SMOGZINN]

What the hell is that question! For christ's sake somebody delete this thread!

I don't think this thread, or any other, should be deleted simply due to the topic. We should be able to have an intelligent and civil discussion about any topic, and I find that most often the topics that people consider the most taboo are the ones that society actually needs to discuss the most.

I think he should be banned form DC for failing to recognize and reply to the points made that defeat his argument. It's a clear sign that the OPs question was intended to be a troll and not an honest discussion.

I am personally not convinced that the OP is intentionally trolling, I believe instead that he really is just that bad at arguments. I think that in his mind he has addressed the issues with his argument because he has dismissed them with handwaving.

Then again I have no idea how to handle a situation where someone's ability to use logic is so severely impaired that it amounts to unintentional trolling.

I think the best thing I can say it, I'm glad I'm not the moderator

 

[Sunburn74]

I think the reason why such items are so strictly illegal is that there is a perception that those who view it have a high probability of ultimately proving to be sexual predators. Its all too common that the child predators that we do catch have this stuff in their homes. Since that [perceived] association is seemingly so strong, simply having the stuff is strictly illegal, as a means to discourage advancement towards crime. Furthermore, by making ownership illegal, you widen your capture radius for these sex offenders in that you now have multiple potential crimes with which you can screen for and ultimately bring these guys in (in example, Al Capone a famous mobster was ultimately brought to justice on tax evasion charges, rather than all the other horrible stuff he did). Without making ownership of such material illegal, the only way you can potentially stop such crimes from happening is to catch the criminal in the act, which is often impossible.

Its the same question as to why keeping marijuana around is illegal if you don't smoke it and don't sell it (imagine for example an elderly gentleman who enjoys drawing pictures of marijuana plants, but never smokes or sells it). The association of marijuana ownership and substance abuse is so strong that as a means to discourage advancement towards substance abuse simply owning it is strictly illegal.

I will say though, that I honestly cannot envision someone who views child pornography in his/her spare time as an adult as being a normal person and I have a hard time believing someone who views such material repetitively from a standpoint of their sexual desires will not ultimately find a way to act on those desires. You are what you consume ultimately.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think the reason why such items are so strictly illegal is that there is a perception that those who view it have a high probability of ultimately proving to be sexual predators. Its all too common that the child predators that we do catch have this stuff in their homes. Since that [perceived] association is seemingly so strong, simply having the stuff is strictly illegal, as a means to discourage advancement towards crime.

I doubt that is the reasoning behind it. Simply because that argument is very narrow in view and falls apart so easily, since practically every 16 year old now has some child porn on their phone.
The argument that killing demand will kill supply is a much stronger argument.

Furthermore, by making ownership illegal, you widen your capture radius for these sex offenders in that you now have multiple potential crimes with which you can screen for and ultimately bring these guys in (in example, Al Capone a famous mobster was ultimately brought to justice on tax evasion charges, rather than all the other horrible stuff he did). Without making ownership of such material illegal, the only way you can potentially stop such crimes from happening is to catch the criminal in the act, which is often impossible.

First off, this is exactly the sort of thing we should not allow our politicians to do. Outlaw the thing causes society harm, not other things that overlap with it. Otherwise we risk harming innocent people and open the door to allowing government to backdoor outlaw anything it doesn't like.

The association of marijuana ownership and substance abuse is so strong that as a means to discourage advancement towards substance abuse simply owning it is strictly illegal.

In this case the marijuana is the substance being abused, outlawing it is reasonable. It would be outlawing pictures of marijuana that would be a good analogy here. Certainly owning images of marijuana has a strong correlation connection with marijuana use, outlawing the ownership or viewing of such images would greatly increase our ability to catch abusers of the substance.

I will say though, that I honestly cannot envision someone who views child pornography in his/her spare time as an adult as being a normal person

We have to be very careful with arguments like this. We can not allow not being normal to be criminalized. Normal is a slippery target can can exclude nearly anyone.

and I have a hard time believing someone who views such material repetitively from a standpoint of their sexual desires will not ultimately find a way to act on those desires.

This too is a bad argument, we can't outlaw things you might do, only what you actually do. It sucks for the victims, but if we are to believe in freewill we must believe that people can overcome such instincts and do the right thing.

You are what you consume ultimately.

So you believe that people playing violent FPS video games, or that watch violent horror/slasher/action films becomes violent psychopaths?

 

[moonbogg]

It shouldn't be illegal. You should be able to look at or watch anything you can get your hands on. If you can find it, you can watch it. That's how I see it.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It shouldn't be illegal. You should be able to look at or watch anything you can get your hands on. If you can find it, you can watch it. That's how I see it.

So how do you feel about the economic incentive toward rape, incest, murder, pedophilia, and so on that will be created if this were the law?

 

[SMOGZINN]

So how do you feel about the economic incentive toward rape, incest, murder, pedophilia, and so on that will be created if this were the law?

Perhaps we could target it a little closer then and make it illegal to 'purchase or profit from' such things.

 

[Craig234]

It shouldn't be illegal. You should be able to look at or watch anything you can get your hands on. If you can find it, you can watch it. That's how I see it.

