posted
Ok, I got off on a tangent in another thread, so here is to keep you up to date....It has to do with is there an example where the government should regulate behavior behind closed doors.
Alexa
quote: I can think of one...and I see legal debates on the horizon. The implications of this ever being legal is truly frightening.
What about child pornography where the pornography is computer generated? As CGI gets more advanced, what is the legal code of conduct in your opinion Storm?
Is it freedom of expression or is it a truly sick act that should be illegal?
Storm Saxon
quote: no harm, no foul, in my opinion. It's like taking a picture of someone with a knife sticking out of their chest versus drawing someone with a knife sticking out of their chest. No different.
in any case, it's already been deemed illegal.
KarlEd
quote: That's a pretty interesting question in and of itself. You should post that in a thread of its own. (Not that I'm worried about derailing this thread, but you'd probably get interesting opinions from people who aren't reading this thread.)
Alexa
quote: I know it is illegal, but what I am trying to determine if it is justified to be illegal. If it is justified, then there is precedent for the government to regulated private behavior.
I do find the precedent does exist because the damage spamming that type of porn would be on the public good is overwhelming in my mind.
Can someone provide a link to where this was made illegal? I definitely remember reading that it was declared legally protected speech. Was this overturned?
[edit: I'd look myself, but I'm not doing searches on "virtual child pornography" from work. Sorry.]
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Have you seen the stuff coming out of Japan right now?
None of those girls look a day older than 10 years old.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is there anything you can think of that the government has the right to outlaw that is done in the privacy of your own home and does not affect others? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking marijuana fits nicely here. Yet the government makes it illegal.
Of course I am of the opinion that they have no right to do so.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, I find that belief very frightening, since it justifies pretty much any use of the power of state.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does someone smoking pot in the privacy of their own homes affect others?
The arguement is IF there are things going on in your home that don't harm others (IE take away the consent--since the law has held that children can't give consent to sex or pornography, child porn is illegal), does the government have a right to outlaw it?
By your own standard (and mine btw) pot should not be regulated. What about computer generated child porn? No one didn't give consent (or had consent taken from them due to age), so should government still outlaw it?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, I can't find a link, partially for the same reason as you. (Especially considering I'm a teacher!) But I'm certain it is.
(And, interestingly enough, that stuff coming from Japan has key details airbrushed out of existence, which websites in the US draw back into existence!)
(Not sure why I know these things . . . )
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you say virtual child porn is illegal, you are giving the state precedent to enforce public morality not based on behavior that affects others. If you argue for legalizing virtual child porn...well...duh (imo)! That can't be right.
I am reminded of the Southpark episode where Cartmen joins Mambla (forgot acronym).
You could stick to outlawing virtual child porn to advertise for child trafficking or party trips to Asian Countries where child sex laws aren't enforced. But if the police raid someone’s computer who met an underage girl online and finds virtual and real child porn, should the virtual be counted in the offenses?
What about if the law seizes a computer, for a different reason, and finds VCP on it, should it be prosecuted?
I don't know what the law says, but I want to know if you think the government should have that precedent. I do.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alexa -- I don't know. Just because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, consider, Alexa (let's not get into psych studies. I'd just as soon not get into dueling links. just consider what if), what if the virtual child porn keeps the person happy so they don't go out and do the real thing?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that fantisizing about things doesn't placate, it encourages it. Virtual child porn would make people more, not less likely to exploit children (real child porn being one of the ways to do that).
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd love to be able to think of a good reason why it should be illegal, but I can't think of one. Is it illegal for a pedophile to fantasize (i.e., without the use of technology or drawings or anything like that)? In other words, is there anything concrete beyond our distaste for the drive behind illegalizing this?
One might say that this leads to pedophiles raping children, as the fantasy ceases to satisfy them, or as they are emboldened. But this would then be a pretty good precedent for outlawing hard core pornography that does not involve children, and videogames and music that glorify violence.
Is it possible that by giving pedophiles access to a legal way to fantasize, we would reduce the demand for child pornography which real children are harmed in the making of?
posted
Mmmmmmm... porn... Porn is just fine and dandy. I don't know about anyone else, but it's kept me sane during those long years of being single. Child porn is NOT, of course, because it means a child was used in it's production. But, while I find it repulsive, don't see why cgi or drawn porn is wrong. As long as no child was hurt there is no problem. And as long as you keep it to yourself, as they say, no harm no foul.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
That is an interesting argument. There certainly is an ongoing debate about whether violent video games provide an outlet or a reinforcement for violent behavior.
I don't know. I do know we could never test to find out, as I can't see finding a review board for an experiment on VCP giving permission to study a variety of illegal activities without turning in the perpetrator.
