ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th August 2007, 09:17 AM   #1
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,213
Is it illegal to just view kiddie porn?

I read in my today's paper that this one guy got arrested and they found it in his bedroom. But the guy also had partaken in underage sex.

But let's just say somebody squealed on someone and authorites found dirty pictures. So?

Shouldn't that be your right, as an adult, to view what you want, if you don't act on what you viewed? ( A liberatarian type of thought process here)

Try arguing THIS analogy: What if authorites found the bedroom plastered with picures of bombings where death had occured. That the guy was INTO bombings that kill people. What is worse then...some guy who likes to watch underage sex?, or somebody that likes to view death...maybe death involving children? What if the guy who viewed and collected bombings memorabilia had a penchant for wanting to go out and bomb schools where kids are?

See what I mean? So how can they single out what a person wants to freely access/collect, in your own privacy?

And maybe this is actually a GOOD thing certain individuals do this as this is their only 'release', since they are too timid to actually commit a live act out of fear of being caught by the police. This way at least they get to lick their chops and fantasize, and let it go at that.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 09:19 AM   #2
strathmeyer
seriously unable to be serious
 
strathmeyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,382
Is it illegal to just hire someone to kill someone? I mean, as long as I'm not the one doing the actual killing, it should be completely legal, right?
strathmeyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 09:26 AM   #3
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 28,816
Down here, yes, it is illegal to view/download kiddie porn
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
http://australasianskeptics.info/
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on." - icerat
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 09:38 AM   #4
blobru
Philosopher
 
blobru's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,840
As far as I know, kiddie porn is contraband, and possession of any contraband is illegal. This would include images on someone's hard drive.
So, unless you just stumble upon the images accidentally while surfing the web or something like that, it is "illegal to just view kiddie porn".
__________________
"Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops

"Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny

Last edited by blobru; 4th August 2007 at 09:40 AM.
blobru is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 09:41 AM   #5
skeptifem
is not beauty 2K compliant
 
skeptifem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,279
yeah it is. Im pretty sure its not illegal if you report it to the authorities upon seeing it.
__________________

skeptifem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 10:38 AM   #6
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
 
The_Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,217
In Denmark, if you know about it, keep it and don't report it? Yes.

True story:

A couple of years back, I arrived at work, the only place where I could check my email, only to discover that I had apparently ended up on a kiddie-porn distribution list. Complete with pictures and link to a paysite.

After regaining my equibrillium and ranted to the receptionist (located less than 10 metres from my workspace), I contacted the local IT crimes unit. After a short conversation, and a rather distressing visit to the site mentioned in the email to make sure it was what I thought it was on behalf of the cop, I was told to send the nice guy on the other end a copy of the email, complete with headers, and then told to delete the email, the browser cache and block the sending email addy.

That was the last of it.

The nice cop also told me that I probably ended up on the list due to the fact that I had subscribed to several free services (including what I discovered to be a rather shady webhost) and that one of them had probably sold their client database to a third party.

Lesson?
It's illegal to download and keep kiddie porn and you should be really really careful what you sign up for.
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."
Stop Sylvia Browne
The_Fire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 11:14 AM   #7
RemieV
Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover
 
RemieV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,320
Here's something that I always found weird on that front... The government here is even against virtual child pornography.

I totally agree that possession of child pornography should be illegal because buying it, looking at it, or keeping it is allowing the creator to keep creating it. And I'm not really down with the victimization of children.

However, in the case of virtual pornography, who is the victim?




Edit: The ban on virtual child porn was apparently struck down.
__________________
Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.

Last edited by RemieV; 4th August 2007 at 11:17 AM.
RemieV is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 11:30 AM   #8
Dogdoctor
Canis Doctorius
 
Dogdoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,750
I think it is illegal to possess kiddie porn, you don't necessarily have to look at it at all.
__________________


Dogdoctor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 11:30 AM   #9
OXEL
Critical Thinker
 
OXEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 252
That depends on national law. Where I live, child porn is forbidden. Virtual as well! I think at least the real one is forbidden in most countries.

This is a rather complicated issue. Because psychology can't really tell, which option is the worse one.