A problem with this libertarian approach is that as a practical matter, it increases demand, which increases the black market to create such material - hurting children.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Craig234"A problem with this libertarian approach is that as a practical matter, it increases demand, which increases the black market to create such material - hurting children."

What do you think of SMOGZINN's solution "we could target it a little closer then and make it illegal to 'purchase or profit from' such things."

 

[TridenT]

Craig234"A problem with this libertarian approach is that as a practical matter, it increases demand, which increases the black market to create such material - hurting children."

What do you think of SMOGZINN's solution "we could target it a little closer then and make it illegal to 'purchase or profit from' such things."

I have never advocated for paying to view child porn. It is an option. (banning purchase or profiting from the acts of murder/rape/child-porn/whatever) You guys are just now getting to that. 67 replies...

Again, I don't think most people are paying for it anyway.

 

[MongGrel]

A problem with this libertarian approach is that as a practical matter, it increases demand, which increases the black market to create such material - hurting children.

bingo.

 

[moonbogg]

A problem with this libertarian approach is that as a practical matter, it increases demand, which increases the black market to create such material - hurting children.

Another solution should be found. I believe in freedom in the extreme, with rare exceptions. If you manage to download child porn or stumble across it, you should not be punished for watching with prison or fines.
People who create child porn should be hunted down like dogs and shot, including those who help with any part of the process.
Another option is to make it legal, but with understood conditions, such as having your name added to a pedophile watch list or some sort of sex offender watch list.

 

[rommelrommel]

Consuming it is part of the cycle.

 

[who?]

Anybody can get sucked in to the awfulness.
http://vigilant-antis.blogspot.com/2008/02/jeremy-boyd-grammer-pleads-guilty-to.html
http://masscops.com/threads/child-porn-gets-ex-officer-188-months.59755/

 

[Sunburn74]

I doubt that is the reasoning behind it. Simply because that argument is very narrow in view and falls apart so easily, since practically every 16 year old now has some child porn on their phone.
The argument that killing demand will kill supply is a much stronger argument.


First off, this is exactly the sort of thing we should not allow our politicians to do. Outlaw the thing causes society harm, not other things that overlap with it. Otherwise we risk harming innocent people and open the door to allowing government to backdoor outlaw anything it doesn't like.

We have to be very careful with arguments like this. We can not allow not being normal to be criminalized. Normal is a slippery target can can exclude nearly anyone.

This too is a bad argument, we can't outlaw things you might do, only what you actually do. It sucks for the victims, but if we are to believe in freewill we must believe that people can overcome such instincts and do the right thing.


So you believe that people playing violent FPS video games, or that watch violent horror/slasher/action films becomes violent psychopaths?

-Making something illegal does nothing to curb demand. If anything, as you restrict supply, you increase the profitability of supplying the rising demand.

-With any law regulating behavior, there is a risk of involving innocent people (set your speeding law at no more than 15mph and you'll catch everyone in the US. Set it above 90mph and you'll catch only the worst of the worst offenders). Its a matter of where you draw the line. Making child pornography illegal isn't some sweeping overly broad law that will entrap millions of innocents. Rather its targeting a rather small population of would be predators in a hope to capture them before the commit heinous crimes against society by banking on the association between viewing/ownership of child pornography and tendency for development into a sexual predator

-As for protections of innocents, that why we have our current system of representation. In example, there were some laws on the books targeting identification of mob/criminal activity regarding cash deposit limits which some small business owners were inadvertently breaking leading to seizures and fines by the feds on more or less innocents. These laws have recently come under attack by politicians due to rising awareness and complaints from the populace involved. Our system is not perfect nor are there perfect laws. Its a matter of degrees.

-Actually you can outlaw what people might do. Conspiracy to commit murder or treason or terrorism for example is completely illegal even if you never actually do more than just a bit of planning. The reason why owning marijuana is illegal is because its seen as proof of intention to use it or to distribute it, both of which are illegal.

-I don't believe that video-games lead to violence. There is strong evidence in that regard against it. However, video games have been shown to increase visuo-spatial skills and problem solving. In that regard, if you're someone who is darn good at using his hands and thinking with his brain as a consequence of many hours of gaming as a child, then you are what you consume. The specific fact that violent video games do not seem to affect tendency towards personal violence does not apply to everything we consume and its potential to affect our behavior.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

-Making something illegal does nothing to curb demand. If anything, as you restrict supply, you increase the profitability of supplying the rising demand.

Increasing price decreases quantity demanded.

Losing your job, your freedom, and your sociatal-respect for the rest of your life is a Big penalty and it stops a lot of people. 1/10th as many people drank alcohol during prohibition as after.

So if the child porn was already at .01% of the global porn market in dollars and goes to .1% of the global porn market in dollars, tat's 90million more dollars to inspire the creation of more child porn.

 

[SMOGZINN]

-Making something illegal does nothing to curb demand. If anything, as you restrict supply, you increase the profitability of supplying the rising demand.

Tell that to the absinthe sellers. Before US legalization it was difficult to get a bottle, few people I know had even tried it, there was maybe 3 producers in the world. Within a year of legalization everyone I know had a bottle on their counter, and now there are dozens of brands on the shelves of every liquor store. It being illegal killed demand and therefore killed supply.