How to reduce the availability rates for child porn: a contentious debate -

For The Internet

Tits and ALL
True & Honest Fan
I find myself torn on this issue.

On the one hand, studies have shown that de-criminalising CP leads to less abuse, but I can't help but think that if it's de-criminalised it will increase demand and that will ultimately lead to more abuse in the long term.
Perhaps if the de-criminalisation was only of fictional CP like loli/shota it would lead to less abuse? Admittedly I don't know the details of the study so I'm not sure exactly how they defined CP and that matters in this argument.


I believe that people who look at CP (for the purposes of this argument I'm defining that as explicit images of real children) aren't really much less culpable as consumers than the people who make it. Sure, they're not physically harming the child and the child has no idea they're seeing those images, but they're creating demand and there would be no supply without demand. They're complicit in the cycle of abuse and helping to perpetuating it.

It's controversial, but I don't care if someone restricts themselves to loli/shota only. Nobody is being hurt when that happens. It's gross and fucked up to want to look at explicit images of kids, but if kids aren't being exploited (either by being photographed in an explicit manner or having a non-exploitative image used as fap fuel) then I don't think it's a crime.
 
Last edited:

Tokitae

Just here for the food.
For me it's most key to remember that the children involved in real child pornography aren't just nebulous ideas--they are people, who will grow up with the effects of their abuse for the rest of their life. This article on the effects of child pornography on 100 victims brings up the different effects pornography use alone is speculated to have on people as we've discussed already, though admits nothing is proven and it's all a bit contentious. It also points out that the children exploited in CP are not just victimised when the abuse occurs and is filmed, but also with the knowledge later in life that other people continue to access and use the footage without their consent (this real-life case is based on this issue--they also made an SVU episode out of it, because of course they did).

As some have said, I think the focus possibly needs to be on intervention and pre-emptive counselling for those who struggle with urges towards children... but obviously, the problem with that is that it relies hugely on self-reporting. It's very complicated. I think if there was a clear reason why some have these urges and some don't, or a clear way to stop people acting on it or getting off on watching others act on it, it wouldn't be as huge and heartbreaking a problem as it is. Ugh. Don't know if I want to weigh in much more than this because I find the subject pretty darn depressing. (:_(
 

Vitriol

True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
We should murder all pedophiles, then there will be no one left to produce or distribute it.
Just cut their dick and balls off then stuff it in their mouth then sew their mouth shut so they cannot spit out their severed junk.

Let's not go down the 'send X to jail to be raped' line of shitposting, I realise it is extremely tempting given that quite frankly the perverts deserve it, and im guilty of it myself in other threads but it shuts down and buries discussion.
 

AnOminous

there ain't no turning back
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
Look, Dessler, i'm trying to think of a civil way to say this but, man you're kinda coming off creepy.
I mean, You're ok with the videos but i have to ask you, are you ok with Rape and snuff videos aswell? what about animal abuse videos?

Not a good example, since none of those are per se illegal, at least in the United States, nor could they be made illegal.

Commercially distributing rape and snuff of certain sorts might fail to pass muster under obscenity laws, though, and even simulations might fail, e.g. the Max Hardcore case.

Similarly, attempts have been made to outlaw "animal abuse videos" like documenting how livestock slaughter actually operates, which is rather ironic. The actual behavior is entirely legal, but the public has to be protected from knowing about it. Such laws wouldn't pass muster even if they only outlawed portrayals of conduct that would actually be illegal (U.S. v. Stevens).
 

Cynical

The world sucks? Good.
I'm of the stance any porn involving a real child, and whether it's produced, distributed, or viewed, is a criminal act that should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

A child (or a minor in legal speak) cannot lawfully consent to being in that situation, so any of the above acts makes child pornography illegal and anyone who partakes in any of the process is committing a crime, plain and simple.

I can see no legal or moral reason to ever rescind any of that.

As for the loli/shota fictional stuff, it's gross as fuck and abhorrent morally, no dispute from me on that, but it fails the test of being illegal by it's mere existence since you don't have to commit a crime against a minor to make it, view it, or distribute it. As disgusting as it is, at least under US law, it fails the one crucial criteria for being illegal by existing and thus gets my legal defense for people having access to it, but I won't pretend it's anything other than fucked up morally.

