Legalization of child pornography?

[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.

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.

I wasn't talking about sexual maturity. I don't think I'm physically mature yet but I sure as hell am mentally mature. I was actually thinking of people who call pranks like streaking in school "child porn". It never once occurred to me that anybody would consider a group of schoolboys running in the buff something as serious as porn but it does appear from this thread that the law considers it so. In this day and age, if you do something as brave as streaking, it would be such a letdown if you haven't got a video or pics to prove it but if the law really takes that to be porn, then the law is wrong. By mental maturity, I'm actually referring to the fact that I'm not gullible. I'll be able to spot potential paedophiles if I see them. So, the law shouldn't go round molly-coddling people like as if we are a bunch of idiots that need protection from paedophiles.

But I think adults tend to have the wrong mentality. I remember on the other thread, some adults thought the boy who took the video of us running must have been gay. Until I explained that he was tough as nails and is one of the school's top rugby players. My Mum has the same idea. She thinks there is a paedophile lurking at every street corner which is why she's very particular that I do not disclose my whereabouts and details online. But those of us who are mentally mature can tell who is safe and who is a potential paedophile. True, I have friends who can't tell but it's because they are still immature.

The world is not as unsafe as the law makes it out to be. I know a boy who is very small and immature. He likes to run into the shower and snap pics with his phone and then he'd dash out to post the pics just for laughs. Should he go to jail for producing child porn? Child porn by definition must be pornography. It means people having sex or girls in seductive poses. Not boys taking a shower.

The law is a bit like political correctness. On another thread, I was talking about Islam and its dangers and somehow political correctness kicked in and people became less rational.

One day, when I enter politics, I'll revamp the law.

[KichigaiNeko]

The "law" is liken to religion ( I am inclined that is where it came from .... ) ...likes to think people are as stupid as the religious and so they bring in these "laws" to protect themselves. I am of the opinion that it is more to do with litigation potential than anything else.

[Waratah]

Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter.
Wiki entry

...(snipped)By mental maturity, I'm actually referring to the fact that I'm not gullible. I'll be able to spot potential paedophiles if I see them. So, the law shouldn't go round molly-coddling people like as if we are a bunch of idiots that need protection from paedophiles.

A lot of people get fooled by paedophiles including adults.

But I think adults tend to have the wrong mentality. I remember on the other thread, some adults thought the boy who took the video of us running must have been gay. Until I explained that he was tough as nails and is one of the school's top rugby players.

A great Australian league player(Ian Roberts) who no one messed with was gay. Sporting skill and your "toughness" is not a prerequisite of heterosexuality.

My Mum has the same idea. She thinks there is a paedophile lurking at every street corner which is why she's very particular that I do not disclose my whereabouts and details online.

Smart mum, listen to her because it is not just paedophiles you have to worry about.

But those of us who are mentally mature can tell who is safe and who is a potential paedophile. True, I have friends who can't tell but it's because they are still immature.

Usually a paedophile is someone who is a close and trusted friend or family member.

The world is not as unsafe as the law makes it out to be.

I am glad you feel so safe but everyone's world is not the same and it can be very unsafe.

I know a boy who is very small and immature. He likes to run into the shower and snap pics with his phone and then he'd dash out to post the pics just for laughs. Should he go to jail for producing child porn? Child porn by definition must be pornography. It means people having sex or girls in seductive poses. Not boys taking a shower.(snipped)....

He should not and would not go to jail. He is a minor and would be dealt with as such. Posting any naked pictures of minors is a serious matter. Once there out there hard to get rid of them.

[Fryslân]

No. Just NO. The word child and pornography should never be in a sentence or room together. Never.
Going to spare you all the psycological information a long with all the religious contradictions that come with this subject. I think we all know whats best here.

[TaraJo]

Ok, I'm not exactly trying to argue that child porn should be legal, but I do think the law needs some wiggle room there. We need to understand that judges can fuck up just like any other guy, we need to understand there are always going to be 'yeah, but' situations that people get caught up in and we need to understand that if the sexual predators know the law well enough and we have strict lines drawn, they'll push things as far as they can go while remaining inside those lines (and still hurt children in the process). I know I've seen enough of the art world to understand that the line between art and pornography can be an extremely fine line and I have a good enough understanding of human sexuality to understand that pretty much anything can be turned into a sexual fetish object.

I'll say, I don't like anyone hurting other people, especially children. Children are generally innocent and are at a stage where their personality is still fairly malleable. If we treat them right and raise them well, we can turn them into good people. If they live under constant abuse, neglect and mistreatment, it's probably going to scar them and, often, the child will turn into an abuser themselves.

[Red Celt]

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?

Sadly, that damage has already been done. With digital media, it isn't a case of burning the negatives. The images are out there - and (for all anyone knows) will remain out there, permanently. All it takes is one paedo with a "library" on their drive.

