Child Pornography

Great Debates
1

Something I just thought about randomly while watching TV earlier-

Most people tend to argue that the reason that child pornography is immoral (and, subsequently, illegal) is because a child is not of sound mind and judgement to give consent to their photograph being used. In essence, it will hurt the child.

Now, what if, for example, a child were to photograph themselves in a sexually explicit manner, and later – after being of legal age to make such a decision – decide to release said photographs of him or herself. Why should that, too, be considered immoral and/or illegal? The child is now of age to reasonably decide if distributing such things would hurt them, whereas before they would not be emotionally/mentally mature enough to do so. But, by the time they’re 20, they should be able to legally decide such a thing – right? Especially if the person in question was him or herself, only years younger.

What do you guys think? Should a person who is legally able to enter the porn industry be able to decide what happens to images or videos of their own at a younger age?

2

I believe the other issue with this, is that even with the type of consent you mention, allowing any form of Child Porn may encourage others, or fuel their desire for it. This may in turn increase the ammount of non-consensual Child porn made. Basically you don’t want to throw fuel on the fires of the kinds of people who may want to make these films.

In theory, I think your senario is fine (although the thought of child porn creeps me out).

3

Isn’t this already an issue today? Perhaps you’re right in that it may fuel the desire more; however, anyone who already has the desire probably has their own means and ways of seeing it through today, even. Would the jump be that great? Especially if someone who enjoys such things could actually go out and legally purchase a video, as opposed to having to get it underground?

4

Under what circumstances would a healthy child (one who had never been abused) decide to photograph him/herself in a sexually explicit manner?

Such an act would have to necessarily preclude any suggestion, encouragement, coercion, reward, etc. from any adult. Essentially it would have to be a spontaneous act by the child with no adult involvement and I just can’t see how this would happen with any regularity if it ever happened at all.

5

No. The harms that arise from child pornography are not simply the sexual abuse of a single child, but also the creation of a market that profits from the sexual abuse of children. For every one who may consent 10 years in the future, there are hundreds and thousands of children who won’t and can’t consent. These children are being subject to some of the worst kinds of abuse in order for some sub-humans to make a profit. The harm of legalizing child pornography after the fact would lead to even more abuse of even more children.

And that’s not even getting into the issue of true consent and giving consent 10 years after the fact.

6

As someone who recently turned 18, I know plenty of friends who did such a thing between the ages of 15 and 18. Horny teenagers, y’know.

I’m not following here. Who said anything about sexual abuse?

7

We’re not talking about fifteen year olds, for the most part, when we talk about child pornography.

8

Diogenes the Cynic:
> Under what circumstances would a healthy child (one who had never been abused) decide to photograph him/herself in a sexually explicit manner?

Maybe a guy like this?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=204513&highlight=masturbation

Hamlet:
> No. The harms that arise from child pornography are not simply the sexual abuse of a single child, but also the creation of a market that profits from the sexual abuse of children

Then all kinds of other material would also have to be banned; cartoons, fake child pornography (adults pretending to be minors), literary material (Lolita), etc. As much as child pornography disgusts me, I think we must stick to the basic: no readily identifiable victim - no crime.

Rune

9

I reckon that an arguement can be made that our society is built around protecting children, wether by design or underlying subconscious influence.
In that frame work, I feel that all child pornography, (including adults faking/18 plus a few hours) is helping to create situations or attitudes wherein at somepoint children are harmed.

I am capable of seeing both sides to many many issues, I am able to see where books like Lolita are something other than child pornography, there is a grey area, there are undefinable circumstances. I for one, met my husband 16 days after my 18nth. But I feel justified in saying there is no argument or justification or scenario wherein I could consider the enjoyment or propigation of sexually imagery related to children as acceptable. It may be my only flat out, no, its not kosher subject. We are animals, the highest of them, but animals. We exist to procreate. Sexual assault of any kind, including exposing children to age or situation inappropriate sexuality does nothing to aid in the development of happy healthy kids and supportive families.

Apply this test. We can all agree that two 16 year olds making out in a car is a healthy thing. It is part of our collective human experience. It teaches us, makes us feel sexy and alive and good.

Ive seen situations were an extramarital affair saved a marriage.

Ive seen two 16 year olds get married and be happy.

The human mind and its sexuality is fluid, and sex is a good thing, but can anyone imagine a scenario where a ten year old could possibly benefit from being teh subject of porn?

As for the specific idea of releasing your own hypothetical portrait. Yes, the subject, as an adult could possibly maybe benefit from that in some way. But, the person who downloads/buys it…hmmmm. You’ve trusted that it would be a person aware that this is the situation, not someone with a four year old in the shed.

I wouldnt be willing to make that assumption.

Its like dropping a brick off a bridge running over a highway-with your eyes closed.

10

I played sexually with, er, a relative when I was around 7 or 8. Were cameras more commonplace I don’t have a hard time finding the thought we’d have snapped a pic or two.

Of course, the idea that we were actually acting sexually is from the adult perspective, and IMO a rather suspect adult perspective. We were just exploring each other, curious as children can be and mostly are. I don’t see anything disgusting about it.

11

Anyone who gets their kicks looking at pictures of nude children are in need of some serious help.
consent or not

12

The idea that child pornography can be regulated in order to eliminate the market for more child pornography (which results in more abuse of children even when they are not specifically identifiable) is a fair argument to make, and it has even been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Orbourne v. Ohio, SCOTUS considered a statute that made the possession of child pornography a crime, and when the defendant argued that there was no proof of harm to a specific child, the Court held:

Also, as a more practical matter, in proving a child pornography case, the State is not required to have a “readily identifiable victim” or to have that child testify.

