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

[DanishDynamite]

A number of cartoonists were invited by the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten to make cartoons portraying Mohammed. A very stupid idea, and the whole point of this was: Apparently the Moslems don't want us to, since in their religion, for some reason or other, you are not allowed to portray the prophet. Jyllands-Posten pretended that the point of the campaign was to advocate free speech, but for some reason they stopped short at poking fun at Jesus X the same way. A very prudent distinction to make, since most of the subscribers to Jyllands-Posten are Christians. A couple of the cartoonists were well aware of this being a campaign against Moslems, so instead they used their own cartoons to criticize the campaign, i.e. the daily!
The Moslems were not attacking free speech, they were attacking people who they felt desecrated their religion. Jyllands-Posten did not defend free speech. They attacked a religious (and ethnic) minority in Denmark under the pretext of advocating free speech.

I don't want to derail this thread so I won't comment in detail on this absurd analysis of the Muhammed crises other than to say you are sooo wrong, dann.

 

[dann]

The censorship argument comes from your criticism and desire to ban literature you disapprove of

And where exactly do you see this desire to ban literature I disapprove of?
Like I've said several times already: Some people don't listen to an argument against something, since arguments in this society have been reduced to opinions, which is why the only thing that counts is: 'Yes, it may be wrong, it may hurt people, but am I allowed to do it anyway? Or is it possible to escape detection if I do?'

This, by the way, is what hammegk said:
"The only remedy a moral relativist has available to address any issue is The Law.
If it isn't illegal, it's moral. See? "

I don't know which other issues people may have with hammegk, but he happens to be right about this one.

 

[Piscivore]

This, by the way, is what hammegk said:
"The only remedy a moral relativist has available to address any issue is The Law.
If it isn't illegal, it's moral. See? "

I don't know which other issues people may have with hammegk, but he happens to be right about this one.

So who here is a moral relativist? I'm not, I don't think DD is either. Since Hammy seems to want to imply that we are, he is wrong on that count.

 

[Dave1001]

So who here is a moral relativist? I'm not, I don't think DD is either. Since Hammy seems to want to imply that we are, he is wrong on that count.

Well I'm sort of a moral relativist, but I still think I have plenty of other remedies to address things besides the law. It's difficult for me to see how an empiricist can be a moral absolutist in this world, because we still apparently know so little --about our brains, about maximally efficient social interactions, about apparent reality, etc. It seems to me that any moral code based on our knowledge of the world should be provisional and subject to revision, just like our models of apparent reality. All that's for another thread, but it does inform how I think we should look at child pornography and pseudo child pornography and what should or shouldn't be legal, to bring it back to the topic of this thread.

 

[Piscivore]

Well I'm sort of a moral relativist, but I still think I have plenty of other remedies to address things besides the law. It's difficult for me to see how an empiricist can be a moral absolutist in this world, because we still apparently know so little --about our brains, about maximally efficient social interactions, about apparent reality, etc. It seems to me that any moral code based on our knowledge of the world should be provisional and subject to revision, just like our models of apparent reality. All that's for another thread, but it does inform how I think we should look at child pornography and pseudo child pornography and what should or shouldn't be legal, to bring it back to the topic of this thread.

Good luck with that, man.

I think what Hammy was trying to imply was the sort of "anything goes" moral relativism. IMO, any society that is going to fancy itself a "free" society has to accept a few basic "inalienable" rights, first and foremost among them the free exchange of ideas.

I suppose the point can be made that not all societies value liberty, and as such that is a relative moral value. By that brush you may so paint me a "relativist", and I invite Hammy to proffer his alternative.

 

[hammegk]

I noticed and deliberately ignored it because I am familiar with his posting style. Suffice it to say that most people here are trying to argue for what they think the law should be, based on their personal moral code and legal philosophy.

Indeed. And welcome to another:

Meaningless Materialist Mutual Mental Masturbation Meeting.


Reality, irrelevant.

Good luck with that, man.

Perhaps effective remedies not dependent on law enforcement exist in multicultural, societies; I see none.

I think what Hammy was trying to imply was the sort of "anything goes" moral relativism. IMO, any society that is going to fancy itself a "free" society has to accept a few basic "inalienable" rights, first and foremost among them the free exchange of ideas.

I suppose the point can be made that not all societies value liberty, and as such that is a relative moral value. By that brush you may so paint me a "relativist", and I invite Hammy to proffer his alternative.

I have none that any intelligent, egocentric, materialist/atheist could agree to, nor does anyone else. Some of you may begin to sense why Man invented organized religions.

