Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[gumboot]

And that is what the courts have done. Now, if someone feels that their particular virtual child pornography/artwork/comicbook/drawing or whatever has had the ban inappropriately applied to it, they are free to go to court and the burden of proof is on them to show artistic or societal value. It works the same with nude photographs of children. Even if someone is offended by a particular piece of work (such as artistic photographs, or even bathtub pictures), it is simply a matter of proving that particular item does not meet the criteria of obscenity.

I think this is the crux of what I and many others have an issue with. The producer of a work should not be under any obligation whatsoever to demonstrate that their work has particular value. That goes against the entire principle of free speech and free society.

Rather, the burden should be on the government to prove that the work inflicts harm on others.

Basically laws banning obscene works just ditch the burden of proof by making a blanket argument that all such works inflict harm on others, without actually providing any evidence that this is true. That's a totally unjustified position.

To illustrate this another way:

Let's say I want to grow tomatoes in my garden. I should not be required to provide any evidence that doing so is beneficial to society. Rather, if anyone wants to prevent me growing tomatoes, they should be required to provide evidence that me doing so would be harmful to society.

 

[Southwind17]

The problem is that by applying the logic you're using above ("real" child porn and "virtual" child porn aren't the exact same thing, but they are both still child pornography), ALL pornography should be treated the same as child pornography simply because child pornography is pornography (Argument by Generalization).

And if this isn't a logical fallacy I don't know what is! By what possible logic or reasoning can "child" pornography be successfully argued to necessarily mean "all" pornography. "Argument by Generalization"! Nice try, but no.

You are ignoring the fact that there are fundamental differences between the two ...

Begging the question.

... refusing to address arguments made based upon those differences, and instead, responding to those arguments as if they are about both instead of just one or the other. In other words, you are conflating the issues, and now doing so on purpose (I say this because the problem with the conflation has been pointed out to you several times, and you continue to ignore it).

She's not ignoring it. She's passing it off because it's irrelevant to her argument. You persist to claim that she's ignoring it because you fail to understand and appreciate her argument.

You only seem to be concerned about YOUR feelings on the subject. You're failing to understand that if YOUR feelings on the subject are applied to the world around you, it causes harm. Just like the current law causes harm. Demonstrable harm, with comic book collectors being thrown in jail and marked as pedophiles for life when they've never even touched a child, let alone abused one. You don't seem to care enough about that harm to adjust your view, or at least concede that your view should not be applied to people outside yourself without the benefits outweighing the risks. And you have been shown, both by people here, and through your own research, that the benefits do not outweigh the risks since there's no causal relationship between pedophiles and child porn (of any sort).

Hang on a minute here. This might be a good time to clarify whether your, and most other pro-VCP supporters here, primary if not only objection to VCP derives from "comic book collectors being thrown in jail and marked as pedophiles for life when they've never even touched a child, let alone abused one" (regardless of that being a gross exaggeration, in the main). Is that your primary if not only objection?

You find the topic of children involved in sexual scenes offensive and obscene. Great. I certainly respect that. You find the topic so offensive that you're intolerant of fake depictions of such material -- i.e. cartoons, computer renderings, etc.. Fine. I respect that as well. I'm not a fan of the subject matter either.

The problem is that you then suppose that this offense is justification for the law including "virtual" child porn under the same set of laws as "real" child porn and ignoring those same differences that we have been discussing here. Appealing to emotion -- a logical fallacy.

Ahem ...

I happen to find oatmeal offensive and obscene. I refuse to eat it, or even look at it. You won't find me supporting a law to ban it based upon those grounds though...

Straw man.

You also then turn around and use the law as justification for your appeal to emotion, despite the flaws in the logic that have been pointed out to you.

Ahem ...

This is appealing to authority and begging the question at the same time.

Ahem ...

If there was a law saying that oatmeal is banned because "the government" found oatmeal offensive and obscene, does that actually mean that oatmeal should be banned? Tons of laws get through unchallenged that shouldn't be on the books. It doesn't make those laws just. I'm sorry, it simply doesn't. Unjust laws exist.

Straw man.

Personally, I have a huge problem with obscenity laws in general. I feel that it is completely and utterly ridiculous for the government to dictate what is "decent" and what is "obscene". These are subjective and personal moral judgements made largely about subjects that are incapable of causing harm in and of themselves. I feel that the law should only step in when harm is demonstrable. When it comes to virtual child porn... Yes, I find the stuff disgusting, and horrific, and nauseating, and distasteful, and offensive, and obscene. But it harms no one.