On the one hand you can argue, people watching child porn may gain more interest so to say and be more likely to rape a real child. On the other hand you could argue that it prevents them from doing real damage by giving them a vent to release their pressure (as you said). But of course it's very hard to back up such claims with statistics...

But there is one thing you can argue for sure: There really are some questinable laws regarding private things in some countries.
OXEL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 11:37 AM   #10
Fengirl
Graduate Poster
 
Fengirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
But let's just say somebody squealed on someone and authorites found dirty pictures. So?

Shouldn't that be your right, as an adult, to view what you want, if you don't act on what you viewed?

<snip>

See what I mean? So how can they single out what a person wants to freely access/collect, in your own privacy?

.
I find it very hard to believe you are asking that question seriously rather than just trolling…but on the off-chance you are…

What possible “right” could you imagine in your wildest dreams anyone has to look at photographs of children being sexually violated and abused?

Seriously, Iamme….I’m asking. Feel free to explain why you think the “rights” of the person wishing to view such material should trump the rights of the children not to have their privacy further violated.

I have a therapist friend who works with victims of childhood sexual abuse. She tells me that almost without exception, the aspect of the abuse victims find most hurtful, most damaging and hardest to come to terms with is when photographs of the abuse exist. As long as those photographs are being downloaded and viewed by anyone, anywhere in the world, the abuse doesn’t stop. Looking at child pornography is an ongoing violation of the child.

I have zero time for people who argue that “looking at pictures doesn’t actually harm anybody.” It’s utter BS. If you view child pornography, you are supporting and contributing first-hand to the on-going sexual abuse of children.
Fengirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 12:16 PM   #11
tim
Lasiorhinus latifrons
Combat Division
 
tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,556
I'm with Fengirl on this. In the UK possessing child pornography is a crime and rightly so. Chris Langham, a fairly well known tv actor in the UK has just been convicted of said crime.
See here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...nt/6928288.stm
__________________
I think we should be grateful that somehow the material in the universe came together and gave us consciousness. It was statiscally improbable. We won the lottery. We had a life.

Hubbard's Law: Don't take life too seriously; you won't get out of it alive.
tim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 12:58 PM   #12
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,213
Originally Posted by strathmeyer View Post
Is it illegal to just hire someone to kill someone? I mean, as long as I'm not the one doing the actual killing, it should be completely legal, right?
Now that is the dumbest counter-argument I have ever heard. Um, duh....you are causing someone to get killed. You are the one behind it even if you hire someone. The person VIEWING materials harms nobody, duh!
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 01:03 PM   #13
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,213
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
Down here, yes, it is illegal to view/download kiddie porn
I kind of thought so.

And no, I am not into kiddie porn myself. In fact, I am pretty clean cut as I do not even visit adult porn sites! (Which might come as a surprise to many of you who have engaged me before on such topics.) Oh...and it's not out of fear of having anyone find it on the hardrive. I do not even own or rent any such material, either...although I do enjoy a nice looking...oh, never mind.

I'm into basic freedoms and liberty, that's all.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 01:08 PM   #14
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,213
Originally Posted by OXEL View Post
But there is one thing you can argue for sure: There really are some questinable laws regarding private things in some countries.
Glad I don't live in one of those countries where they chop off parts of your body that was the participant in the offense.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 01:09 PM   #15
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,213
Originally Posted by tim View Post
I'm with Fengirl on this. In the UK possessing child pornography is a crime and rightly so. Chris Langham, a fairly well known tv actor in the UK has just been convicted of said crime.
See here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...nt/6928288.stm
Why do you say, "rightly so"?
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 01:46 PM   #16
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 18,272
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
Why do you say, "rightly so"?
Wow, this is really quite amazing, in a Genghis Pwn kind of way.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 01:50 PM   #17
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,826
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
Why do you say, "rightly so"?
He told you - he agrees with Fengirl i.e.

Originally Posted by Fengirl View Post
I find it very hard to believe you are asking that question seriously rather than just trolling…but on the off-chance you are…

What possible “right” could you imagine in your wildest dreams anyone has to look at photographs of children being sexually violated and abused?

Seriously, Iamme….I’m asking. Feel free to explain why you think the “rights” of the person wishing to view such material should trump the rights of the children not to have their privacy further violated.

