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

[Piscivore]

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

Societal values are always in flux though, and vary tremedously between members even in the same community. Given that, isn't a standard based on actual harm caused in creation versus perceived secondary harm potentially caused a better yardstick, especially in a society that supposedly holds individual liberty as its highest value?

I thought Prohibition and the War on Drugs would have shown that there isn't a causative link between crime and supposed "vices".

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, it's clearly impossible

Why?

 

[Dave1001]

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.

Then it sounds like we agree. That's my position too.

 

[Piscivore]

Then it sounds like we agree. That's my position too.

Except that I suspect that your definition of "harm" is quite a bit broader than mine. For instance, I do not consider "secret video recordings of nonconsenting people" automatically as "harmful".

 

[dann]

I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality. The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.
Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged.
Pornography of any kind is fiction with the function of making people get off sexually.
Kiddie porn of any kind caters to paedophiles, i.e. people attracted to this particular kind of fantasy or practice.
Sometimes the process of producing kiddie porn may not actually harm any children: no children involved, merely the imagination of a writer of fiction.
But it still serves the same purpose as the kind of kiddie porn that does involve children in the production stage: It encourages the attitude to children that characterizes paedophiles – be it in the form of imaginary settings where the child takes the initiative to have sex with an adult or in the form of imaginary settings of adults raping children.
Paedophiles should not be encouraged to associate children with sex.
If possible they should be encouraged to stop thinking of having sex with children.
Any group of paedophiles are able to quote studies that say that some victims of paedophilia may not have suffered as a result and thus were not, strictly speaking, victims. It may even be true, I don’t know.
The purpose of the references to these particular studies, however, is not to ensure that children are not hurt.
The references serve the purpose of persuading the paedophiles that it is OK to continue to have sex with children.
That the children are not hurt is part of the fiction of paedophilia, how the paedophiles persuade themselves that their inclinations are alright.
(The majority of them probably couldn’t care less if the children are hurt or not.)
Kiddie porn about consenting children is a simple case of hypocrisy as pornography.
Kiddie porn, also the completely fictitious kind, does not put a stop to paedophiles. It encourages the attitude and thus the practice.
Therefore paedophiles should not possess other reading material about children in connection with sex other than pamphlets telling them where people with these fantasies can get counselling.
I have not seen it myself, but judging from the reviews this is probably a piece of fiction suitable as a Christmas present for paedophiles: The Woodsman.

 

[The Atheist]

Societal values are always in flux though, and vary tremedously between members even in the same community. Given that, isn't a standard based on actual harm caused in creation versus perceived secondary harm potentially caused a better yardstick, especially in a society that supposedly holds individual liberty as its highest value?

I thought Prohibition and the War on Drugs would have shown that there isn't a causative link between crime and supposed "vices".

You're quite right, in all respects bar one - even if I think your analogy is seriously flawed (drug and alcohol offenders generall don't rape kids as part of their MO).

The subject matter is children, and normal rules don't apply. Maybe it's the last bastion of generic patriarchs to over-protect our families, but I don't actually care - it's one area where I will allow will to overcome reason. I could use a nice biblical turn to answer your quite legitimate position by stating that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If we get it wrong, do you want the rape of a child to be on your conscience? If relaxation in the rules of pornography spawned child molesters, would you change your opinion? Are you prepared to pay the price if you get it wrong? What point is liberty if we don't protect our weakest and most vulnerable members?

If people want the laws to be softened, then they can come up with some analysis for scrutiny. In the meantime, the laws as they stand, regarding children and pornography are fine with most.

Look, we had a classic argument along these lines in NZ a few months back. The Minister of Justice proposed an amendment to our laws (current sexual consent 16) to allow for non-prosecution for underage offences, provided that both parties were underage and the sex was consensual. That seemed like a fairly sensible option. Kids will have sex regardless of the laws of the land and to make criminals out of them because of their hormones seemed deeply unfair, to the government. (and me)

The cries of encouraging paedophilia - a ridiculous cry, in the situation in hand - ensured that the law never even saw the reading stages, with the government forced to drop it amid a storm of protest.