My personal experience with sex is that you can learn to like anything. Also, since sex is stimulating the pleasure area of your brain but tends to have a tolerance level before it becomes dull, you need to keep pushing the line to find the same pleasure.
Of course I am talking about self pleasure material. Love and commitment adds a different degree to the equation that I doubt VCP offers.
**but you are right, if it reduces abuse, of course it would be a good thing...in the "what if" catagory.
posted
I agree. It seems that all of the objections to virtual child porn are equally valid against normal porn.
But no, I don't believe that virtual child porn will releive the damand for real child porn. It will increase the demand for it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I couldn't help noticing your thread and I wanted to join in.
Pedophilia, in my opinion, is not illegal on it's own as there can be no process which could ever moniter one's thoughts and desires. But at what point does one's actions on those desires constitute a danger to others? Does simply looking at such material constitute a danger to others or must one be actively producing the material to call it illegal?
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big fear I see is there are plenty of countries where the age of consent is lower, non existent, or not enforced. We are seeing in the news more reports where business men are traveling to these countries to satisfy cravings.
If VCP is made legal, I could see it being used to advertise such trips in a round a bout way. I could also see it being posted and sent on multiple web sites were pedophiles will congregate and unify.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:what if the virtual child porn keeps the person happy so they don't go out and do the real thing?
This would only be a valid "what if" scenario if it had some basis in reality. Would you say that regular pornography is satisfying enough to never want a real woman? In some cases, (and I know they exist), the answer is yes. But those are cases where the draw is the pornography itself and the physical act (since it involves another person) is too threatening, too scary, or too intimate. Those are cases, however, where the physical act isn't truly tempting anyway. Wouldn't you say that in most cases, viewers of pornography are not satisfied to just stay with the porn and would prefer to go for real sex with a real woman?
(edited to rephrase a question that made no sense whatsoever)
Welcome, you name looks new. Are you truly new to Hatrack or are deciding to keep your identity obscure?
Anyway,
quote:Does simply looking at such material constitute a danger to others
I think the production of VCP will be used for much more then simply looking at such material. It is a medium of communication. Now, is that communication damaging?
**note, I just noticed this post sounded accusitory as to you being a new memmber...THAT WAS NOT my intention. I was mildly curious. But now I see the creation date of your name, so question answered.
posted
I am not really that new, I just never really had the time to post anything before.
Anyway, my statement was based on a basic philosophy spelled out by John Stuart Mill, which says that government is only justified in interfering with people's freedom of conscience to protect other individuals from harm. My own personal feeling is that VCP doesn't constitute much of a threat on it's own. The only thing government can really protect against is peoples actions concerning it, e.g. someone looking at porn then deciding to rape someone. Producing child porn definately produces a threat to others (children) virtual porn I see as a manifestation of some person's, no matter how sick, desires. Unless they act upon those desires in a way that threats another person, government really can't do much to restrict it.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure that "virtual child pornography" is NOT illegal. So far the closest I've found to proof is this article which describes the great length prosecutors must go to in order to prove that child pornography found on a suspect's computer involved an actual child.
quote: For now, the TBI is providing much of the forensic analysis once a computer is seized. These investigators can sift through a hard drive searching for illegal images and incriminating communications.
These images are often crucial in a case, but their use has been challenged in the federal courts. Perhaps the most significant case has been Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition, in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined in 2002 that certain provisions within the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 were unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
The court focused on ''virtual child pornography'' and the section in the act that banned images that ''appeared to be'' children or ''conveyed the impression'' of child sexual activity. The court ruled that parts of the law were overly broad.
Adult actors play children in sexually explicit situations in films such as Traffic and American Beauty, the Supreme Court noted, and under the language of the act, even films with legitimate themes such as these could be singled out for prosecution.
So, too, could adaptations of Romeo and Juliet, where there are hints that young lovers consummated their relationship, the court noted.
As part of the government's ongoing effort to prove that child-porn images are depictions of real children — and to help find some of these real-life victims — agencies are building giant databases of child-exploitation images, Daughtrey said
NOTE: this article was from this month, so it's unlikely the ruling has been overturned. So this isn't just an academic debate. It seems to me that the court has indeed ruled that "virtual child pornography" is not illegal. (Again, unless someone can prove otherwise.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Epictetus is right on. When property rights are infringed, then government intervention is moral.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm one of those against virtual child pornography. These are real people who could either have children themselves or have a girlfriend with children. They get turned on by the kids. Do you really want someone who looks at your eight year old with lust? The child porn enhances and reinforces those desires. Those desires are harmful because they could be acted upon.