 

[Piscivore]

Reality, irrelevant.

Then why do you keep playing in it?

Perhaps effective remedies not dependent on law enforcement exist in multicultural, societies; I see none.

Okay.

I have none that any intelligent, egocentric, materialist/atheist could agree to, nor does anyone else.

I didn't ask for one I could agree with. Any old sort will do. What would an immaterialist do?

Some of you may begin to sense why Man invented organized religions.

Nothing to do all day until he invented Playstation?

 

[aerosolben]

And where exactly do you see this desire to ban literature I disapprove of?

I'm not trying to argue with you here; I'm just pointing out that censorship arguments stem from the perception that you are trying eliminate "literature", and not attempt to censure you for for daring to disagree. Just trying to correct an apparent misunderstanding.

'Yes, it may be wrong, it may hurt people, but am I allowed to do it anyway?

I don't see that at all. The questions I see in this thread is "Is it wrong?", "Does it hurt people?", and "How should our legal system handle it?"

The argument I have seen goes "I think [such and such] is not harmful, and therefore should be legal", and it appears the intent of the thread is to argue whether the premise is true (by putting forth evidence, etc).

I read your quote above as believing that if it was demonstrated that [such and such] were indeed harmful, posters would continue to believe that it should be legal. I don't think that's the case.

Is that fair?

This, by the way, is what hammegk said:
"The only remedy a moral relativist has available to address any issue is The Law."

I asked this before, and haven't seen an answer - how do you suggest the issue should be addressed?

"If it isn't illegal, it's moral. See? "

I don't know which other issues people may have with hammegk, but he happens to be right about this one.

Has someone in this thread agreed that it accurately describes their beliefs?

It seems obvious to me that this is a strawman built for no purpose but to offend the reader it attempts to insult, the use of which is not terribly endearing.

 

[dann]

IMO, any society that is going to fancy itself a "free" society has to accept a few basic "inalienable" rights, first and foremost among them the free exchange of ideas.

I wouldn't say that kiddie porn lives up to the term free exhange of ideas.

 

[dann]

The argument I have seen goes "I think [such and such] is not harmful, and therefore should be legal", and it appears the intent of the thread is to argue whether the premise is true (by putting forth evidence, etc).

That may appear to you to be the case, but look at this exchange:

I don't think that men are usually turned on by A Clockwork Orange (I know that I wasn't), and I am fairly sure that Anthony Burgess did not intend it to turn them on.
And to pre-empt your next argument: Yes, I do know that you can masturbate to the Sears catalogue, but at a pinch you can also use a clog as a hammer if you haven't got the proper tools. That doesn't mean that a clog is a hammer. You can sit on a box, which doesn't make it indistinguishable from a chair. It usually isn't very difficult to distinguish between literature and pornography. I don't think you can find many copies of A Clockwork Orange or Lolita (I don't know about Justine, but I wouldn't think so in that case either) in porn shops. And you don't find many copies of BigNs (Is that how Al Bundy would spell it?) in an ordinary book shop.
The only thing that makes the distinction difficult is that the judiciary system used to ban books that weren't pornography as if they were.

Sorry, dann, but I completely disagree with you. Anyone should be able to write and publish any book they feel like as long as such publication doesn't endanger national security or break any libel laws. Anything else is blatant censorship.

Instead of looking at the argument, DD simply implies that it is an argument against free speech, and on the basis of this misreading he declares himself an advocate of free speech and thus opposed to what I say. This appears to be the way you think when your head is full of law.

 

[aerosolben]

This appears to be the way you think when your head is full of law.

You still haven't answered my question - how should the issue be addressed?

 

[Piscivore]

I wouldn't say that kiddie porn lives up to the term free exhange of ideas.

Why not? Wanting to have sex with children is an idea. Fantasizing about having sex with children is an idea. Sharing your fantasy with others is sharing an idea. Selling a fantasy to others is selling an idea. They may be icky, squicky unpleasant ideas, but they are unarguably ideas. The fact that they are usually generated and distributed by people you don't like, or that some of the people that have and trade in them go on to commit related crimes, does not make them any less so.

These thoughts are ideas in exactly the same way as standing in the bank line fantasizing about robbing it is an idea, or daydreaming about killing someone who screwed you over, or breifly considering running the car that just cut in front of you off the road, or wanting to grab the gun of the policeman standing idly next to you and shooting random strangers until you are cut down in a hail of bullets, or picturing yourself with Angelina Jolie tied up in your basement.

