Why should just looking at -pictures- be illegal?

[Checkmite]

In the tradition begun with my racism thread, I've given this one sort of a provocative title. Sorry to anyone who's gotten the wrong impression. If you became angry, or flushed upon reading the title though, I feel you.

I've learned to dislike many things over my long and tedious life (of 23 years). Racism is one; another is child pornography. The mere mention of those two words is enough to repulse some people. Indeed, there isn't much debate about the subject simply because of its utter repulsiveness.

There have been accusations from certain obscure segments of society that the common reaction by most people to child pornography is the result of conditioned behavior, brainwashing by the media, or PC yokels taking control of our thoughts. Some of these people have been brash and demand its legalization (from anonymity, of course); most of these people simply try to question its illegality: what's so bad about looking at mere photographs? It's not like people who trade pictures on the net are necessarily abusing kids, right? Right?

To put it succinctly - wrong. Of course, nobody likes a succinct answer, especially on forums like ours. And I was in the process of writing a very unsuccinct answer when it occurred to me that my opening post would run on forever. See, this is a topic a feel passionate about. In fact, of the three total pages that make up my huge personal website, one is devoted specifically to the fight against child pornography - and I don't think it's large enough.

In any case, once it became apparent that my dissertation on the evils of child pornography would be sort of longish, I decided to save it as an MS Word html file and make it available on my site. For those of you interesting in reading it, click this link to go to my homepage. Once there, click the "Help Stop Child Pornography" link, and from that page you can access the file, entitled "Arguments Against Child Pornography". On that document you'll learn what prompted me to start this thread, along with several concise rebuttals to questions or assertions commonly offered by child pornography apologists. Consider it an extension of my O.P. in this thread.

Arguments? Comments? Support?

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

A demand for young meat

Support,

I think the topic will remain taboo for a time yet and when discussed there will be controversy.

Law enforcement, educators, consumer advocacy groups, and child advocacy groups are starting to see that with the internet comes a greater risk to children.

It is not a victimless crime as you touched on in your "Arguments".



CSEC

Because of the criminal nature of commercial sexual exploitation of children, it is difficult to collect accurate data. However, it is known to be a multi-billion dollar sex trade, into which each year some one million children are drawn. Research suggests that the age of the children involved is decreasing. Most are poor children between the ages of 13 and 18, although there is evidence that very young children, babies even, are also caught up in this horrific trade. They come from all parts of the world.

The term white slave trade or white slave traffic, until recently, was only applied to women drawn into prostitution, but the lucrative trade is accessing children younger and younger . In some cases, traffickers have tattooed girls with their gang symbols, according to a Italian-U.S. working group. Uncooperative girls have been disfigured and even killed.

Albania

Eighteen Year Old

the international police force created to help maintain order in Bosnia has formed a squad that has raided nearly 100 bars and clubs suspected of holding sex slaves.

Held in Bosnia

There are an estimated 770 Bulgarian pimps working at home and abroad — mostly in the Czech Republic and Hungary, Vasil said — controlling 10,000 Bulgarian women, some as young as 14.

Vulgar Bulgaria

Police questioned 1,017 suspects, arrested 150 and confiscated firearms and drugs.
They also freed 10 girls ages 17 to 25 from Romania and Moldova who had been kept as sex slaves.


Slaves in YugoSlavia


Not to highjack this thread, but to highlight the demand for young meat

A Canadian province tackles child prostitution

more than 427 apprehensions have been made involving 194 girls and boys. Most were aged 15 and 16, but there were several 12 year-olds.

ALBERTA COURTS RULE AGAINST CHILD PROSTITUTION LAW
EDMONTON, Aug 1 (LSN.ca) - Last week BC Provincial Court Judge Karen Jordan ruled Alberta's Protection of Children in Prostitution was unconstitutional. The law allows police and social workers to apprehend children working in the sex trade, and take them off the streets for three days. Since its enactment 18 months ago, there have been 183 suspected child prostitutes ranging in age from 12 to 17 have been apprehended and 61 have reformed their lives.