The line won't be changed, because people who desire change are automatically seen as pushing a paedophile agenda. In almost all cases, they aren't - as yours and MdC's aren't. I think you go too far one way, while I think the loudest voices go too far the other.

Fortunately, the status quo, legally is not too far from where I'd have the line drawn.

 

[The Atheist]

The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.
Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged.
Pornography of any kind is fiction with the function of making people get off sexually.
Kiddie porn of any kind caters to paedophiles, i.e. people attracted to this particular kind of fantasy or practice.

That really sums the whole debate up.

Instead of asking why we don't allow those types of porn as discussed, why don't those proposing their availability produce a single reason for having that kind of porn.

Well put.

 

[brodski]

That really sums the whole debate up.

Instead of asking why we don't allow those types of porn as discussed, why don't those proposing their availability produce a single reason for having that kind of porn.

Well put.

There is the idea, which I'm not sure I buy myself, that porn catering to pedophiles, but not actually using children, provides an outlet for those sexual urges and reduces the likelihood of children being actually abused.

If it could be demonstrated that this is the case, and that in a strange way pseudo-child porn actually protects children, then obviously I think that pseudo-child porn should be legal. I don't know how you would go about gathering good evidence, and until that evidence is in I think the presumption should be that pseudo-child porn is dangerous.

 

[The Atheist]

There is the idea, which I'm not sure I buy myself, that porn catering to pedophiles, but not actually using children, provides an outlet for those sexual urges and reduces the likelihood of children being actually abused.

If it could be demonstrated that this is the case, and that in a strange way pseudo-child porn actually protects children, then obviously I think that pseudo-child porn should be legal. I don't know how you would go about gathering good evidence, and until that evidence is in I think the presumption should be that pseudo-child porn is dangerous.

Therein lies the problem.

What researcher is going to want to touch this with a barge-pole? It would be like ringing Fatty Arbuckle and asking if you could be his agent.

 

[Dave1001]

Except that I suspect that your definition of "harm" is quite a bit broader than mine. For instance, I do not consider "secret video recordings of nonconsenting people" automatically as "harmful".

By harm I'm not limiting it to physical/emotional harm. I'm including harm to civil liberty and privacy interests, which I think are also germane. I consider "secret video recordings of nonconsenting people" to likely be an infringement of their privacy interests.

 

[Piscivore]

I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality. The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.

No, not in itself it doesn't. Someone hurting children hurts children, whatever the motivation. We can say someone with pedophilia is a lot more likely to do so, but it is not guaranteed.

Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged.

Unless I'm wrong, we do not even know what causes pedophilia, so talking about "encouraging" it may be specious.

Pornography of any kind is fiction with the function of making people get off sexually.

No. Not all porno is fiction, and not all that people get off on is porno. People get off on what they get off on. Sometimes it is the little girls in their underpants in the Sunday circular. Sometimes, as I've already mentions, shockingly explicit material is used for an effect other than arousal or titillation.

Kiddie porn of any kind caters to paedophiles, i.e. people attracted to this particular kind of fantasy or practice.

"caters to" != "causes" or "incites to action".

Sometimes the process of producing kiddie porn may not actually harm any children: no children involved, merely the imagination of a writer of fiction.

Right. No harm, no foul. Better to err on the side of freedom.

But it still serves the same purpose as the kind of kiddie porn that does involve children in the production stage:

Not always. I'd venture to say not often.

It encourages the attitude to children that characterizes paedophiles – be it in the form of imaginary settings where the child takes the initiative to have sex with an adult or in the form of imaginary settings of adults raping children.

Are you saying that a fictional account of someone raping a child is going to do anything but disgust someone who is not already a pedo?

Paedophiles should not be encouraged to associate children with sex.

Agreed. But I don't think it would matter.

If possible they should be encouraged to stop thinking of having sex with children.

Agreed. I don't think eliminating their exposure to explicit material would do so, however.

Any group of paedophiles are able to quote studies that say that some victims of paedophilia may not have suffered as a result and thus were not, strictly speaking, victims.

I'd like to see them. I'm skeptical they exist.

It may even be true, I don’t know.

