Legalization of child pornography?

[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.