These are all ideas, only ideas, about crimes. If one were to act on these ideas, besides the acts being illegal they are all in varying degrees immoral. But only thinking about them is not immoral, and communicating these ideas is not immoral.

 

[bigred]

It is actually very simple.

You would think.


PS and FYI, stories ABOUT child porn aren't child porn.

Anyway, remember this is the "anything goes" era of our society, championed by a disturbing # of people who, in their blind stupidity imagine themselves as being "enlightened" because they stand against all forms of "censorship" blah blah ad nauseum. Reminds me of the brilliant "free love" concept that hippies dreamed up in the 60s

I also find it sad and exceedingly disturbing that many people have to actually become parents to get how sick and wrong this is.


PS sorry pisc but give me a break w/the "robbing a bank" analogy. And someone daydreaming about child porn is not the same as having/distritubing/etc pics or movies of it or whatever. I'm all for debate for the sake of debate but cmon.

 

[Piscivore]

Anyway, remember this is the "anything goes" era of our society, championed by a disturbing # of people who, in their blind stupidity imagine themselves as being "enlightened" because they stand against all forms of "censorship" blah blah ad nauseum. Reminds me of the brilliant "free love" concept that hippies dreamed up in the 60s

What was wrong with that? Until the hard drugs got involved it was doing all right.

I also find it sad and exceedingly disturbing that many people have to actually become parents to get how sick and wrong this is.

I am a parent. Of a thirteen year old girl.

PS sorry pisc but give me a break w/the "robbing a bank" analogy.

Why? How specifically does daydreaming about one criminal or immoral activity differ from daydreaming about another criminal or immoral activity?

And someone daydreaming about child porn is not the same as having/distritubing/etc pics or movies of it or whatever.

Of course it isn't. But that difference alone does not automatically make it immoral and should not make it illegal.

Don't forget; I'm not including any explicit materials- "porn" or otherwise- that involve harm of a child as part of their creation as a form of protected speech. Anything else- adults playing at being young, drawings, special effects, what have you- is just fantasy.

I'm all for debate for the sake of debate but cmon.

C'mon what? I'm not debating for the sake of debate.

 

[Dave1001]

I think it's unfortunate that some posters are consistently conflating porn using real children having sex with adults or each other with pseudo child porn featuring adults pretending to be children, or cartoons, or just the written word. Even if one thinks both types should be illegal, it's a distinction worth maintaining just so that we all communicate with each other effectively in the thread.

When one says "I'm against kiddie porn because real children are hurt by making it" it can confuse other posters if you don't spell out that you are against pseudo child porn also, and on what separate grounds (certainly kids aren't hurt by the process of making pseudo child porn).

Having said that, I can think of a challenging (if still theoretical) area of real, live action child porn using real children that might be hard to ban.

I do think this scenario is increasingly realistic given accessibility to camera phones, web cams, etc. in our current times.

Let's say two under age children using a camera phone or a web cam (or even a household security camera) accidentally or purposefully film themselves doing sexual things to each other. This video remains undiscovered until both turn 18. When they rediscover it, they decide they want to distribute and/or sell this video of the two of them when they were children.

I understand that people who are against even psuedo child pornography will be against the distribution of this video too, probably because they think it will encourage real world child sexual abuse.

But how about those thread participants that support pseudo child pornography but oppose child pornography using real children engaged in sex acts? On what grounds would you oppose allowing these two adults to own, distribute, or sell this video of them having underage sex? Or do you all support them in this right?

My personal take? I think that an adult has the right to sell pornographic imagery and sound of themselves when they were underage, as well as to license that content to others. Of course, that adult would have to be of sound mind, and not coerced, etc. just like any other contracting adult.

 

[Piscivore]

Having said that, I can think of a challenging (if still theoretical) area of real, live action child porn using real children that might be hard to ban.

I do think this scenario is increasingly realistic given accessibility to camera phones, web cams, etc. in our current times.

Let's say two under age children using a camera phone or a web cam (or even a household security camera) accidentally or purposefully film themselves doing sexual things to each other. This video remains undiscovered until both turn 18. When they rediscover it, they decide they want to distribute and/or sell this video of the two of them when they were children.

I understand that people who are against even psuedo child pornography will be against the distribution of this video too, probably because they think it will encourage real world child sexual abuse.

But how about those thread participants that support pseudo child pornography but oppose child pornography using real children engaged in sex acts? On what grounds would you oppose allowing these two adults to own, distribute, or sell this video of them having underage sex? Or do you all support them in this right?

My personal take? I think that an adult has the right to sell pornographic imagery and sound of themselves when they were underage, as well as to license that content to others. Of course, that adult would have to be of sound mind, and not coerced, etc. just like any other contracting adult.