The purpose of the references to these particular studies, however, is not to ensure that children are not hurt.
The references serve the purpose of persuading the paedophiles that it is OK to continue to have sex with children.

If you do not even know that the studies exist, you cannot know what they say, let alone what their "purpose" may have been.
I will grant you that people that are drawn to unacceptable behaviours do often try to justify themselves. That has no bearing on the issue at hand, though.

That the children are not hurt is part of the fiction of paedophilia, how the paedophiles persuade themselves that their inclinations are alright.

That's a very wide genralisation. Are you sure there aren't pedos that don't care that they hurt children, or are upset that they hurt children but feel powerless to stop? If you had said how "some" pedos persuade themselves, I'd grant you that. As it stands you are just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

(The majority of them probably couldn’t care less if the children are hurt or not.)

See, you just contradicted yourself. You don't know that any of this is correct, you are just making emotional assuptions.

Kiddie porn about consenting children is a simple case of hypocrisy as pornography.

You are doing exactly the same thing here.

Kiddie porn, also the completely fictitious kind, does not put a stop to paedophiles.

Nope. Neither can you prove it creates them.

It encourages the attitude and thus the practice.

Prove it.

Therefore paedophiles should not possess other reading material about children in connection with sex other than pamphlets telling them where people with these fantasies can get counselling.

I see. And how do you propose we identify these men that we may rob them of their civil rights?
What about the Sunday circulars, the Sears Catalogue, the children's television program?

I have not seen it myself, but judging from the reviews this is probably a piece of fiction suitable as a Christmas present for paedophiles: The Woodsman.

I'd suggest "Hard Candy" myself.

 

[brodski]

Therein lies the problem.

What researcher is going to want to touch this with a barge-pole? It would be like ringing Fatty Arbuckle and asking if you could be his agent.

True, although on a side note, Fatty Arbuckle didn't actually do a tenth of the things attributed to him.

 

[Dave1001]

Instead of asking why we don't allow those types of porn as discussed, why don't those proposing their availability produce a single reason for having that kind of porn.

Pursuit of happiness. I think an adult can privately get sexual gratification from fictional erotic stories of child sex (even fictional stories of transparent rape of a protesting child) and yet still not break any laws, not have any sexual contact (or any contact at all) with children, and be a functioning, contributing member of society.

I think this applies to a zillion things besides private enjoyment of fictional erotic child sex stories (private enjoyment of home-grown pot, home-made meth, private enjoyment of adult rape fantasies, etc.)

Who knows the various sick, twisted fantasies that make the many oddballs of the world happy. If no one is actually harmed by it, if it takes place only in the theatre of the mind and the private written word, then I lean strongly towards it being a legal private activity.

 

[Piscivore]

By harm I'm not limiting it to physical/emotional harm.

Yeah, I suspected as much.

I'm including harm to civil liberty and privacy interests, which I think are also germane.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, which civil liberty?

How does privacy enter into the creation of explicit materials?

I consider "secret video recordings of nonconsenting people" to likely be an infringement of their privacy interests.

That's possible, but that has f[rule 8] all to do with "obscenity". Why do you bring it up?

 

[Dave1001]

That's possible, but that has f[rule 8] all to do with "obscenity". Why do you bring it up?

general articulation of things which might fall within the category of "obscenity" by some arbiters, but which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of in terms of distribution or private ownership. I'd also put beastiality, necrophilia, snuff, actual rape, and child pornography using actual children into that category of things which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of. But other things that can fall into the "obscenity" category? No.

 

[dann]

Are you sure there aren't pedos that don't care that they hurt children, or are upset that they hurt children but feel powerless to stop?

I am sure that some paedophiles actually enjoy knowing that they are hurting children and that some are upset that they do and therefore come up with excuses, some of them references to history or studies, to try to persuade themselves that they don't! They may also feel "powerless" to stop, but I don't think that anybody is!
There are a lot of stupid excuses for doing the wrong thing in this context - and in so many others.

 

[Piscivore]

You're quite right, in all respects bar one - even if I think your analogy is seriously flawed (drug and alcohol offenders generall don't rape kids as part of their MO).

