The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

That's a helpful summary of what the current state of the law is, but I'm interested in discussing what people think the law should be. Do you have an opinion on what you think the law should be?

I have a problem with a question such as that. It is easy to speak of what society's ideals should be, but laws are another matter. Laws have to be clear and objective, with fine but bright-line distinctions.

For example, saying that a person must be mature enough to consent, and that there must not be undue influence is an example of society's ideal. Declaring that under the law those conditions do not occur if the one person is less than a certain age and if the other person is in one or more of several authoritative relationships over her, or if the one person is under a certain younger age regardless of her relationship with the other person, is the way to turn that ideal into a law. But then, the law declares that any situation on the other side of the law's arbitrary bright-line distinctions is legal.

Having said that, however, I believe that SCOTUS has struck the proper balance. In situations with an actual minor victim, it is appropriate to have an additional law with harsher penalties and "reduced" rights. In situations without such victims, a different set of rules should apply.

In practice, the justice behind society's ideal shines behind the arbitrary but precise nature of the law in several human ways. Police are likely to investigate obscenity cases which meet the "society's ideal's" definition of child pornography, but not the law's, more vigorously than other obscenity, district attorneys prosecute them more vigorously, juries are more likely to convict, and judges to hand down harsher sentences.

Should all of your examples that don't meet the law's bright-line definition of child pornography be declared illegal obscenity? I don't know, but I'm inclined to say that if there are any obscenity laws in the jurisdiction, then yes. Should they all be lumped into the same category as examples of the worst kind of obscenity, and all be subject to the heightened consequences mentioned in the last paragraph? Probably not, mainly because examples 1 and 2 are only words, and we have a tradition of protecting words, even dangerous words.

 

[EGarrett]

The easy question is okay vs. not okay. The harder question for most is should be legal vs. shouldn't be legal.

Okay = Legal.
Not Okay = Illegal.

I had to study obscenity law in college and I also do some work in the movie business...so the question isn't difficult at all, actually.

 

[Piscivore]

Holy crap!

How long did it take to come up with that?

About 10 minutes. Cut and paste is your friend.

 

[Piscivore]

I'm not either, but I do think there has to be some sort of civil liberties slack,

You still haven't answered me in the other thread about civl liberties, you know.

All civil liberties will have limits. They must, as they approach the liberties of others. It is up to society to draw that line, which is why it is useless to ask about "shoulds" in these cases- each "should" represents a single person's opinion, and enacting laws based only on a single person's opinion- especially where that opinion does not jibe with the rest of society- usually tends towards tyranny.

 

[Dave1001]

You still haven't answered me in the other thread about civl liberties, you know.

All civil liberties will have limits. They must, as they approach the liberties of others. It is up to society to draw that line, which is why it is useless to ask about "shoulds" in these cases- each "should" represents a single person's opinion, and enacting laws based only on a single person's opinion- especially where that opinion does not jibe with the rest of society- usually tends towards tyranny.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the law should be enacted based on only a single person's opinion. That doesn't preclude us from sharing our opinions on what the law should be with each other.

 

[Piscivore]

You're right. To make the thread easier, I was assuming everything listed in my OP was 100% erotic material, not part of some larger art-piece.

That's a dangerous assumption to make, because you're getting into subjective territory there. "Justine" contains a very high percentage of explicit material, including graphically described rape, torture and murder of females as young as ten. The protagonist suffers most of the humiliations and degredations to be found on the internet today.

However, it was not written as "erotic"- although some people will undoubtably find it so- but as a scathing criticism of some of the prevailing philosophies of the age.

If you fail to keep these myriad of distinctions in mind always, you leave yourself open to errors of generalisation.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the law should be enacted based on only a single person's opinion. That doesn't preclude us from sharing our opinions on what the law should be with each other.

That you thought so was not clear on the other thread. Thanks.

I really hope you will answer my central question over there, because I'd really like to know.

 

[Dave1001]

Should all of your examples that don't meet the law's bright-line definition of child pornography be declared illegal obscenity? I don't know, but I'm inclined to say that if there are any obscenity laws in the jurisdiction, then yes. Should they all be lumped into the same category as examples of the worst kind of obscenity, and all be subject to the heightened consequences mentioned in the last paragraph? Probably not, mainly because examples 1 and 2 are only words, and we have a tradition of protecting words, even dangerous words.