Your argument concerning virtual child pornography was accepted in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, where SCOTUS struck down a law making virtual child pornography illegal. They felt that the harms of virtual child pornography were not strongly enough linked to actual child victims to restrict the speech. I think they were wrong, but I too would have struck down the statute on other grounds.

Personally, I think these issues would be best handled if the child pornography statutes included references to obscenity law. That way you would a better balance between free speech and protection of children. Although personally, I think a vast majority of child pornography is per se obscene. Of course, Lolita, Romeo and Juliet, etc. would be excepted.

And finally, I generally like protected speech to have some recognizable value. I see no value to child pornography.

13

The point in question also opens up some TREMENDOUS abuse possibilities.

*Pornographer takes pictures of cute moppets doing the dirty.
*Pornographer then waits several years.
*Pornographer then has the adult moppets sign off on the paperwork (model releases, bills of sale for the photos, and a document stating that the pornographer had nothing to do with the making of the porn in question)
*Pornographer gets rich selling legal kiddie porn.

The pornographer COULD simply fake the documentation. Prove he didn’t.

In fact, it would be to his benefit to shoot the porn… and then murder the children, to prevent anyone from surfacing years later and pulling a Linda Lovelace.

I can’t see any sane legislature wanting to open THIS can of worms.

14

Erislover, I agree, totally. Sexual exploration between two similar people, (age, maturity, ect…) is almost always beneficial!

Its just when someone with a major, powerful advantage, (age) is involved with a child, I go all milita.

15

Whoops, i meant , firstly, militia, and secondly, and moreover, militia:p

16

This is pretty off-topic for this particular discussion. No one is suggesting that such an act is moral.

But, just for you to think about, consider the fact that as little as 20 years ago, it was commonplace and the majority opinion that two men (or two women) should not engage in any sexual activity together, and that any couple who did was in need of some serious help.

I’m not defending any child pornographer or child pornography itself, just noting that as times change, society’s opinions will, too.

17

As icky as this subject is I think the problem of kids early “experimentation” in front of a cam then MUCH later turning up online is going to be a big deal in the coming years

When I was a kid I thought an Etch-a-Sketch was the height of technology…now the kids have video cams and incredibly powerful computers and know how to use both better most often than their parents

Just think of all the cams online right now and more every day…those “18 year olds” didn’t suddenly get their cams when they became legal you know

I bet on thousands of computers there are countless clips of kiddie porn made by those very same kids and eventually they will grow up and unless they delete them which I kind of doubt(not all of them anyway)…those videos could end up haunting either them or someone else later on once they are adults

Is this right to to call all of them purveyors of kiddie porn and to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law? Giving them all sexual predator labels so they have to register whenever they move?

If this were just a small amount of people this could happen to I might go along with it even if I disagreed with the individual case for the greater good and all but I don’t think this problem is going to be as rare as some think

18

Well, Traci Lords went out of her way to fool porno producers into believing that she was of legal age when she wasn’t, made more porno movies than I can count, and even though all of this was through her own effort, they are currently illegal.

19

A number of points tangential to the main questions being discussed:

I was required to read Lolita in my college days. Contrary to its being used as an example of kiddie porn, it’s a masterpiece of writing in which one of the most skilled novelists of last century, a man of deep insight into the human character, explores the diseased mind of a pedophile. The ethical judgment on him is very carefully handled, almost subliminal, but it’s definitely there. It’s not to be compared with Naughty Schoolgirls Do th Dirty or related no-redeeming-social-value schlock.

I think it’s very important in this discussion to distinguish between child and adolescent. There is a big difference between people attracted to prepubescent children and to adolescents, and it’s worth keeping in mind that adolescents do have a strong sex drive as a rule, though (obviously) they’re not mature adults capable of legally consenting to anything. But there’s a strong difference between Joe Pedophile wanking off to pictures of naked eight-year-olds and, e.g., Aslan of Narnia finding another fourteen-year-old erotically arousing – he’s fourteen himself! For a 19-year-old to find a well-developed 16-year-old sexy, and perhaps enjoy seeing revealing pictures of same, is not shocking to me. It may not be legal, for reasons I find fairly good, but it’s not a huge moral failing.

20

I know a girl who is 14 and gets off at looking at pictures of underaged boys (10 and below.) You read that right, she’s 14. So here’s a question, could she be arrested for having child porn on her computer? After all, she’s underaged too.

The Japanese are quite fond of their shouta (works depicting pre-pubescent boys) and their lolita (works depicting pre-pubescent girls.) It’s insanely easy to find and download these images.

What’s even worse, is that a lot of these images are centered around kid-friendly shows. Your child could be looking for information on “Card Captors” and come across pictures of the main character Sakura (she’s 10) in sexual positions. A young girl was a sold a graphic doujinshi (fan comic) featuring Sakura in sexual positions at an anime convention. A search on ebay for Card Captor Sakura stuff reveals pictures I wouldn’t want my child to stumble across.

Harry Potter is another children’s publication that has a darker side on the internet.

Does looking at these pictures cause a pedophile to want to act out his fantasies more or less? I would think more. Because of that, I’m personally for banning any image that looks child-like.