The Alberta government has said it will amend the law according to some of the concerns raised by Judge Jordan but it will continue to enforce it and has appealed Jordan's ruling.

From the National Post August 1, 2000

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

without consideration for the effects

CHild Sex Abuse

What are the possible long-term effects of child sexual abuse?
If child sexual abuse is not effectively treated, long-term symptoms may persist into adulthood. These may include:

-PTSD and/or anxiety
-Depression and thoughts of suicide
-Sexual anxiety and disorders
-Poor body image and low self-esteem
-The use of unhealthy behaviors, such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, self-mutilation, or bingeing and purging, to help mask painful emotions related to the abuse

Sexual exploitation of children is not as benign as the apologists would like people to believe.

 

[LFTKBS]

Re: A demand for young meat

However, it is known to be a multi-billion dollar sex trade, into which each year some one million children are drawn.

At the risk of being treated like Genghis Pwn*, I'm calling you out on that statement.

None of your links provide this evidence. Where did you find it? A multi-BILLION dollar industry, you say? This is quite a claim.

Look, I'm as anti-exploitation as the next rational person, but your post smacks of unwarranted fearmongering.

*(Not that GP doesn't need to be drawn and quartered, but . . .)

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Re: Re: A demand for young meat

At the risk of being treated like Genghis Pwn*, I'm calling you out on that statement.

None of your links provide this evidence. Where did you find it? A multi-BILLION dollar industry, you say? This is quite a claim.

Look, I'm as anti-exploitation as the next rational person, but your post smacks of unwarranted fearmongering.

*(Not that GP doesn't need to be drawn and quartered, but . . .)

from CSEC http://www.usemb.se/children/csec/ click on fact sheets, then scope of the problem.

http://www.usemb.se/children/csec/scope.html

LFTKBS, define unwarranted

btw, your challenge is acceptable

all facts/numbers are debatable, there will be controversy, and there will be little if any consensus on the scope of the problem.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

A demand for young meat

not a recent example but

.

suspects' names were passed to the British authorities by the United States Postal Inspection Service, whose investigation of a now-defunct Texas-based Internet pornography empire led to the arrest of its proprietors, Janice and Thomas Reedy, in December 1999. The Reedys, whose company, Landslide Productions, took in millions of dollars from subscription fees, provided their customers with access to thousands of pedophile Web sites, many of them based in other countries.

310,000 world wide (in this case)subsribers paid $29.95 a month per site for the privilege of viewing files with names like "Child Rape," "I am Fourteen," and "Russian Underage."

Britain's Hunt for Child Pornography Users Nets Hundreds Besides Pete Townshend

Crackdown on Wonderland

Italy

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Crucify me if you must for this, but:

Evidence that child molestation harms children is not evidence that viewing child porn harms children.

Obviously you can't make hard-core child porn without molesting a child. That should go without saying. But if it's just a picture of a naked kid, it is not necessarily the case that a kid was harmed to make the photo.

It's also worth pointing out that if depictions of rape are evil, then we should be locking up every sicko who has sold, rented or watched Deep Throat. Since that film was made under coercion, and is rape on film by any reasonable definition.

My first point is that our attitudes to child pornography are illogical. Mostly, I think, because "child pornography" covers everything from a photo of an unmolested tot playing on the beach to things too yucky to mention, and it's just not sensible to treat the two extremes the same way.

My second point is that society at large does not display a similar degree of concern about adults who engage in prostitution or pornography, even though the difference is only a matter of age (a few years difference in some cases).

I think it's pretty obvious that "just looking at pictures" is utterly harmless. Conceivably looking at erotic pictures of kids could cause someone to rape a kid, but then again the internet is awash in pictures of adult women ostensibly being raped, date raped or coerced into having sex. (My bet is that these are all or almost all faked, because it has to be cheaper and safer to pay a model than to risk a jail term. I'm sure you get better pictures that way too). Unless the rate at which rapes are committed amongst the net-connected has skyrocketed, I doubt that there is a causal link between viewing ostensibly violent/forbidden erotica and committing sex crimes.