It's a different question of whether private ownership of obscenity, or distribution of obscenity between consenting adults should even be illegal. I don't think it shoud be illegal. I think that those thread participants like me that think 1, 2, 4, 5, & 7 should be legal probably feel the same way as me about private ownership of obscenity (and distribution of it between consenting adults). With exceptions carved out for media that arguably records the actual exploitation of people, their estates and belongings, or other sentient beings (child sex, beastiality, secret video recordings of nonconsenting people, actual rape, etc.)

 

[Dave1001]

Okay = Legal.
Not Okay = Illegal.

I had to study obscenity law in college and I also do some work in the movie business...so the question isn't difficult at all, actually.

Got it. So you think that possession of a written fictional story where a child has sex, written purely for erotic stimuation of the reader, shoud be illegal?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh boy, where do I begin to answer such a delightfully put defence of paedophile grooming?

You would have gone down well at Centrepoint commune.

Hell, eight year olds girls can probably say yes to sex if they're properly groomed first - so they say yes when asked if they'd like to have sex. After all, they're not going to be harmed are they?

The usual thing in scientific studies is to use some formulation like "consensual and not causing distress". So assuming you can find instances of eight year olds involved in consensual (in the English and not the legal sense) sexual relationships which do not cause them distress, and frankly I think the idea is far-fetched, then point to the evidence that such relationships are harmful.

After all, you're not going to assume what you need to prove are you?

It's a good christian defence in child-rape cases, too - say that it was consensual. "Hey, she said yes! So she's only 9 or 10, but yes means yes, right?"

Wrong.

In such cases I would treat the claim that consent was freely given and that no distress was caused with great skepticism. However, if you insist that such consensual relationships actually exist and are not merely a fantasy of yours, then just present evidence they are harmful and I will happily agree that they should be criminal.

I hope you're not a parent, because I'd like to think that you may change your mind if you had kids and I'd really like you to change the way you think.

Regardless of what you see as a good or bad thing, regardless of whether it's biblical claptrap to have these laws, regardless of whether you think it's outrageous mores of the few being foisted onto all, you are wrong.

Then you should have no problem finding the evidence to support your claim.

Around here just chanting "You're wrong! It's wrong!" is not considered a valid argument in and of itself.

I've been heartened by the positive response to this and the sexualisation of kids threads and support I'm getting from groups around me that the vast majority of parents feel the same way I do. If you don't like that, or feel it's somehow unfair, unjust or illogical, I can tell you that we, as parents, don't give a flying Tasmanian Devil for your desire to allow child porn. Fortunately, from a legal standpoint - and one which isn't going to be relaxed anytime soon - you are in the minority and the laws of your country and mine both have extremely harsh penalties for breaking those laws. The fact that someone with such a stupidly liberal attitude disagrees with the introduction and enforcement of those laws is music to my ears.

Here you've gotten completely off the point. We get that you feel strongly about the issue, but that is not evidence. The fact that by an amazing coincidence you are parroting current cultural norms and I am not is not evidence either. The fact that you get a visceral kick out of parroting them is also not evidence.

Two types of people could speak against those laws - child molesters and think, childless liberals.

Which one are you?

Obviously logic is not your strong suit. Why can't I be both?

Let's get back to the point however. If the things you want to criminalise actually cause harm it should be easy enough to show. Underage sex, child molestation and child pornography all exist and their effects or lack thereof can be studied objectively. In fact they have been.

I realise this is one of the few topics you are socially licensed to get dogmatic and vicious about, and that getting dogmatic and vicious is fun once in a while. It's no substitute for evidence though. So just hop off that high horse, do a bit of research for a change, and come back when you have actual evidence that (fill in the blank) causes actual harm to actual people.

Find that evidence and I will be happy to criminalise whatever.

(I'm getting one of my psychic premonitions... I get the feeling someone is about to fail to present any evidence, because they have no evidence, and is going to attempt to shift the burden of proof instead. I get the feeling they are going to run the argument that because they are parroting social norms they are right by default and that therefore everyone but them is obliged to present evidence for their claims).

 

[Dave1001]

The usual thing in scientific studies ...

<snip>

great post! I'm only quoting the first few words so as not to spam the board with a long verbatim repeat.

 

[Piscivore]

I think that those thread participants like me... probably feel the same way as me about private ownership of obscenity. With exceptions carved out for media that arguably records the actual exploitation of people, their estates and belongings, or other sentient beings (secret video recordings of nonconsenting people)

This is actually a separate issue to child pornography and/or "obscenity". Are you lumping it in deliberately, or are you just doing so in error? Or have you just not expressed yourself well?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Wow, you're staking out a much more socially difficult position than I have thus far. I remember reading about Bill Maher positively discussing a study that consensual sex between children and adults doesn't harm children.