Allegedly.

You seem to be forgetting something SkeptiChick - the overriding right to live in a civilised society actually requires the foregoing of certain "rights", like the right to kill somebody, the right to drive at 200kph on the "wrong" side of the road, the right to rape children, for example. Civilised societies elect bodies to determine the rights of citizens that shall remain - they're called laws. Now, I'm not saying that all enacted laws are correct, they're clearly not, but you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You seem to want to reap the benefits that a civilised society affords but at the same time still play by all of your own rules.

 

[Southwind17]

Manga collecters will no longer have to worry that the next issue of Bleach will be about Ichigo(15) and Rukia(100+ but said to look 15) having sex. Other than that not much ...

You know what, I'd never heard of Manga before this thread!

What do you see as the negative effects to society of allowing VCP?

The cost to society (however you'd like to measure it) of reconciling the reasonably deduced possibility that VCP might contribute to child sexual abuse, for starters.

 

[amb]

Er, ahem. I was sent here by Arthwollipot. I was looking for some porn, but there's no porn here, only a lot of posts about it. It's a bit like the guy who says, ''all my wife does is oral sex, all she does is talk about it

 

[sugarb]

I think this is the crux of what I and many others have an issue with. The producer of a work should not be under any obligation whatsoever to demonstrate that their work has particular value. That goes against the entire principle of free speech and free society.

Rather, the burden should be on the government to prove that the work inflicts harm on others.

Basically laws banning obscene works just ditch the burden of proof by making a blanket argument that all such works inflict harm on others, without actually providing any evidence that this is true. That's a totally unjustified position.

To illustrate this another way:

Let's say I want to grow tomatoes in my garden. I should not be required to provide any evidence that doing so is beneficial to society. Rather, if anyone wants to prevent me growing tomatoes, they should be required to provide evidence that me doing so would be harmful to society.

Hello Gumboot. I really do understand what you, and even others, are saying. But...obscenity is not protected speech. And that isn't the only thing that isn't protected speech. Since we know, in broad terms, that outright obscene material does not fall under protected speech...we know that, there is no question...then don't you think it is actually a good thing that our government at least allows someone who is accused of having/making/distributing obscene material to prove otherwise? I mean, that is a freedom that a whole lot of other folks around the world don't enjoy.

I really do see what you mean. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Why should that line, regarding obscenity, not be drawn in front of children? We do not and have never had unrestricted free speech. The limits, though, are very small. And if there are going to be limits, let it be at children. What I find odd is that many people who support "hate speech" laws fight for "free speech" in other areas. People who support the fairness doctrine will also argue free speech...even though the fairness doctrine isn't unfettered free speech. There have to be limits. The problem is...everyone else wants to decide who those limits should apply to. The only reasonable application, Gumboot, I see is anything involving minors. I don't understand why we adults can't police ourselves in terms of appropriateness.

I've said it time and time again, not that it matters, but there are so many inconsistencies already with regards to child protection laws, why do we just want to create yet another one? The law as it is does not immediately take away what you make...and it probably wouldn't even become an issue if whatever the material is hadn't been complained about by someone else. But there is in place a safecheck to protect your work if it is NOT obscene.

I do understand what you are saying. And I don't even totally disagree.

 

[Belz...]

And quite rightly so, in principle. The cost/benefit analysis, real or perceived, for child porn yields a unique and completely different result than that for violent movies targeted at adults.

Really ? Even virtual child porn ?

 

[Southwind17]

I have a big problem with simulated child pornography. I think it's disgusting and unnatural. But I cannot accept any argument for banning it. There is no victim, because no illegal or victimising act has been committed. The only vaguely solid argument against it is that allowing it somehow encourages or enables sexualising of children and pedophilia.

See below.

However to that I would simply point out that, by the same logic, miniskirts and low necklines should be made illegal because they encourage rape.

Except that it isn't "by the same logic". You're equating a mentally immature, naive, vulnerable child to an adult who has consciously elected to dress arguably provocatively in light of the measured risks and possible consequences. This is a key aspect of sugarb's argument. Care to reconsider your position above?

Such an argument is obviously ridiculous ...

It is now, hopefully.

... and so is the argument that making virtual child porn legal will cause molesters to attack children.

Take two?

 

[Southwind17]

As material as any video game, does that mean I should go to jail for playing the "No Russian" Level of MW2.

Anyone should be free to be as obscene as they want to be with what ever consenting adult they can find that is willing, in private.