That's why I cringe a bit when I hear about people being locked up for possession of "child pornography", because the news rarely goes into detail about the actual content of the forbidden material. I'm on balance in favour of locking up people who pay for hard-core child pornography, but locking up people who have soft-core material seems about as sensible as locking up homosexuals "because they are a danger to society". I want to see evidence that those people are, beyond reasonable doubt, child rapists before we lock them up.

 

[Checkmite]

Crucify me if you must for this, but:

Evidence that child molestation harms children is not evidence that viewing child porn harms children.

Obviously you can't make hard-core child porn without molesting a child. That should go without saying. But if it's just a picture of a naked kid, it is not necessarily the case that a kid was harmed to make the photo.

Firstly, perhaps I should be made clear. I use the NCMEC's definition of child pornography; to wit: "a visual depiction of a child engaged in explicit sexual conduct, alone or with others". I discount "nude beach" photos and other such examples that don't fit the above definition.

It's also worth pointing out that if depictions of rape are evil, then we should be locking up every sicko who has sold, rented or watched Deep Throat. Since that film was made under coercion, and is rape on film by any reasonable definition.

I don't know about this "Deep Throat" film; however, if any scene within it depicts a real rape, then yes it is evidence of a crime. If someone did not know that the tape documented an actual rape, they cannot be faulted for watching it, just as surely as someone who downloads allegedly legal porn which turns out to be child porn doesn't get arrested if they report the incident. If somebody knows that the flim depicts an actual rape and chooses to watch it anyway, they probably do have serious mental problems.

My first point is that our attitudes to child pornography are illogical. Mostly, I think, because "child pornography" covers everything from a photo of an unmolested tot playing on the beach to things too yucky to mention, and it's just not sensible to treat the two extremes the same way.

Again, I assert my definition of child pornography as photos which depict activity of a sexual nature.

My second point is that society at large does not display a similar degree of concern about adults who engage in prostitution or pornography, even though the difference is only a matter of age (a few years difference in some cases).

Illegal prostitution rings are broken up with regularity, in the United States. As for adult pornography, the difference is that adults 1) make the material purposefully and willingly, and 2) they are legally old enough to decide to willingly produce the material.

I think it's pretty obvious that "just looking at pictures" is utterly harmless. Conceivably looking at erotic pictures of kids could cause someone to rape a kid, but then again the internet is awash in pictures of adult women ostensibly being raped, date raped or coerced into having sex. (My bet is that these are all or almost all faked, because it has to be cheaper and safer to pay a model than to risk a jail term. I'm sure you get better pictures that way too). Unless the rate at which rapes are committed amongst the net-connected has skyrocketed, I doubt that there is a causal link between viewing ostensibly violent/forbidden erotica and committing sex crimes.

It's not normal people we're talking about. Normal people won't happen upon a few photos of kids being molested and magically turn into pedophiles. The casual consumers of such material are already inclined toward that direction, as are the ones who use the material to "groom" target kids.

The differences between child porn and legal adult films are manifold. First, again, adult films (even ones suggesting "rape") are made consentually (with the exception of ones like your example above). There are plently of adult porn tapes which even feature women trying to look like minors - but nevertheless it is consentual, legal, and protected by the actors' freedom of speech, however distasteful to you and me.

The reason why child pornography is so expansive, as opposed to other illegal things like documentation of actual rape, is that while rape victims will talk to the authorities immediately, children can be coerced into silence with little effort.

That's why I cringe a bit when I hear about people being locked up for possession of "child pornography", because the news rarely goes into detail about the actual content of the forbidden material. I'm on balance in favour of locking up people who pay for hard-core child pornography, but locking up people who have soft-core material seems about as sensible as locking up homosexuals "because they are a danger to society". I want to see evidence that those people are, beyond reasonable doubt, child rapists before we lock them up.

Well, what's your definition of "hard core" and "soft core"? The person I spoke to on Yahoo! chat defined "hard core child pornography" as material involving kids with adults, and "soft core" as everything else. If you are using the same definition, then yes, there are still numerous problems.