As I understand it, it would be more accurate to say that the evidence that consensual and non-distressing underage/overage sex causes harm does not rise to the level of statistical significance once you control for everything else.

If empiricism does indeed rigorously show that such sex doesn't harm children, then it will be a far edge example of the difficulty in giving empiricism primacy over prejudice in policy-making. I admit I find it hard to believe myself that sexual contact between adults and children isn't harmful-- for normal socialization into American society as much as anything else. But, I do think there's value in listening to and being open to influence from the best of what science can tell us.

I wouldn't say it has been rigorously shown to not harm children. I'd say that it has so far failed to be shown to be harmful once you control for correlated factors like broken homes, alcoholic parents and so forth.

Even so, I tend to think that we should spend public money writing and enforcing laws that have been shown to prevent actual harm, and not on writing and enforcing ones that based on the available evidence do no such thing. Criminalising fictional depictions of acts which have not been shown to cause harm is a double helping of foolishness.

 

[Piscivore]

As I understand it, it would be more accurate to say that the evidence that consensual and non-distressing underage/overage sex causes harm does not rise to the level of statistical significance once you control for everything else.

What are you considering as "harm" in this case?

I wouldn't say it has been rigorously shown to not harm children. I'd say that it has so far failed to be shown to be harmful once you control for correlated factors like broken homes, alcoholic parents and so forth.

How would one do that, exactly?

Even so, I tend to think that we should spend public money writing and enforcing laws that have been shown to prevent actual harm, and not on writing and enforcing ones that based on the available evidence do no such thing.

How many children need to be harmed to make it cost effective to outlaw it? Who gets to decide what constitutes harm? How much public money do we spend on working these things out?

 

[The Atheist]

I had nearly answered this one preemptively, as I figured it would come. I am not a parent.


Honestly, I have no idea. I can imagine arguments for any of the three, but have evidence for none. However, I am not comfortable with the idea that x should be a crime solely because it raises incidence rates of y, which is a crime.

Thanks.

Look, I hope this doesn't sound like a trite comeback - even though I'm sure it will - but I really think your views might change if you were a father.

I feel that your views are too liberal, but you're certainly entitled to them

I wonder whether there's a little juxtaposition between your view that exploitation of an image might constitute "harm" and that if an increase in child-molestation resulted from legal kiddie-porn, the harm that the assaults unquestionably cause can be ignored.

 

[The Atheist]

(I'm getting one of my psychic premonitions... I get the feeling someone is about to fail to present any evidence, because they have no evidence, and is going to attempt to shift the burden of proof instead. I get the feeling they are going to run the argument that because they are parroting social norms they are right by default and that therefore everyone but them is obliged to present evidence for their claims).

Sorry, but you miss the million bucks.

Are you friends with my buddy, unter?

What an idiot. Of course you'll get no evidence. THERE ISN'T ANY! And you damn well know it, hence your unassailable position from the rock of reason you're standing upojn. Speaking of parrots, before you start parroting the "evidence?" cry, open your eyes and realise that there not only is not any evidence, there can't be any. Unless you'd like to propose a study and volunteer? That's why I gave you the link to Bert Potter - he had exactly the same thoughts as you, groomed his prospects over many years then had completely consensual sex with them whem they were aged about 11 or 12. His evidence was unshakeable. He still went to jail. Strangely, while he was in there, he was caught distributing child-porn to other inmates. Harmless fun, eh?

None of those he had sex with felt they had had any harm done to them. They had grown up on a commune where it was socially acceptable behaviour and were not physically damaged. Once they entered society and saw society's attitudes to child sex, they became victims. I know one and my wife knows another of the victims of Bert Potter's lifelong grooming. Where is the crime? In the sex? Or society's attitudes? Those women will tell you that the crime is with Potter. But that, of course, isn't evidence, just an anecdote about a couple of women, now both well in their 30s who are still coming to grips with their pubescent years having been robbed from them by a cynical rapist.

Yeah, societal norms, what a load of crap.

You completely miss the point that children believe what they are taught to believe and just don't have the maturity to recognise harm as you so sweetly define it. Unfortunately, we live in the real world and those pesky old societal norms say that I'm right and you're wrong.

Hard luck.

 

[steverino]

Your categories are insufficient.

1. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1b. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.
1c. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1d. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.
1e. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1f. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.
1g. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1h. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.