I have a therapist friend who works with victims of childhood sexual abuse. She tells me that almost without exception, the aspect of the abuse victims find most hurtful, most damaging and hardest to come to terms with is when photographs of the abuse exist. As long as those photographs are being downloaded and viewed by anyone, anywhere in the world, the abuse doesn’t stop. Looking at child pornography is an ongoing violation of the child.

I have zero time for people who argue that “looking at pictures doesn’t actually harm anybody.” It’s utter BS. If you view child pornography, you are supporting and contributing first-hand to the on-going sexual abuse of children.

And I also say "rightly so", well put Fengirl, it will be interesting to see if Iamme can address the questions you asked him.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 4th August 2007 at 01:53 PM. Reason: w
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 02:32 PM   #18
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,213
But Darat,

It was HIS opinion about the "rightly so" part.

If he wants to say "rightly so", that is his opinion and I can respect that. But I'd simply like to know why he thinks that. I've stated my case that if a person simply views it and does not engage, not say even distributes to others...then *I* am not sure as to how this really should be illegal, if the person is an adult.

Why don't authorities just go after those making or posting such stuff and then they'd have the problem solved. Nobody would be able to see it then (including kids themselves). Not even by accident.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 02:35 PM   #19
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,826
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post

...snip...
Do you have a response to the questions Fengirl put to you?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 02:40 PM   #20
Gurdur
Person
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,875
I'll just chime in to say I agree completely with FenGirl too. As far as I am concerned, possession of kiddie porn should be criminalised.
Gurdur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 02:49 PM   #21
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,213
Originally Posted by Fengirl View Post
I find it very hard to believe you are asking that question seriously rather than just trolling…but on the off-chance you are…

What possible “right” could you imagine in your wildest dreams anyone has to look at photographs of children being sexually violated and abused?

Seriously, Iamme….I’m asking. Feel free to explain why you think the “rights” of the person wishing to view such material should trump the rights of the children not to have their privacy further violated.

I have a therapist friend who works with victims of childhood sexual abuse. She tells me that almost without exception, the aspect of the abuse victims find most hurtful, most damaging and hardest to come to terms with is when photographs of the abuse exist. As long as those photographs are being downloaded and viewed by anyone, anywhere in the world, the abuse doesn’t stop. Looking at child pornography is an ongoing violation of the child.

I have zero time for people who argue that “looking at pictures doesn’t actually harm anybody.” It’s utter BS. If you view child pornography, you are supporting and contributing first-hand to the on-going sexual abuse of children.
Why would the person viewing trump the rights of those being violated? Go after those making the porn.

We have eyes. If one doesn't act with your hands or whatever, I can't see how eyes hurt anything.

But I'm trying to remain open and analyze to see if i am out in left field here. Hmmm. What if a pervert uses his eyes, and don't touch, to peek in someones bathroom window? The person being viewed gets violated. I would agree with this. But this is quite direct.

So now I'll ask (myself) how it would be if someone else photographed the person in their bathroom and handed you the photo. Yes, that person got violated, but you did not directly go and view that person. (I'm trying to talk this out to myself) You simply viewed second hand what the first person saw. This latter analogy is most akin to the what the thread is about. This is kind of tough, because it becomes like a chain potentially involving many from the singular act. One innocent unsuspecting (or duped, due to being too young to know better as in case with kids) person can then be viewed and "violated" by many even though one actually saw it first hand.

Hmmm.

I'm maybe wrong on my initial view (How many here would EVER admit that?). I'll give this matter more thought. Notice that others under similar circumstances may have ducked your question.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 02:53 PM   #22
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,213
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Do you have a response to the questions Fengirl put to you?
Actually yes. Just posted it. Did not see your post until now.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 02:55 PM   #23
Gurdur
Person
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,875
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
Why would the person viewing trump the rights of those being violated?
No.
FenGirl already told you why there are no such "rights" to view kiddie porn.
Deal with it.
Quote:
I'm maybe wrong on my initial view
FYI also, the Pope is a Catholic.
Quote:
I'll give this matter more thought. Notice that others under similar circumstances may have ducked your question.
The rest of us gave it more thought a long time ago.
Gurdur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 03:09 PM   #24
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
 
Undesired Walrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,211
Virtual Porn is Illegal?? Damn.