So long as they aren't hurting anyone they should be free to do what ever they want.

Oh lordy lord ... have we got the time and inclination to backtrack to circa. Post #5?!

 

[Belz...]

VCP may be banned, but is it wrong? Is it harmful? I think that is what's being asked here.

Well, the pixels are being harmed, I'm sure.

 

[Southwind17]

I agree with regards to child pornography (real or virtual). I would agree with beastiality. No, you know that I do not agree otherwise. Those things are already banned, though, JFrankA. I don't understand what the problem is here? I know we keep talking about the comic book guy...but what about other artists whose work has risen to the challenge of the law? Why are we acting as if society as a whole wants to ban nudity or sex? That isn't at all the case. Plenty of controversial artwork, even involving real people, has won against the law...if it isn't just obscenity. Contrary to popular belief, everyone who agrees with banning all child pornography isn't a prude.

Maybe that's what Southwind17 wants (I don't recall him saying so, I'll go back and re-read), but surely you know that isn't what I've said.

No need to re-read sugarb - I'll clarify. Yes - I strongly believe that all child pornography should be banned, but ONLY in the context of a clear definition or test of what "child pornography" comprises. Whether that makes it prior restraint, the realm of obscenity laws or whatever, frankly, I couldn't give a flying proverbial. Anybody who supports child pornography per se, and who isn't prepared to support a legitimate, workable and fair way to ban it is tantamount to endorsing it so far as I'm concerned, and hence almost as despicable as those who actually produce it - real or virtual.

 

[Belz...]

What do you see as the benefits to society of allowing VCP?

Huh. VCP is guilty until proven innocent, then ?

 

[gumboot]

Hello Gumboot. I really do understand what you, and even others, are saying. But...obscenity is not protected speech.

But it should be, which is our point. See the dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas in Miller v. California.

And that isn't the only thing that isn't protected speech.

The entire point of the First Amendment is that all speech is protected speech.

Since we know, in broad terms, that outright obscene material does not fall under protected speech...we know that, there is no question...

The issue is whether it should be protected, not whether it is.

Then don't you think it is actually a good thing that our government at least allows someone who is accused of having/making/distributing obscene material to prove otherwise? I mean, that is a freedom that a whole lot of other folks around the world don't enjoy.

Are you really asking me whether I think "guilty until proven innocent" is a good thing?

I really do see what you mean. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

There does? Why, exactly?

We do not and have never had unrestricted free speech.

We should though, shouldn't we? I mean, isn't that what the Founding Fathers explicitly established?

They didn't say Congress shall only make a few laws abridging the freedom of speech. They said "no law". None. Nada. Zip.

I personally find it phenomenal that the US Judiciary can so consistently interpret a law as vague as the Second Amendment with rigid adherence, yet can so utterly fail to accurately interpret a law as explicit and clear as the First Amendment. I think it just goes to show the entire notion of the supremacy of the Constitution is a pile of dung.

And if there are going to be limits, let it be at children.

But we're not talking about children. We're talking about a picture of a fictional child. You understand that an actual individual child and a picture of a fictional child are not the same thing, yes?

What I find odd is that many people who support "hate speech" laws fight for "free speech" in other areas.

Well if it makes you feel any better I hate "hate speech" laws.

There have to be limits.

Why?

The only reasonable application, Gumboot, I see is anything involving minors.

If I draw a picture of Lisa Simpson having sex with a cucumber, what minors, precisely, are involved?

I don't understand why we adults can't police ourselves in terms of appropriateness.

I don't understand why some adults feel they should be able to dictate to other adults what is and isn't appropriate.

I do understand what you are saying.

I don't think you do, actually.

 

[gumboot]

Except that it isn't "by the same logic". You're equating a mentally immature, naive, vulnerable child to an adult who has consciously elected to dress arguably provocatively in light of the measured risks and possible consequences. This is a key aspect of sugarb's argument. Care to reconsider your position above?

I'll ask you the same question.

If I draw Lisa Simpson having sex with a cucumber, where exactly is the "mentally immature, naive, vulnerable child" in this equation?

I'm not talking about a child at all. I am talking about an adult who has consciously decided to draw a sexual picture, in light of the measured risks and possible consequences.

Same logic, see?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I've only occasionally been reading this thread, so perhaps this question has already been asked and answered, but I'll ask it anyway:

You have young children and require the services of a babysitter on a regular basis. You have a choice of two young looking 17-year old girls: one with a similar aged boyfriend who plays football, the other with a boyfriend much older than her who looks at virtual child porn.