If you, however, define "soft core" as photos of a non-sexual nature, then I tend to agree with you. Arresting a woman for taking photos of her kid in the bath is ridiculous, and trivializes the real problem of child pornography in the eyes of the public.

 

[Michael Redman]

"Just looking at the pictures" is illegal for the same reason that driving with an open container of alcohol in the car is illegal. That act, taken by itself, is not necessarily harmful, but it is nearly impossible to seperate that act from other associated and very harmful acts, and so, as a pragmatic measure, that act is also outlawed to make law enforcement easier.

 

[no one in particular]

I apologize, I have not read this thread in its entirety, so my little bit of impute may be naive about the way this thread has evolved. Not that I am not interested – no, wait, that is it.

Anyway, to look at a picture requires that there is a picture at which you are looking, right? By looking or seeking out the picture at which to look you are creating a demand for such pictures. And, increasing demand will necessarily drive up the supply of the pictures. So, in the case of child porn, more children will be sought to fill the supply.

This is the reason I am not offended by “deviant” anime porn, I see no reason to assume that any form of entertainment will motivate someone to harm others. As long as others are not already being harmed from that form of entertainment, I have no problem with it.


edited -- oops, spelin'.

 

[rachaella]

I apologize, I have not read this thread in its entirety, so my little bit of impute may be naive about the way this thread has evolved. Not that I am not interested – no, wait, that is it.

Anyway, to look at a picture requires that there is a picture at which you are looking, right? By looking or seeking out the picture at which to look you are creating a demand for such pictures. And, increasing demand will necessarily drive up the supply of the pictures. So, in the case of child porn, more children will be sought to fill the supply.

This is the reason I am not offended “deviant” anime porn, I see no reason to assume that any form of entertainment will motivate someone to harm others. As long as others are not already being harmed from that form of entertainment, I have no problem with it.


edited -- oops, spelin'.

What about people who are over 18 and are made to look younger, either with make-up or with some computerized graphic techniques? No children are being harmed. I still am unsure how I feel about this.

 

[no one in particular]

What about people who are over 18 and are made to look younger, either with make-up or with some computerized graphic techniques? No children are being harmed. I still am unsure how I feel about this.

In this situation, at least in the US, no minors are being subjected to criminal activity, so I certainly would have no problem with that.

 

[Checkmite]

What about people who are over 18 and are made to look younger, either with make-up or with some computerized graphic techniques? No children are being harmed. I still am unsure how I feel about this.

This is tricky. I may have my own opinion of those who would consume such material, but none of my arguments against true child pornography could hold up here.

I would caution anyone who creates or collects such material, however. I've always been under the impression that photos altered thusly were stupidly obvious. But, I suppose if somebody created material with such "skill" (if that's the word) that the person depicted does in fact look like a minor, the whole "It's an adult just digitally altered to look like a kid" argument may be difficult to support and may not hold much water in the courts.

 

[Thumper]

In this age of PageMaker, how does one prove it really is a minor? Well, actually, in this age of non-minors purposefully trying to appear underage, how does one prove it really is a minor? Or is the burden of proof on the accused?

 

[RPG Advocate]

Mere possession of any matter, whether it be drugs, guns, or child porn, should never be illegal. Possession laws are a police state's best friend. For something to be illegal, it needs to be an overt act that causes direct harm.

In the linked article, you seem to suggest that looking at a child porn image is an extension of the crime committed as a result of making that image. As much as you hate the idea, these are two seperate acts. Merely looking at the image is a victimless crime, while the creation of that image is not. Those involved in the molestation process and those whol film these acts should receive long prison terms (10-20 years per count), but not mere possessors. Traiffickers are somewhere in between. They should be receive prison terms between 10% and 80% of the length of the original creators, based on how much and what type of porn is being trafficked.

Regarding the right-to-privacy argument, it's the creators and traffickers that are causing the privacy violation, not possessors.

Tar and feather me if you must, but I believe targetting enforcement efforts at only the direct threat will do a better job at interdicting the supply of child porn, while protecting relatively harmless citizens from prosecution.