1i. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1j. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1k. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1l. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1m. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1n. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1o. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1p. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.

1q. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1r. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1s. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1t. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1u. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1v. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1w. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1x. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.

1y. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1z. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1aa. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1bb. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1cc. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1dd. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1ee. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1ff. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.

2. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2b. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2c. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2d. Audio only readings or performances of not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2e. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2f. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2g. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2h. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.

3. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3b. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3c. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3d. Audio only readings or performances of not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3e. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3f. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3g. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3h. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.

4. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4b. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, without sound.
4c. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4d. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, without sound.
4e. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4f. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly child-child sex, without sound.
4g. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4h. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, without sound.

5. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5b. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5c. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5d. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5e. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5f. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5g. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5h. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.

6. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6b. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6c. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6d. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6e. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6f. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6g. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6h. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.

7. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7b. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7c. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7d. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7e. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7f. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7g. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7h. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.

8. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minor actors en scene.
8b. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minor actors en scene.
8c. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.
8d. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.
8e. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors en scene.
8f. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly child-child sex, using minors en scene.
8g. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.
8h. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.


9. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.
9b. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.
9c. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.
9d. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.

10. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex.
10b. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex.
10c. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex.
10d. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex.

10e. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex using adult actors.
10f. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex using adult actors.
10g. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex using adult actors.
10h. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex using adult actors.

10i. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex including minor actors.
10j. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex including minor actors.
10k. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex including minor actors engaging only in simulated sex.
10l. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex including minor actors engaging only in simulated sex.
10m. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex including minor actors performing real sex acts.
10n. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex including minor actors performing real sex acts.

I did not feel that there is any useful reason to distinguish between real or simulated sex acts in situations where only adults were involved, so those were omitted.

I just wanted to test my computer to see if this would fit on it! DUDE!

 

[Dave1001]

This is actually a separate issue to child pornography and/or "obscenity". Are you lumping it in deliberately, or are you just doing so in error? Or have you just not expressed yourself well?

You brought in obscenity in discussing how the current law would impact what was discussed in the OP, and it called to mind these side issues which do conflate in some areas with obscenity and the law. I agree with the supreme court that one should be able to privately own and use obscene materials. I disagree with the supreme court that the government should be able to prohibit the sale and distribution of obscene materials between consenting adults.

 

[Piscivore]

Thanks.

Look, I hope this doesn't sound like a trite comeback - even though I'm sure it will - but I really think your views might change if you were a father.

Well, let me say that I am a father, and my eldest daughter is smack dab in the middle of the demographic under consideration. Not only that, if I may be forgiven a father's pride, she's shaping up to be a smoking hottie, George Hrab style (brains body both). Given all that, I agree wholeheartedly with everything our good Marquis has stated on this thread so far.

I feel that your views are too liberal, but you're certainly entitled to them

As are you entitled to be wrong. I love America!

I wonder whether there's a little juxtaposition between your view that exploitation of an image might constitute "harm"

You misread. He said exploitation in the creation of an image might constitute harm.

and that if an increase in child-molestation resulted from legal kiddie-porn, the harm that the assaults unquestionably cause can be ignored.

No, the harm could not be ignored. But you'd have to prove the causal link first, though. How do you propose to do that?

You brought in obscenity in discussing how the current law would impact what was discussed in the OP,

I don't recall mentioning obscenity.

and it called to mind these side issues which do conflate in some areas with obscenity and the law.

How, do you think, "record[ing] the actual exploitation of people, their estates and belongings, or other sentient beings" - specifically "secret video recordings of nonconsenting people" equates with obscenity? People are exploited all the time, as is their property. You are also being filmed all the time, and while you might not like it, I fail to see how it is "obscene" except perhaps colloquially.

I'm really curious to which "other sentient beings" you refer. You got a talking frog in your pocket?

I agree with the supreme court that one should be able to privately own and use obscene materials.

You do not have the right to use privacy laws to conceal criminal activity, nor should you be able to.

I disagree with the supreme court that the government should be able to prohibit the sale and distribution of obscene materials between consenting adults.

Speaking about strictly and solely "obscene" materials, I tend to agree in principal. I would draw the line at materials that have as part of their creation process deliberate and egregious harm to others, especially children.

 

[The Atheist]

No, the harm could not be ignored. But you'd have to prove the causal link first, though. How do you propose to do that?

Well, it's clearly impossible, which is why it's one area we rely on societal values rather than empirical evidence.