I better hand myself in for seeing that cartoon of Homer performing oral sex on Bart that my mate sent me in the email then.... I thought it was funny.
Undesired Walrus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 06:37 PM   #25
Random
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,603
Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
Virtual Porn is Illegal?? Damn.

I better hand myself in for seeing that cartoon of Homer performing oral sex on Bart that my mate sent me in the email then.... I thought it was funny.
A graphic image depicting incestuous homosexual acts between and adult and an underage child? Yeah, that should fit under a law about virtual child pornography.

I'm not sure what the current law here in the states is regarding virtual child pornography. They are trying to write a law that would ban the above mentioned cartoon, but still allow you to transmit the text of Romeo and Juliet. It is really tough to write a law that bans only "bad" forms of art.
__________________
...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked
Random is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 07:08 PM   #26
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
 
Piscivore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Home is wherever I'm with you
Posts: 27,220
I agree with Fen and Remie.
__________________
Don't love someone to save yourself. Love someone to destroy who you used to be.

"...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen
Piscivore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 09:30 PM   #27
NeoRicen
Critical Thinker
 
NeoRicen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 444
Viewing it provides an audience for the people who create it by abusing kids. It's illegal and should be illegal.
NeoRicen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 09:56 PM   #28
Loss Leader
Opinionated Jerk
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 15,929
First of all, I'd just like to say I love IAmMe threads. They're just so ... unnecessary. It's like Hershey's chocolate kisses - you could just buy a bag of chocolate chips.

Second of all, let me state the law in the US: Posession of child porn is illegal. This actually is a lot less strict than it first seems. For instance, just viewing child porn isn't actually against the law. All of us have had pop-ups come flying at us or opened files that were mislabeled and seen things we didn't want to see. Just having child porn come up on your computer is not illegal. You have to want to have it. If you see the pic by accident but like it and save it, you've possessed child porn. If you wanted the pic, download it but never looked at it, you've also possessed child porn.

Another point is that pictures of nude children may not be kiddie porn. Nude does not necessarily mean lascivious. If the nudes are "tasteful," they may be legal. (That's why you're not going to get into trouble for having taped your baby son running down the hallway naked.)


Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
Shouldn't that be your right, as an adult, to view what you want, if you don't act on what you viewed? ( A liberatarian type of thought process here)

No and for a very good reason - it is impossible to possess child porn without someone having gone out and sexually abused a child. If you want to possess it, you are creating a market for it and somebody will fill that market need. Laws criminalizing the possession of child porn exist for the purpose of destroying the market. (Do the laws succeed? I don't know. But whether the laws are effective or not, that is the reason for them.)


Quote:
uing THIS analogy: What if authorites found the bedroom plastered with picures of bombings where death had occured. That the guy was INTO bombings that kill people. What is worse then...some guy who likes to watch underage sex?, or somebody that likes to view death...maybe death involving children? What if the guy who viewed and collected bombings memorabilia had a penchant for wanting to go out and bomb schools where kids are?

Okay, I'll try THIS analogy. Um ... it's very unlikely that anyone would go out and bomb people in order to sell the pictures of it. Banning the possession of pictures won't shrink the market for bombings. If it would, the pictures would be banned.


Quote:
t I mean? So how can they single out what a person wants to freely access/collect, in your own privacy?

Because you can't possess a picture unless a child has been abused.


Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
Virtual Porn is Illegal?? Damn.

Nope, it's not. The attempt to ban virtual depictions of child sex was overturned by the courts. You can find absolutely terrible comics online all perfectly legal. And you can also find drawings that are nothing more than tracings of real child porn pics. They're legal, too. The theory is that no child is harmed in the making of a drawing so banning the drawings won't protect children.

Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
Now that is the dumbest counter-argument I have ever heard. Um, duh....you are causing someone to get killed. You are the one behind it even if you hire someone. The person VIEWING materials harms nobody, duh!