 

[Checkmite]

Regarding the right-to-privacy argument, it's the creators and traffickers that are causing the privacy violation, not possessors.

That's false. Looking through somebody's bedroom window and taking pictures while they're changing, for instance, is a blatant violation of privacy - whether he knows it's happening or not. There is no fundamental difference between looking through a kid's bedroom window and viewing child pornography. You don't have permission. In the case of a minor, you cannot legally get permission. "Viewing an image" is doing the same thing as looking through the window, just doing it remotely.

Besides, the demand from the consumers of such material are the reason the "creators and traffickers" exist in the first place. It is for the "innocent" possessors' gratification that children are abused. It is impossible to seperate them from the process.

 

[Checkmite]

In this age of PageMaker, how does one prove it really is a minor? Well, actually, in this age of non-minors purposefully trying to appear underage, how does one prove it really is a minor? Or is the burden of proof on the accused?

If the subject of the photo appears beyond a reasonable doubt to be a minor, he/she is considered a minor by the court. Remember, even in the case of real child pornography, the state does not actually need to have identified the subject in order to prosecute.

 

[Thumper]

If the subject of the photo appears beyond a reasonable doubt to be a minor, he/she is considered a minor by the court. Remember, even in the case of real child pornography, the state does not actually need to have identified the subject in order to prosecute.

So, guilty until proven innocent.

 

[RPG Advocate]

That's false. Looking through somebody's bedroom window and taking pictures while they're changing, for instance, is a blatant violation of privacy - whether he knows it's happening or not. There is no fundamental difference between looking through a kid's bedroom window and viewing child pornography. You don't have permission. In the case of a minor, you cannot legally get permission. "Viewing an image" is doing the same thing as looking through the window, just doing it remotely.

Besides, the demand from the consumers of such material are the reason the "creators and traffickers" exist in the first place. It is for the "innocent" possessors' gratification that children are abused. It is impossible to seperate them from the process.

Perhaps, but if you accept this notion of "trickle-down liability", then you must also accept other onerous scenarios. For instance, under your logic, if a paprazi photographer takes a picture of a celebrity and is later found to be liable for violating that celebrity's right to privacy, then anyone who ever viewed that photograph would also be liable. Of course, this doesn't happen. Only those who create the infringing matter and those who facilitate its mass distribution (such as a tabloid or newspaper) are held liable.

The only difference between child porn and the case cited above is the fact that child pron is morally repugnant, which generates shock value. Of course, the Drug War, with its stupid possession laws, is also conducted on "shocking statistics" Trickle-down liability gives the state carte blanche to abuse its authority to prosecute (again, see the Drug War for numerous examples of outrageous proseuctions).

 

[Checkmite]

Perhaps, but if you accept this notion of "trickle-down liability", then you must also accept other onerous scenarios. For instance, under your logic, if a paprazi photographer takes a picture of a celebrity and is later found to be liable for violating that celebrity's right to privacy, then anyone who ever viewed that photograph would also be liable. Of course, this doesn't happen. Only those who create the infringing matter and those who facilitate its mass distribution (such as a tabloid or newspaper) are held liable.

That's because the people who purchased the newspaper or tabloid were not necessarily aware that this or that particular set of photographs were violations of privacy; everybody is used to seeing plenty of non-violative photos of celebrities and they typically don't give it a second thought. There are journalistic standards, and consumers cannot be faulted for expecting this or that newspaper to uphold them. Since many such suits celebrities bring are settled out of court regularly, end-users typically will never know that a set of photographs has in fact been deemed violative.

On the other hand, there isn't a single instance of child pornography that is not a violation of privacy. In fact, necessary violation of privacy is one of the main intentions behind the stuff, the whole point. When it comes to child pornography, everybody who intentionally downloads the images is, in essence, a "tabloid" that the pornographer is selling his wares to. Just as surely as paparazzi would take fewer and fewer offending photos if there was no demand for them, child pornography would not be so widely available if there wasn't an audience - the end users - constantly demanding newer and more explicit photos.