Legalization of child pornography?

[TaraJo]

Nothing about anything that can be classified as child pornography should be legal. We, as adults, know what pornography is and what it isn't. A judge should be able to tell the difference between a suggestive photo of a child and one of a child that a family member took for memories. Parents should not be afraid that their photos will be misconstrued, but neither should a family member be protected if the picture really is pornography. Also, if it can be proven that the picture, though not suggestive, is one that was used for sexual (blech) reasons, the person should be prosecuted. And, anyone who says it should be illegal to make it, but not to view it is a fucking asshole. Without demand, no one would be making it. Of course, accidental viewing is another story.

Two primary points I wanted to ask here, though.

1) Your idea seems to come down to policing intent and that's hard to do. I mean, guys could be masturbating to pictures of 10 year olds in a JCPenny catalog or the medical pictures you can find online or in medical textbooks. In those cases, no, the picture was obviously not intended to have sexual intent, but what about this case, where whether or not the pics are for sexual purposes is ambiguous? What about beauty pageant girls who have pics taken that pedophiles could easily use for sexual purposes? If someone were using those pics for sexual reasons, even though they had been taken with no sexual intent, would that fall under the category of 'legal?'

2) You're also assuming judges generally make good choices. I've seen some pretty fucked up rulings by judges over the years. People who could not have possibly committed the murder that they're in jail for have been put to death, cops walk around with no accountability even though they're beating people senseless and in this case, Judge Jacqueline Hatch blamed the victim for her being sexually assaulted. What's more, we're making it more difficult for judges to let guys off when they have one of those borderline materials. We get tough on crime, especially on sex crimes, and part of the result is that judges have no choice but to come down hard on people who haven't harmed anyone. It doesn't help that DA's in our justice system want to pump up their incarceration rate more than they want to make sure they get the right guy.

[Puddleglum]

That case Tara Jo is just disgusting. They arrested a man for molesting his daughters because he was Gay and clearly Gay men are attracted to small girls....right!

Juries should decide what is or what is no pronography according to set guidelines that are regularly reviewed. You can't have some Baptist Judge making such rulings.

[Shell B]

Two primary points I wanted to ask here, though.

1) Your idea seems to come down to policing intent and that's hard to do. I mean, guys could be masturbating to pictures of 10 year olds in a JCPenny catalog or the medical pictures you can find online or in medical textbooks. In those cases, no, the picture was obviously not intended to have sexual intent, but what about this case, where whether or not the pics are for sexual purposes is ambiguous? What about beauty pageant girls who have pics taken that pedophiles could easily use for sexual purposes? If someone were using those pics for sexual reasons, even though they had been taken with no sexual intent, would that fall under the category of 'legal?'

It is policing intent. It's difficult, but it is done all the time, in virtually every aspect of law. The difference between manslaughter and murder? Intent. Now, in order for it to be pornography, you and I both know that genitalia must be showing, be it nipples, ass or sex organs. That completely obliterates your example of pageant kids or catalogs. The dickhead is sick, but the kids weren't exploited. A child forced to take naked pictures or engage in sex acts to be photographed is being exploited. So, yes, your example does fall under the category of legal. We're talking about pornography, not fully clothed pictures taken in public. I'm sorry. I thought that was clear.

2) You're also assuming judges generally make good choices.

Expecting and assuming are two very different things. If it is a problem with corrupt judges, work on that. Don't make laws more lenient so people who are actually providing the demand for child sexual exploitation get the fucking benefit of the doubt.

I've seen some pretty fucked up rulings by judges over the years. People who could not have possibly committed the murder that they're in jail for have been put to death, cops walk around with no accountability even though they're beating people senseless and in this case, Judge Jacqueline Hatch blamed the victim for her being sexually assaulted. What's more, we're making it more difficult for judges to let guys off when they have one of those borderline materials. We get tough on crime, especially on sex crimes, and part of the result is that judges have no choice but to come down hard on people who haven't harmed anyone. It doesn't help that DA's in our justice system want to pump up their incarceration rate more than they want to make sure they get the right guy.

Sorry, but all of this is completely and utterly irrelevant. So, we should not have cops because some are corrupt? We should not have moving traffic laws because some guy got a bunk ticket? We should just throw our hands in the air and let fuckers have as much leniency as they need because we don't want to correct the actual problems? Fuck that. The topic of this thread is if it should be legal. Legal meaning not fucking regulated at all. If you advocate that, you advocate child abuse by extension. I have to say, what the fuck? to that. It is one thing to understand that there are no victims in some crimes. It is an entirely different thing to say that some crimes are victimless, so everything should just be legal.

[Puddleglum]

Ass and Nipples aren't genetalia. Genetalia by defintion must be procreative

[Shell B]

Scratch that and reverse "genitalia" and "sex organs."

[Dumac Dwarfking]

Nobody really took up on my suggestion wrt paedophiles masturbating to existing images (in the privacy and safety of their own homes) lessening the chances of further victimisation. Not a pretty image, I know, but sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture.

There's a good argument when it comes to the victims of such crimes becoming adult perpetrators of such crimes... and that any lessening of that domino effect will (eventually) reduce the numbers who have that illness. However unpalatable the solution might be.

hrug:

Whilst I think you may be right regarding allowing access to these pictures perhaps lessening these things happening to an extent, as the material desired would be available without a person having to create them him/herself, it still wouldn't be a victimless crime. Would those children in these photos want them to be publicly accessible? Wouldn't it hurt the victims in these pictures emotionally to know that people are still jerking off to them? If it were me, I would want the pictures destroyed, I can't imagine a single person within that situation to be happy with the pictures being in public circulation.

[greneknight]

I find the whole idea of child pornography a bit strange. I should think the term "child pornography" should only apply to porn involving younger children. And it's got to be porn.

We discussed a bit of this on this thread recently:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14616-po...#pid332557

Napoleon rightly pointed out that schoolboys running naked for a prank shouldn't be considered porn and certainly not child porn. The boy taking the video shouldn't be arrested for "manufacturing child porn" and the website in which he posted the videos shouldn't be slapped with prosecution for "keeping child porn". Nowadays with everyone owning their personal digital cameras and mobile phones, lots of boys I know will be guilty of "child porn" just because the law arbitrarily decides that a child is anyone below 18. No allowance is given for the advanced maturity some of us may be fortunate enough to possess.

[Creed of Heresy]

The person who wrote this article is selling.

But I'm not buying.

[Puddleglum]

If anyone wanted to jerk off to pictures of me then I'd be rather flattered.

[Dumac Dwarfking]

I find the whole idea of child pornography a bit strange. I should think the term "child pornography" should only apply to porn involving younger children. And it's got to be porn.

We discussed a bit of this on this thread recently:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14616-po...#pid332557

Napoleon rightly pointed out that schoolboys running naked for a prank shouldn't be considered porn and certainly not child porn. The boy taking the video shouldn't be arrested for "manufacturing child porn" and the website in which he posted the videos shouldn't be slapped with prosecution for "keeping child porn". Nowadays with everyone owning their personal digital cameras and mobile phones, lots of boys I know will be guilty of "child porn" just because the law arbitrarily decides that a child is anyone below 18. No allowance is given for the advanced maturity some of us may be fortunate enough to possess.

No allowance is given because it's such an obscure thing. Some people may be sexually active well before 18, whilst others may not. 18 is a fair time to say that at most people will have reached sexual maturity by this point. A law has to be generalised or else it becomes vague and manipulatable, and they can't make it 14 simply on the basis that a few people are ready by this point, as the majority are not, at 18 however, it's a safe bet that the person is at least mature enough to fully understand what is going on emotionally as well as physically.