At no point have I suggested that this would be an "ideal" solution. Far from it. But, if it actually reduced the number of victims...?

As for being "publicly accessible", it might be conceivable that paedos would have to register (with the police, or via a psychologist). That registration would then put them on a black-list when it came to job applications which involve children... only, without the addition of a "sexual crime register". If it came back with a "NO", with no explanation to the potential employer, it would work as a safeguard against such people getting such jobs... but without the addition of a vigilante-style hate-mob looking to remove the person from their neighbourhood (which just results in them being moved to another neighbourhood and doesn't solve anything).

I don't know... either we kill them, castrate them or (if our liberalism doesn't allow that) we do something manageable that will actually work in reducing the number of potential victims. Which is what I suggested.

And, again, I'm no expert on this. If a psychologist (with experience in these matters) were to come along and say that it wouldn't have any benefit... then we're left with execution or castration. When these people are (often) the way they are because they were childhood victims of the same crime... it seems a draconian way of dealing with them.

[Fryslân]

I'll say, I don't like anyone hurting other people, especially children. Children are generally innocent and are at a stage where their personality is still fairly malleable. If we treat them right and raise them well, we can turn them into good people. If they live under constant abuse, neglect and mistreatment, it's probably going to scar them and, often, the child will turn into an abuser themselves.

So you don't think pedophiles are the way they are because they are born that way? Correct me if i'm wrong. I thought pedophelia was like homosexuality in the sence that they can't help being that way. Now I didn't base this on anything. I just thought it was like this.
It doesn't make it alright though. As long as they don't take actions it's "fine". But I don't think you can make someone a pedophile. Like you can't convert someone into homosexuality.
But you can make someone do the same things they've experienced if thats all they know is right ofcourse.

[Red Celt]

So you don't think pedophiles are the way they are because they are born that way? Correct me if i'm wrong. I thought pedophelia was like homosexuality in the sence that they can't help being that way. Now I didn't base this on anything. I just thought it was like this.
It doesn't make it alright though. As long as they don't take actions it's "fine". But I don't think you can make someone a pedophile. Like you can't convert someone into homosexuality.
But you can make someone do the same things they've experienced if thats all they know is right ofcourse.

A recurring theme from testimony from child-abusers (this is from collective memory, not-sourced) is that they, themselves, were victims of abuse when they were children. Reducing the number of victims is not only a grace to the potential victims... but it reduces the number of perpetrators in later years. Which further reduces the number of victims... ad infinitum.

The answer (if there is an answer) is to prevent existing paedophiles from the physical execution of their illness. I gave one possible answer to that.

[TaraJo]

So you don't think pedophiles are the way they are because they are born that way? Correct me if i'm wrong. I thought pedophelia was like homosexuality in the sence that they can't help being that way.

The important difference being that, when two consenting gay adults have sex with each other, it doesn't generally involve either of them manipulating, using, forcing or traumatizing the other.

However, for the sake of discussion, I'll go on.

The sexual attraction isn't the problem; it's how they act on it. If you express this desire by getting off to pictures of children in catalogs or from hentai or erotica that involves children, I'm ok with that. I think it's a much better way to deal with your issues than actually going out and getting one of the kiddies since erotica doesn't involve a victim.

[greneknight]

When I said I was mature and could spot a paedophile, I didn't say it unadvisedly. I have the right to say that because I managed to foil a paedophile once and my friends owed their safety to my quick thinking. My friends and I had gone on a school trip to Hay which is on the border of Wales near Hereford. One afternoon, we rented bicycles and cycled down a lovely country road until we came to a pub (I just deleted the name of the pub because I don't want the owner to get into trouble). We ordered a Butty Bach which is a local brew. THat's the reason why I don't want to put down the name of the pub. Then one of the customers came to our table and talked to us. He looked fishy and he said he could give us a ride in his van to a lovely hill full of sheep in the country. My friends were eager but I just felt something wasn't right. He said our three bikes could go into his van. And then I saw the van. It was a totally white van and my Mum had told me something about white vans that she read about in the papers. Lots of kidnappers use white vans. Just then I saw an fat woman watering her plants in her garden and I told the chap I'd better leave a number with the woman in case anything happened because we were on a school trip. He immediately lowered his voice and told us that the woman was a most unpleasant woman and was his neighbour and she was an old crosspatch who didn't like kids. But I felt something was wrong so I told him I didn't mind her and I sort of ran towards the woman. At that point he ran to his van and drove off in a hurry. My friends were dismayed with me. I spoke to the woman and she was a lovely woman and she said she had never seen that man in the white van before. And he claimed he was her neighbour. She was sure he didn't live anywhere near that village. So I saved both my friends from being kidnapped by a possible serial killer.