Another gray area I find somewhat harder to defend, but only barely, is simulated live action child pornography, as in, someone producing computer simulated images of live action child pornography. It just barely fails to be a crime legally, since again, you don't have to harm a child to make it, but it's kinda like how that cannibal chef in Fallout New Vegas made a recipe that tastes like human flesh as a substitute for actually eating humans: it's a methadone like substitute for something worse, and while it might be better than the alternative legally, there is no guarantee it will help pedophiles keep their hands to themselves.

As for someone with pedophilic urges who wants to get help, they should be able to get it from a mental health professional, though with the caveat law enforcement is at least aware of them since they have a mental health issue that could lead to criminal behavior, though unless they commit a crime, they should be entitled to a reasonable level of discretion from both a legal and medical standpoint.

As for those who have offended, I advocate zero tolerance, stiff penalties for any offense, and for those who have served their time, harsh enforcement until they expire to make sure they never offend again, and if they don't like it, tough shit.

As for people trying to normalize pedophilia, while I support free speech, I would be heavily in favor of considering such speech criminal and thus restrainable for public safety, much like advocating terrorism against the government is a crime.
 

Marvin

Christorical Figure
True & Honest Fan
I'm of the stance any porn involving a real child, and whether it's produced, distributed, or viewed, is a criminal act that should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

A child (or a minor in legal speak) cannot lawfully consent to being in that situation, so any of the above acts makes child pornography illegal and anyone who partakes in any of the process is committing a crime, plain and simple.

I can see no legal or moral reason to ever rescind any of that.
Murder and plenty of other acts are illegal. But photographs of murders aren't illegal.

Not to say that child pornography should be legalized on this basis. Just saying that the "the act is illegal, so should photographs of the act be illegal" argument isn't very good.
As for someone with pedophilic urges who wants to get help, they should be able to get it from a mental health professional, though with the caveat law enforcement is at least aware of them since they have a mental health issue that could lead to criminal behavior, though unless they commit a crime, they should be entitled to a reasonable level of discretion from both a legal and medical standpoint.
They should follow the same rules they do for suicide. Unless the mental health professional believes the patient is at serious risk of commiting a crime, they shouldn't say anything to anyone. Privacy and ethics are paramount. Patients need to be able to trust their doctors.

We don't want less pedophiles trying to get help.
As for people trying to normalize pedophilia, while I support free speech, I would be heavily in favor of considering such speech criminal and thus restrainable for public safety, much like advocating terrorism against the government is a crime.
The standards for what constitutes "advocating terrorism" are pretty strict. You need to be inciting people to imminent lawless action. It's not illegal, for example, to advocate that the US constitution be abolished and replaced with sharia law.
 

Cynical

The world sucks? Good.
Murder and plenty of other acts are illegal. But photographs of murders aren't illegal.

Not to say that child pornography should be legalized on this basis. Just saying that the "the act is illegal, so should photographs of the act be illegal" argument isn't very good.

They should follow the same rules they do for suicide. Unless the mental health professional believes the patient is at serious risk of commiting a crime, they shouldn't say anything to anyone. Privacy and ethics are paramount. Patients need to be able to trust their doctors.

We don't want less pedophiles trying to get help.

The standards for what constitutes "advocating terrorism" are pretty strict. You need to be inciting people to imminent lawless action. It's not illegal, for example, to advocate that the US constitution be abolished and replaced with sharia law.

Photos of murders are not illegal because they are not directly related to actually committing the murder. Child molestation is illegal and taking photos of it is also illegal since there is direct correlation to the criminal act.

Good point on the mental help topic, and I agree.

My response on restrainable speech is probably a little kneejerk, but I see no lawful benefit in arguing for the violation of the rights of children so they can be abused and exploited, much like I see no lawful reason to post how to build nuclear weapons in public.
 

Marvin

Christorical Figure
True & Honest Fan
Photos of murders are not illegal because they are not directly related to actually committing the murder. Child molestation is illegal and taking photos of it is also illegal since there is direct correlation to the criminal act.
I don't think we're talking about the people taking the pictures though. You're obviously committing a crime if you're taking a picture of child molestation, even if it's as simple as being an accessory to the crime.