Well, you're wrong on that. By wanting kiddie porn, you are giving an incentive to some businessmen to abuse children for your benefit.
__________________
"I recognize the problem ... but I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up." Jabba


Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2007, 10:38 PM   #29
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,380
I'd like to say:

You don't have the right to look at kiddie porn.

You also don't have the right to read Lolita. Therefore, we should burn all books that makes references to child molestation.

Then, we burn all movies, DVDs, and every episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.

I find it funny how emotional appeals are the only thing people ever use in arguments like this. It's why I generally try to avoid them, but naturally, my impulsiveness leads me to make a post.

I'm sure that most people here would be for banning virtual porn, right? If they weren't, they probably would have said so already.

For the record, I do think that it's right to ban kiddie porn where a child was actually molested. I also think that banning images of women or men being raped is good, as long as the rape was "real"; "fake" rape is okay (I.E., if it's fictional, it's okay).

In the same sense, I think that virtual kiddie porn should still be allowable, although I personally don't want to see it.
__________________
Writing.com Account

Last edited by Lonewulf; 4th August 2007 at 10:43 PM.
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 12:58 AM   #30
Kevin_Lowe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,413
I think I've said before that I think the real reason pronographic material featuring underage participants is illegal to possess (as opposed to illegal to create or to purchase) is because it is seen as a highly reliable marker for paedophilia, and as a society we have a drive to imprison paedophiles.

It may sound heartless, but I can see no good reason to lock people up for possessing child pornography just because the victims of the pornography's production feel bad if they think somebody is looking at that pornography. Unless those people have psychic powers they cannot know of or be hurt by any individual person viewing that material. Barring similarly unlikely police powers such material will never be entirely removed from circulation, so even in theory the victims of child pronography will never be relieved of the burden of knowing that child pornography is out there. So not only is their claimed suffering not directly linked to any one individual possessing such material, but in addition their suffering cannot be relieved by prosecuting individual possessors. In other words, in and of itself attempting to relieve their suffering cannot be justified as a use of police time.

(I have seen attempts to argue by analogy that we are morally obliged to hunt down some viewers of child pornography even if we cannot catch all of them, in the same way that we are morally obliged to hunt down drug dealers even if we cannot catch all of them. In my view the analogy fails because if drugs are harmful, then a drug dealer is causing concrete harm to concrete individuals every time they sell drugs. Someone viewing child pornography does not at the moment of doing so harm anybody in any identifiable way).

I also think that there is an enormous element of special pleading in that particular argument, because I cannot imagine criminalising any other kind of expression merely because a set of crime victims were upset by it. Even if it turned out that anti-western individuals were watching footage of the 9/11 attacks for fun, and that this caused considerable emotional trauma to survivors of the 9/11 attacks, I do not think we would see a moral justification to criminalise the possession of such footage. Only in this one case is such suffering used to justify the criminalisation of mere possession of offending material.

All of the other arguments I have seen for criminalising mere possession, or free transfer, or child pornography make no legal or moral sense on their own merits. Thus my suspicion that criminalisation is a means to the end of identifying people with evil desires and locking them up, and a way of avoiding the inconvenient matter of waiting for them to actually harm another human being before we punish them.

Obviously abusing children should be illegal (whether for the purpose of making pornography or otherwise), as should charging for or paying for such material.

It is particularly apparent that something is odd about our treatment of child pornography when you consider that the free sharing of legal material people want to charge money for (software, music) is claimed to be harmful to the producers and distributors of that material, but the free sharing of illegal material (child pornography) is argued with equal earnestness to somehow benefit the producers and distributors of that material.

Virtual child pornography is an even more clear-cut case. We can be absolutely certain in the case of virtual child pornography that no child was harmed in the production of the material, and no child is suffering from the awareness that somebody out these is viewing the material. The only reason to criminalise the creation and possession of virtual child pornography is that it is a marker for "bad people", and criminalisation is a means to the end of identifying and imprisoning them.

I'm not categorically against locking up people who have the mere desire to molest children, if they were contained in institutions like mental asylums which would be intended to isolate people with potentially dangerous conditions rather than to punish them. If statistics showed that doing so averted enough incidences of child molestation to justify the net cost I could support it.

