Jerry Smith

Free12Thinker,
I invite you to consider the difference between pornography and literary or artistic portrayals of sex, and then consider what "child pornography" is. I don't know who you think will "suffer" from not having access to child pornography.

By your standards, is "real child" pornography perfectly "OK" except that it causes harm to the children? So if a collector has some old photographs or films made as child pornography years ago, so long as he doesn't produce them, should he be allowed to distribute them freely?

David Gould

I think that you cannot control the demand for such things so you need to control the supply. By this I mean that banning things that look like child pornography but are not will not reduce the demand for child pornography. Instead, it will actually reduce supply, a slack that will be taken up by real child pornography.

With regard to the question as to whether old phtos of child pornography can be used, I would say that if the person in them could reasonably be expected to object then they should be banned. And I cannot think of a situation where such an objection would not be raised.

Bree

Say someone views a video of an imaged 14-year-old kid having sex with an older man and gets off on it - that's okay. But if someone wants to TRY a 14-year-old kid - that's not okay.

Do I get you straight?

I'm not a porn buff by any means, but I thought you viewed porn to stimulate yourself, meaning you watch it because it gives you a visual of what you want to be doing. I could be wrong, of course (maybe some people watch porn because they DON'T want to be having sex, I dunno).

Turns out the man I was molested by was in Christian rehab for his little "problem" - apparently the doctors thought he could be rehabbed by trying to contain his 'love' for children to porn and magazines and audio/video tapes. From a personal standpoint, I'm against child porn. But again, that's my personal standpoint.

free12thinker

Child pornography is kids in pictures or films under sexual innuendos or actions. "Imaged child pornography" is nothing more than "imaged" (read:not real) kids in pictures of films under sexual innuendos or actions. The difference is consent and age of the consentor. And whether we like to admit it or not, consenting pornography hurts no one (beliefs aside), and pleases someone. Now do I think these people that it pleases will "Suffer" if they can't get their hands on it? Not most of them. But don't take "suffer" literally, I simply meant that we should not have to give away our rights, simply because it offends someone. Body piercing offends some people. So does tight clothing. But we have freedoms in this country, one of them being expression.

And to answer your question regarding real child pornography. I'll say this. I'm not a psychologist, but I would have a hard time granting consent to a child thats under a certain age. That said, if we can determine how old a child has to be before they can grant uncoerced consent to be photographed naked or whatever, than I have no objections. It's happened on film for decades, and people have tried to object to it's allowance, but we give kids the right to manage their estates, separate from their parents and get jobs at 14. I may not be one of those people who look at pornography, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I think you need to separate coerced or unconsenting Child Pornography from Imaged or Consenting Child pornography. After all, a child is anyone under 18, not anyone under 8.

free12thinker

Someone viewing the video of an imaged 14 year old, getting off, but not trying to do the deed with a real 14 year old? Is that the Q. I don;t see anything wrong with that. I accept the idea that everyone has a different make-up and is excited by different measures, different elements and different practices. Sex is like a drug, we can all admit to it's feel-good pleasures. That said, I would commend this person for limiting his desires to magazines and videos. We all have impulses, we all have rage, we all have feelings and desires. What do we do with them though?

We all think that imaged child pornography just "sounds" wrong, much like homosexuality for some, or S & M for some, but if Hector (whoever) is behind closed doors with his imaged porn and doesn't bother the next guy, what's the problem?

I don't see one.

Amen-Moses

Must be time for an analogy:

Snuff movies V Horror movies.

Nuff said!

Amen-Moses

tronvillain

Actually, this has always been my opinion about simulated child pornography. Besides which, simply being aroused by teenagers to some degree seems relatively normal, though we legally limit sex with teenagers to prevent their exploitation.

If Ashcroft is worried about prosecuting actual child pornography cases, perhaps they should consider a law which requires proof of simulation to avoid prosecution. That is, unless a given representation has attached proof of production or such proof can be obtained, it will assumed to be the real thing.

excreationist

I think it is kind of like special effects in movies - that might show someone being scalped - though it is just pretend. Movies can make things like speeding around in busy streets (like in Driven ) and killing lots of innocent people seem fun. But responsible people know that those things are actually against the law. And if there was virtual child pornography, there would have to be a disclaimer (e.g. all these young-looking girls are actually 18 years old) and this implies that it is illegal to show pictures of them if they're underage. (And also have sex with underage girls)

ohwilleke

It's important to recognize that this decision does not mean that all child pornography is legal. What this decision says is that if kids aren't involved in making it, and the depiction also has literary, educational, scientific or artistic value in the eyes of the community, rather than simply being designed to appeal perverts, then it is legal.

These are reasonable distinctions to be making in my mind.

Also, part of the problem with the law is its definition of "child." When we think of "child pornography", we conjure up images of of eight year olds being gang raped designed solely to let dirty old men jack off. But, this law draws the line at the age of majority, 18. Puberty hits four to six years earlier in most children. What would have been banned from being depicted under the law, even in a manner that doesn't involve minors, is something that a substantial majority of adult Americans have done themselves, sexual activity (not necessarily even intercourse) before graduating from high school.

Throbert McGee

I can: A 14-year-old boy, thrilled by how big and hairy his genitals have become, "borrows" his parents' digital camera to take pictures of himself masturbating. He uses a photo-editing program to add his hotmail address to the pictures, which he then posts to various Usenet groups in hopes of getting responses from a sexy adult woman (or, for certain 14-year-old boys, from a sexy adult man). Now, the kid's parents might object to the distribution of such photos, and I believe that at least one real-life minor has faced criminal charges for this sort of self-portraiture (I don't recall what the outcome of that case was, however). But clearly the person actually depicted in the "kiddy porn" here did not object to being a source of sexual gratification for adult preverts.

Throbert "I'd have been that 14-year-old, except that home Internet access and affordable digital imaging were still some distance over the horizon" McGee

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Throbert McGee ]</p>