I think the issue being discussed is whether laws against simple possession of child porn are worthwhile.
My response on restrainable speech is probably a little kneejerk, but I see no lawful benefit in arguing for the violation of the rights of children so they can be abused and exploited, much like I see no lawful reason to post how to build nuclear weapons in public.
The law can be changed though. Anything mandated by law should be up for debate.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say we're OK with outlawing certain kinds of speech, just on spec. Let's say advocating for abolishing age of consent laws is one of them. What about advocating to merely lower the age of consent? How low can it get before it would be forbidden? Some people think that any age under 18 is unacceptable.

Ultimately, I don't think peaceful speech is ever dangerous in and of itself. Blaming speech for problems is a red herring.

The benefit is that all topics should be subject to debate and discussion, even (and especially) goofy topics like abolishing age of consent or sharia law. It's easier to see that NAMBLA is nonsense when you permit them to speak.
 

Cynical

The world sucks? Good.
I don't think we're talking about the people taking the pictures though. You're obviously committing a crime if you're taking a picture of child molestation, even if it's as simple as being an accessory to the crime.

I think the issue being discussed is whether laws against simple possession of child porn are worthwhile.

The law can be changed though. Anything mandated by law should be up for debate.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say we're OK with outlawing certain kinds of speech, just on spec. Let's say advocating for abolishing age of consent laws is one of them. What about advocating to merely lower the age of consent? How low can it get before it would be forbidden? Some people think that any age under 18 is unacceptable.

Ultimately, I don't think peaceful speech is ever dangerous in and of itself. Blaming speech for problems is a red herring.

The benefit is that all topics should be subject to debate and discussion, even (and especially) goofy topics like abolishing age of consent or sharia law. It's easier to see that NAMBLA is nonsense when you permit them to speak.

As for possession, I disagree. It's exploitation of someone who could not consent to their use in those images. In my view, it's illegal and should always remain so.

As for speech, great point.
 

moosesgalore

dannie "alahu snackbar ibn ubeter habab it" pham
How the hell should I know, how I would react in this situation?
I never said I'm "OK" with the videos.

You sure go to great lengths to defend consumption of CP. People only defend things this much when they have a horse in the race.

It's one thing to defend it on some kind of grounds of, "Hey, I just watched the train wreck; I didn't cause it." Nevertheless, it is an accessory to a crime because you refused to report the illegal material and therefore encouraged its existence. Passive consumption still has the implication of encouragement because it doesn't proactively attempt to discourage the distribution of it. No court of law would accept excuses. The thing about good Samaritan laws is that you can only be protected from prosecution if you help; if you see a crime happening and allow it to happen you can be charged with a litany of various malfeasance charges like aiding and abetting or criminal faggotry.
 

fuehrer_dessler

Casual gamer and brogressive shitlord
You sure go to great lengths to defend consumption of CP. People only defend things this much when they have a horse in the race.

It's one thing to defend it on some kind of grounds of, "Hey, I just watched the train wreck; I didn't cause it." Nevertheless, it is an accessory to a crime because you refused to report the illegal material and therefore encouraged its existence. Passive consumption still has the implication of encouragement because it doesn't proactively attempt to discourage the distribution of it. No court of law would accept excuses. The thing about good Samaritan laws is that you can only be protected from prosecution if you help; if you see a crime happening and allow it to happen you can be charged with a litany of various malfeasance charges like aiding and abetting or criminal faggotry.
They were not talking about Good Samaritan laws when they were claiming, that watching a cp video "magically" harms the actors.
 

CatFace

Hey Mom, I’m Becoming an Indian Woman
They were not talking about Good Samaritan laws when they were claiming, that watching a cp video "magically" harms the actors.
You keep saying "actors", how exactly are the victims of child sexual abuse "actors"? Walking around knowing someone somewhere is getting off on, enjoying, your childhood trauma. Is that not harmful whether or not it was payed for? You say the victim would care "WHAT was done to them, not why". How does that change if the "what" that was done to them was for the "why"?
 

fuehrer_dessler

Casual gamer and brogressive shitlord
You keep saying "actors", how exactly are the victims of child sexual abuse "actors"?
They are both. Victimized by being made actors in this kinda repugnant videos.
Walking around knowing someone somewhere is getting off on, enjoying, your childhood trauma. Is that not harmful whether or not it was payed for? You say the victim would care "WHAT was done to them, not why". How does that change if the "what" that was done to them was for the "why"?
How would the victim of it know, whether these videos are still around on the net or not?
 
Top