I do think that treating mere possession of child pornography as a serious criminal offence is unjust and inconsistent with the bases of a good legal system. I do not think we should criminalise desires or thoughts, even if it happens to be convenient to do so. Only when someone attempts, plans or conspires to molest a child should they be treated as a criminal.

Others have felt obliged to include disclaimers to the effect that they aren't afficionados of child pornpgraphy themselves, which simply should not be necessary in a civilised discussion forum. It is wise to do so however, since sadly this is not a civilised discussion forum when it comes to this particular topic. So I'll say that I myself do not have a brain that is wired to find prepubescents sexy. I do suspect, however, that my attraction to adults is by chance rather than moral choice and that when a paedophile is hauled away for thought crime "there but for fortune" go any one of us.
__________________
Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists.
-- Alfred Mander
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 04:21 AM   #31
Big Les
Not so much a medium as a large
 
Big Les's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,005
You make some interesting points Kevin. I do think there's a lot of emotion clouding the whole issue. For most, anyone who views such material is automatically a threat to children and ought to forfeit their human rights. As much as I might want to get behind that on a reactive level, it doesn't seem very consistent or progressive. Clearly, any actual or psychological harm inflicted on a child must be punished appropriately, but I'm not 100% convinced that the act of viewing the porn itself equates to harm.

On the other hand, your point re paying for images vs viewing them for free and the analogy with media piracy doesn't seem valid. With child porn, the majority of such images are being traded rather than paid for. As such, the economics of the exchange/spread of the images are rather different, and a blanket ban seems to make some sense.

Another argument in favour of outright (if notional) criminalisation of these images is that it might prevent them becoming in some way mainstream as a form of twisted curiosity - sites like Ogrish and Rotten.com showed that otherwise "normal" people will indulge their curiosity and/or darker sides by looking at horrendous images of injury and death. Though currently there is a such a strong societal taboo re child porn that the vast majority would probably eschew it, I think you could make the case that this taboo would slip just as it has for others (bestiality for example). Younger people in particular might well view and distribute such material for shock and "gross-out" value alone, and if even a few people did do this, you have an increased risk of others, including young people and children themselves. coming across it. Whether that's an inherently bad thing or not is down to opinion I suppose.
__________________
"Feeling you’ve done something is not quite the same as the empirical scientific proof."
-Stephen Fry

The BS Historian
Big Les is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 07:06 AM   #32
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,380
What I don't get is, studies show that porn hasn't resulted in increase sex rates, right?

Why isn't it the same as with child porn? Are the studies entirely different?
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 07:11 AM   #33
shemp
Pith Generator
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,061
Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
I agree with Fen and Remie.
I agree with Ren and Stimpy.
__________________
"It is not I who is mad! It is I who is crazy!" -- Ren Hoek
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 07:23 AM   #34
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 18,272
Arguments from emotion are used to make a lot of things illegal. For instance, a rape is still prosecutable, even when the act results in no physical injury. Slapping someone can put you in jail, even when (again) it results in no physical injury. Resisting arrest is illegal, even though it is victimless, as is counterfeiting money.

Let's try it this way: receipt of stolen property, when you know that property is stolen, is illegal, and you can go to jail for it, even if you did not commit, commission, or otherwise participate in the actual theft. Same principle applies to child pornography. You can argue that the stolen property is something "tangible", unlike kids' feelings (which we apparently shouldn't care about); however, this means nothing - refer to the above argument involving non-injurous rape.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 07:28 AM   #35
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,380
Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi View Post
Arguments from emotion are used to make a lot of things illegal. For instance, a rape is still prosecutable, even when the act results in no physical injury. Slapping someone can put you in jail, even when (again) it results in no physical injury. Resisting arrest is illegal, even though it is victimless, as is counterfeiting money.
Counterfeiting money does damage. Rape has mental injury, not just physical, and is still using someone against their will. The rest of the examples are just as silly.

There's a big difference between looking at a free picture and doing any of that...

Quote:
Let's try it this way: receipt of stolen property, when you know that property is stolen, is illegal, and you can go to jail for it, even if you did not commit, commission, or otherwise participate in the actual theft. Same principle applies to child pornography. You can argue that the stolen property is something "tangible", unlike kids' feelings (which we apparently shouldn't care about); however, this means nothing - refer to the above argument involving non-injurous rape.
This comparison is more prudent. However...