I know that simply thinking something shouldn't be illegal. People fight temptation of different things all the time, and remain good and upstanding citizens because their desire to do the right thing is greater than the evil thoughts that occasionally cross their minds. But child porn of any kind crosses the line from thought into doing something about it. Trying to fulfill those desires vicariously ultimately becomes unsatisfying. There should be no action, private or not, that encourages the sexual attraction of adults to children.
I do not think we should treat violence on the screen the same way we treat porn. We react to them very differently.
Sex gives you a definate physical pleasurable reward. Violence does not. Healthy sex gives the other person pleasure. I would say that many, perhaps even the majority of adults, have watched a movie with sex in it (even if it isn't porn, even if it isn't actually sex but just romantic kissing), and then had sex that night with their partner because the movie stirred some desires.
Violence does not give you that jolt to the pleasure center, unless you are already very sick. Very few people ever watch a violent movie and then get up and kill a few people that night.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sex gives you a definate physical pleasurable reward. Violence does not.
This is not true for all. Some, perhaps mentally ill perhaps not, gain pleasure from seeing violence. I would guess that the % of the populations is probably similarly small to that % that enjoys child porn. Should we ban all depictions of violence to protect ourselves?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Practically *every* person who views porn does so to stimulate pleasure. Likewise, most of the people who seek out child porn do it for the same reason.
But most people who view violence (virtual or otherwise) are not stimulated by it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is another difference between violence and porn, and child porn in particular.
Is the guy screwing the kid noble and heroic?
Is the guy getting shot at to go in and rescue his comrade, a woman, a child, whatever, noble and heroic? Is it less heroic if he shoots a few rounds in the general direct he is being shot at from?
What about the 'most violent movie', The Passion? Do we envy or think fondly of those doing the whipping? No. Do we honor and respect the man recieving the torture? Yes.
The depiction of noble and heroic actions almost always includes violence, but can sometimes inspire us to be heroic in our own, small way.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The depiction of noble and heroic actions almost always includes violence, but can sometimes inspire us to be heroic in our own, small way.
So even though some small % of the population may gain pleasure from watching the passion, and be convinced of capturing someone and flogging him/her to death, thats okay because some people see Jesus as heroic? I must say, your standard seems a bit flimsy. How can such a concept be applied to laws (which is what we are talking about)?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I find anything sexual involving children to be deeply repugnant. I can agree with Amka that even virtual child porn is probably not healthy outlet for someone with pedophilic tendencies. However, I find it difficult to argue for making VCP illegal. Where do you draw the line? What about pornography involving only certified 18-21 year old males who look 15-16? Can you ban that without banning all porn outright? What about novels that involve pedophiles and/or their victims as characters?
quote: . There should be no action, private or not, that encourages the sexual attraction of adults to children.
This is a two-edged sword. A 40 year old man hanging around a high-school watching the cheerleaders practice might be pretty creepy, but are you arguing that the cheerleaders should wear jogging suits instead of short skirts and tight sweaters? Is it wrong for a straight male adult to be turned on by a sexy Brittney Spears video? (Cause only the most naive will deny that sex appeal is a major point of her persona, even before she was legal) Does that make him sick? Should Brittney be censored? (Personal tastes aside, please )
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
My question is, at what point does this process become illegal?
Those who think we should legislate against it, give me details please. At what point does free speech and expression break down?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd -- you ask if these things should be censored. I say yes. But should they be censored because of governmental fiat? I say no.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said, Mr p-h. If things like this get censored because society refuses to support it and lend it respectability, that's fine with me, too. But I agree that the government shouldn't be the enforcer.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps this is a dumb observation, but I'm getting the impression from this thread that the general belief is that sexual desire for children is about sex. That it is just someone who has an orientation toward children rather than fellow adults. It is not. It's a medical disorder treatable with psychiatric assistance. It's an illness. Further, acting upon the desires born of that illness is still not about sex -- it is about power, which is part of the illness.
I do not see how it can possibly be right that the materials that would further the progression of that illness become more easily available simply because the production of it didn't exploit any real children.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pictures of nude children will always exist because they are everywhere in humanity regardless of what intentions were present at their inception.
I can see illegalizing images of children doing things that are illegal to be done with children.
I do not think it is necessary or enforceable to apply that to manufactured images, except in such cases where the material has been displayed in public.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard the same thing said about rape -- that it's about power, not about sex. People repeat it over and over.
But I have trouble believing that. So far, nobody has been able to show me anything that supports that claim beyond the fact that many people believe it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't saying that VCP shouldn't be censored by the government -- I was talking about things like sexy brittney spears videos, sexy cheerleader outfits, etc..
Any system will inherently be arbitrary. The only solution then will be garments where the ankles can't be uncovered.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arbitrary is not the worst thing out there. We talked about this a lot with the idea of the voting age.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).