Which one do you choose and why?

 

[JFrankA]

I agree with regards to child pornography (real or virtual). I would agree with beastiality. No, you know that I do not agree otherwise. Those things are already banned, though, JFrankA. I don't understand what the problem is here? I know we keep talking about the comic book guy...but what about other artists whose work has risen to the challenge of the law? Why are we acting as if society as a whole wants to ban nudity or sex? That isn't at all the case. Plenty of controversial artwork, even involving real people, has won against the law...if it isn't just obscenity. Contrary to popular belief, everyone who agrees with banning all child pornography isn't a prude.

Maybe that's what Southwind17 wants (I don't recall him saying so, I'll go back and re-read), but surely you know that isn't what I've said.

What I want to know is, to a pedophile who collects child pornography, do you really think it matters if the child is "real" or "virtual"?

I should not be surprised to learn that some, possibly most, possibly all pedophiles take some, possibly most, possibly all satisfaction from what they do in simply knowing that a real child has either been the unwilling subject of their powers and/or indeed suffered as a result. Incidentally, I feel the same way about rapists generally.

As I've stated, his statement is wrong. It's presumptuous and an extermely judgmental one.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophile

Pedophile
–noun Psychiatry.
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

Can't get much simpler than that. He's expanded and twisted the definition. So there are people with child fetishes (pedophiles) that do not, under any circumstance want to hurt a child.

But here's the rub: if he feels the same about pedophiles as he does with rapists, what's his view on fantasy rape porn?

If A) he thinks that's okay, he's just contradicted his own statement as to why VCP should be banned: because it might cause someone who has a child fetish to feel it's okay to act upon it for real.

Why then, is fantasy rape porn excluded in his ban? Rape is rape no matter the age.

B) he wants fantasy rape porn banned as well, then he may be consistent, but you can see where this is going.

Further, he has responded thus to this statement (Hey!! I used the word "thus" in a sentance!!! )

VCP may be disturbing to look at, but I don't think my feelings of disgust should be enough to ban anything.

That's exactly has obscenity laws work!

This tells me a lot about how feels.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you are siding with him simply out of the emotional pleading that he using as his argument.

Perhaps mine is emotional in another way, I'll admit that. But I can't see SW's logic being sound in any way.

So ask him: Since he feels the same about rapist as he does about people who've molested children, should fanstasy rape porn also be banned?

See what he says. And remember, rape of defenseless adult woman and rape of a child is still rape. How much can an adult woman, or man, for that matter, defend themselves when someone hits them over the head unexpectedly from behind? Or drugs them? Or stabs them?

Any age can be raped. Any age can be molested.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molest

molest

–verb (used with object)
1. to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2. to make indecent sexual advances to.
3. to assault sexually.

 

[quadraginta]

@ Southwind17

And quite rightly so, in principle. The cost/benefit analysis, real or perceived, for child porn yields a unique and completely different result than that for violent movies targeted at adults.

Could you explain the differences between a real cost/benefit analysis and a perceived one? I don't want to make assumptions that might be less than charitable.

Could you explain in more detail how either (or both) result in different results for these two subjects in particular, and what input data is used for such analysis and such results?

SW. Are you unwilling to answer these questions?

Or unable to?

It is not very helpful to make such blanket assertions without explaining and supporting them.

They are, after all, in many ways core to nearly every position you have espoused in this thread. You would do much to lend substance to those positions by responding.

 

[JFrankA]

I've only occasionally been reading this thread, so perhaps this question has already been asked and answered, but I'll ask it anyway:

You have young children and require the services of a babysitter on a regular basis. You have a choice of two young looking 17-year old girls: one with a similar aged boyfriend who plays football, the other with a boyfriend much older than her who looks at virtual child porn.

Which one do you choose and why?

I don't know. Which girl is better qualified?

 

[sugarb]

I'll ask you the same question.

If I draw Lisa Simpson having sex with a cucumber, where exactly is the "mentally immature, naive, vulnerable child" in this equation?

I'm not talking about a child at all. I am talking about an adult who has consciously decided to draw a sexual picture, in light of the measured risks and possible consequences.

Same logic, see?

Okay, gumboot...draw the picture of a child cartoon character having sex with a cucumber...throw it up on a billboard, make it art on a mass mailing, use it as advertising in newspapers across the country. Now...should obscenity laws apply? Or, what you are arguing is that should be fine. Do you understand that? Yes, I do understand what you all are saying. But I don't think my position is being given the same effort.