Who's saying that no one should "care about kids' feelings"? That's certainly not my argument.

And do you have any opinion on virtual porn? As in, porn that involves no participants that were actually harmed?
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 07:35 AM   #36
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,380
I have a question: Why can't I demand Lolita, and any book or show or movie that mentions child molestation to be banned?

I mean, seriously. You don't have a "right" to see it, just like you don't have a "right" to see porn.

I'm 100% serious here. What if someone that was molested sees it or reads it? Shouldn't their feelings be taken to account? Surely the feelings of such people carries weight.

Does it carry less weight because books are different? What if they depict it with images, such as a graphic novel? And even then, that doesn't carry weight for shows or movies.
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 07:55 AM   #37
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 18,272
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
Rape has mental injury, not just physical, and is still using someone against their will.
Wow, it seems like that's exactly the reason child pornography is illegal. Unless you intend to declare that the mental injury suffered by its victims is nonexistent.


Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
And do you have any opinion on virtual porn? As in, porn that involves no participants that were actually harmed?

Of course I do; I have given it before, in a very, very long thread recently dedicated to exactly that topic, which I seem to remember you participating in at least once (could be wrong). In case you have forgotten: of course virtual porn shouldn't be illegal.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 5th August 2007 at 07:58 AM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 07:56 AM   #38
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 18,272
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
I have a question: Why can't I demand Lolita, and any book or show or movie that mentions child molestation to be banned?

I mean, seriously. You don't have a "right" to see it, just like you don't have a "right" to see porn.

I'm 100% serious here. What if someone that was molested sees it or reads it? Shouldn't their feelings be taken to account? Surely the feelings of such people carries weight.

Does it carry less weight because books are different? What if they depict it with images, such as a graphic novel? And even then, that doesn't carry weight for shows or movies.
The difference is where you're dealing with real people who were really harmed.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 08:03 AM   #39
Big Les
Not so much a medium as a large
 
Big Les's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,005
But how does an individual acquiring an image without paying for it (or, crucially, providing an image of their own making in trade) harm either the child in the image, or any future victims of the image creator?
__________________
"Feeling you’ve done something is not quite the same as the empirical scientific proof."
-Stephen Fry

The BS Historian
Big Les is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2007, 08:09 AM   #40
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,380
Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi View Post
Wow, it seems like that's exactly the reason child pornography is illegal. Unless you intend to declare that the mental injury suffered by its victims is nonexistent.
Please don't declare anything for me. I'd much rather speak for myself, thank you.

The production of child pornography is harmful to the child. Of course that is true, and please don't tell me that I'm saying differently when I am obviously not.

Looking at something is far different than producing it, however. It is also different than buying it. Please keep that in mind.

I still lean towards banning "real" child porn, however. But it seems strange to me; if such images are deemed illegal to view, why not an image of someone being murdered IRL? That gets rid of a lot of footage, including what you'll see on the news.

If you're going to ban free images, or even paid-for images where people involved are harmed, then why not be logically consistent and not just focus on children? It's rather arbitrary in my view.

I feel that adults have as much of every right as a child does. If watching an adult be harmed is bad, then we should ban it; if someone gets off on viewing rape, then we should ban any depiction of said rape. If people get turned on by gunshot wounds, then we should ban pictures of gunshot wounds. This would be consistent.

Quote:
Of course I do; I have given it before, in a very, very long thread recently dedicated to exactly that topic, which I seem to remember you participating in at least once (could be wrong). In case you have forgotten: of course virtual porn shouldn't be illegal.
Then we agree.

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi
he difference is where you're dealing with real people who were really harmed.
No, we're dealing people watching images where someone is really harmed... usually for free. There's a difference.

Watching an event is not quite the same as participating. Though watching an event and letting it pass without doing anything about it can be said to be acting in a different manner; making no choice is still making a choice.

Regardless, what if someone turns in the producers, but still wants to keep the images? Or what if the producers were already caught?
__________________
Writing.com Account

Last edited by Lonewulf; 5th August 2007 at 08:15 AM.
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.