Morally, I think they should be allowed to do with it what they want. Certainly to own it, or to view or display it in their own homes- as long as both parties equally consented. If one of the partners wanted it destroyed in the future I think the right thing for the other to do would be to destroy it.

Selling it, only if both parties were equally enthused about it. If one partner had doubts morally the other shouldn't press it.

LEGALLY, however, there are a few problems. How does law enforcement determine that the product being sold actually depicts the persons doing the selling? What about resales? What about the can of worms it is going to open from the people that are going to be trying to videotape 15-16 year olds, waiting a few years, then getting their consent- or just faking the consent forms outright? What about the ones that are going to claim that since an adult has a legal right to sell explicit videos of him- or herself as a minor, a parent or legal guardian has the right to give consent for the minor to participate?

No, I think there are far to many problems and far to few people that would potentially benefit for that to be a good idea.

ETA: Think of it this way- I morally should have the right to do what I like with my own property, right? But I can't burn my own house down, because it puts my neighbors in danger and wastes the fire dept's time and resources. Same thing here.

 

[hammegk]

Re: "If it isn't illegal, it's moral. See? "

Has someone in this thread agreed that it accurately describes their beliefs?

What does anyones' belief have to do with it? If you can propose any meaningful penalty for "immoral acts" in the as-provided-by-Law pc multiculturalism now in place in much of western society that does not involve the legal system I'd like to find out what it is.

It seems obvious to me that this is a strawman built for no purpose but to offend the reader it attempts to insult, the use of which is not terribly endearing.

Waaah.

Try some more MMMMMM.

What would an immaterialist do?

Sorry, I have no suggestions. I made an observation.

How about a forecast?

At a guess the Islamofascists will impose order in Europe and the eastern hemisphere that China isn't running. The US awaits totalitarian fascism of some flavor to impose order. Minor players can find their own brand of despotism, as most of the world runs now. Those with power will as always define morality for the masses, noting the fact that it's irrelevant to them personally in any case.

What does your crystal ball tell you?

 

[Piscivore]

Sorry, I have no suggestions. I made an observation.

How about a forecast?

At a guess the Islamofascists will impose order in Europe and the eastern hemisphere that China isn't running. The US awaits totalitarian fascism of some flavor to impose order. Minor players can find their own brand of despotism, as most of the world runs now. Those with power will as always define morality for the masses, noting the fact that it's irrelevant to them personally in any case.

What does your crystal ball tell you?

Nothing, it is a lump of silica. All it does is sit there looking pretty and holding down papers.

As far as what I think the future holds, it seems to me the era of the totalitarian facist is almost over. How many of them are left, exactly?

Sure, the desire is still there, probably always will be. But it seems fewer and fewer people are willing to go along.

 

[Iamme]

If there weren't so many pervs running around, it wouldn't be a problem, but there are, so it is.

Sorry, but I just saw this thread for the first time as I have ben lurking in the science and community forum forums. Notice all the responses this thread has generated.

I am of the persuasion that the curiouisity of sex at almsot all ages is predominent. And the religious right tries making every one out to be a perv. Why are there so many people that are are pervs, if pervs are abnormal? Kids play doctor at age 3 or 4 for crumb sakes. It's all normal. And the sexual fetish never goes away. You can't tell me that if some beautiful 14 year old girl came over to your house and asked you if she could use your shower, that you would not be tempted to slide a mirror under the door, if you knew you could get away with it! Be honest with yourselves, people. This whole sex business is the most hypocritical thing that face our courts that there EVER was. And it is not fair to those who get caught and have to serve 20-40 years with no parole over stuff that others do worse of and get away with.

Laws were passed by old curmudgeony old bald-headed farts who have lost their sex drive or appeal to the opposite sex... and they are out to get those that still have sex drive and create interest amongst the opposite sex.

 

[hammegk]

As far as what I think the future holds, it seems to me the era of the totalitarian facist is almost over.

Given advances in neuro-science, chemical mood control, electronic implants, who-knows-what-else, the next one may last longer with greater effectiveness than previous ones.

How many of them are left, exactly?

China, NK, Venezuela, Syria, USSR reforming, er, Pakistan, Zimbabwe ... we can probably think of several more ... (I suspect my definition of fascism is broader than yours, but what is non-socialistic socialism?)

Sure, the desire is still there, probably always will be. But it seems fewer and fewer people are willing to go along.

Few people recognize where they're going until they get there.

And in the US if it happens I'd expect co-option of xianity to give it real flavor.