Nothing wrong with comic book guys picture depicting a young girl having anal and oral sex with a dog (as described in the plea bargain)? Great. Again, make some advertising out of it. How about a billboard beside the local elementary school? Nothing wrong with it, after all. Do you really believe that?

More importantly, do you think the majority of people would stand for that? That is why we have obscenity laws. Personally? I have no desire to see those particular billboards or advertisements. And I doubt many people would.

 

[JFrankA]

Okay, gumboot...draw the picture of a child cartoon character having sex with a cucumber...throw it up on a billboard, make it art on a mass mailing, use it as advertising in newspapers across the country. Now...should obscenity laws apply? Or, what you are arguing is that should be fine. Do you understand that? Yes, I do understand what you all are saying. But I don't think my position is being given the same effort.

Nothing wrong with comic book guys picture depicting a young girl having anal and oral sex with a dog (as described in the plea bargain)? Great. Again, make some advertising out of it. How about a billboard beside the local elementary school? Nothing wrong with it, after all. Do you really believe that?

More importantly, do you think the majority of people would stand for that? That is why we have obscenity laws. Personally? I have no desire to see those particular billboards or advertisements. And I doubt many people would.

Sorry, SugarB, that's kind of unfair because even a naked woman doing nothing sexual on a billboard would cause an uproar. Hell, even a scantily clad woman on billboards has caused uproars. Some people have called the billboards that say "Don't believe in god? You are not alone" as obscene.

But if someone requests the picture, that requestor has a right to ask for it and the creator has the right to send it, (err, barring copying right laws, of course )

 

[sugarb]

As I've stated, his statement is wrong. It's presumptuous and an extermely judgmental one.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophile

Pedophile
–noun Psychiatry.
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

Can't get much simpler than that. He's expanded and twisted the definition. So there are people with child fetishes (pedophiles) that do not, under any circumstance want to hurt a child.

But here's the rub: if he feels the same about pedophiles as he does with rapists, what's his view on fantasy rape porn?

If A) he thinks that's okay, he's just contradicted his own statement as to why VCP should be banned: because it might cause someone who has a child fetish to feel it's okay to act upon it for real.

Why then, is fantasy rape porn excluded in his ban? Rape is rape no matter the age.

B) he wants fantasy rape porn banned as well, then he may be consistent, but you can see where this is going.

Further, he has responded thus to this statement (Hey!! I used the word "thus" in a sentance!!! )




This tells me a lot about how feels.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you are siding with him simply out of the emotional pleading that he using as his argument.

Perhaps mine is emotional in another way, I'll admit that. But I can't see SW's logic being sound in any way.

So ask him: Since he feels the same about rapist as he does about people who've molested children, should fanstasy rape porn also be banned?

See what he says. And remember, rape of defenseless adult woman and rape of a child is still rape. How much can an adult woman, or man, for that matter, defend themselves when someone hits them over the head unexpectedly from behind? Or drugs them? Or stabs them?

Any age can be raped. Any age can be molested.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molest

molest

–verb (used with object)
1. to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2. to make indecent sexual advances to.
3. to assault sexually.

JFrankA, I will ask him about rape fantasies (are you on ignore?), but first...I'm not siding with him. For some reason no one is recognizing that I've been working my way through this issue from different perspectives to come to my conclusion. Talking about pedophiles was considered emotional. Talking about children was considered emotional. Talking about law is considered emotional. No one has to tell me how to feel! For goodness sakes, JFrankA, if I was going to be influenced that easily by ANYONE, don't you think it would probably be you? Or RandFan? Or ponderingturtle? I'm not "siding".

Everything I bring up is dismissed as emotional, no matter how many times I say it is not. I've been accused of policing thought...but look, I've never said to any of you that your arguments are ridiculous. I have made a point to understand what each of you have been saying. I didn't know that we were required to "choose sides". I thought...this was just a discussion. I'm not a child. Yes, in *some* areas I am easily influenced, but as I already said once to Southwind17, not with this one.

Look, I know I'm pliable. I do. I really do, which is why I try to not engage in quarrelling and bickering and upsetting things. It isn't good for me and I cannot think clearly when I allow myself to get emotional. But honestly, I'm not stupid. I know why I think what I think, I respect and understand differing opinions, and really most of the emotion seems to come from talking about comic books.

I'll ask Southwind about rape fantasies, though. Because you're right, it is a valid concern that what starts with children snowballs into some kind of...fundamentalist society of some kind.