No, it is your understanding of the concept of an "analogy" that is flawed. Drug and alcohol offenders break drug and alcohol laws or find substitutes for the outlawed substances.
Pedophiles will break anti-porn laws (which they do) or find substitutes- children's underpants ads, clothing catalogues, etc. "Sitting on a park bench- eyeing little girls with bad intent" and so forth.

The subject matter is children, and normal rules don't apply.

Why not?

Maybe it's the last bastion of generic patriarchs to over-protect our families, but I don't actually care - it's one area where I will allow will to overcome reason.

So you raised your children in a bubble? I hope that works out for you. I chose the opposite tack, and I couln't be more pleased with my kids.

I could use a nice biblical turn to answer your quite legitimate position by stating that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Indeed. Would that include your intention to "protect" kids?

If we get it wrong, do you want the rape of a child to be on your conscience?

Nope. that's why my daughter is fully versed in the concepts of this topic.

If relaxation in the rules of pornography spawned child molesters, would you change your opinion?

If proven, yes. As I just said to that other guy, I do not think that is the case. Someone who sexually desires children is not going to be put off by the unavalability of explicit materials. Someone who does not sexually desire children is not going to be "turned" by exposure to explicit materials. I've read "Justine". It did not make me rape my daughter.

Are you prepared to pay the price if you get it wrong?

Yes. Are you?

What point is liberty if we don't protect our weakest and most vulnerable members?

Um.. the "liberty" part. What point security if we have to live in a totalitarian nanny state to get it?

If people want the laws to be softened, then they can come up with some analysis for scrutiny.

Contrariwise. If someone wants the laws toughened, they damn well better come up with the research first.

In the meantime, the laws as they stand, regarding children and pornography are fine with most.

If that were true, would there be a debate?

Look, we had a classic argument along these lines in NZ a few months back. The Minister of Justice proposed an amendment to our laws (current sexual consent 16) to allow for non-prosecution for underage offences, provided that both parties were underage and the sex was consensual. That seemed like a fairly sensible option. Kids will have sex regardless of the laws of the land and to make criminals out of them because of their hormones seemed deeply unfair, to the government. (and me)

No argument. We have similar laws gaining ground up here.

The cries of encouraging paedophilia - a ridiculous cry, in the situation in hand - ensured that the law never even saw the reading stages, with the government forced to drop it amid a storm of protest.

But the fact there was debate at all, that it was proposed at all, is a signal that "the times, they are a' changin'"

The line won't be changed, because people who desire change are automatically seen as pushing a paedophile agenda.

Yesterday, maybe. Try again later.

In almost all cases, they aren't - as yours and MdC's aren't. I think you go too far one way, while I think the loudest voices go too far the other.

You don't expand a horizon by pushing on the middle.

Fortunately, the status quo, legally is not too far from where I'd have the line drawn.

It isn't bad, no. But if you stop "pushing" the people pushing the other way- away from liberty and the attendant personal responsibility- move the line their way.

 

[dann]

I see. And how do you propose we identify these men that we may rob them of their civil rights?

I don't!

What about the Sunday circulars, the Sears Catalogue, the children's television program?

You are being very silly now. What I said was that:

... paedophiles should not possess other reading material about children in connection with sex other than pamphlets telling them where people with these fantasies can get counselling.

Do you actually think that "the Sunday circulars, the Sears Catalogue, the children's television program" place children in a sexual context?

 

[Piscivore]

general articulation of things which might fall within the category of "obscenity" by some arbiters, but which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of in terms of distribution or private ownership. I'd also put beastiality, necrophilia, snuff, actual rape, and child pornography using actual children into that category of things which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of. But other things that can fall into the "obscenity" category? No.

Wow, that is almost Orwellian. What exactly falls into the "obscene" category that you would like to see "decriminalised"?

 

[Dave1001]

Wow, that is almost Orwellian. What exactly falls into the "obscene" category that you would like to see "decriminalised"?

All that other stuff described here. So what if something is all that stuff if no one was actually harmed by its making or usage, and it's being used by consenting adults in private?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Obscenity

"Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Note that "community" standards—not national standards—are applied whether the material appeals to the prurient interest; thus, material may be deemed obscene in one locality but not in another. National standards, however, are applied whether the material is of value."