I hopes this hasn’t been beaten to death in the past. I felt like starting a discussion. 
What are your opinions on computer-generated pornography for pedophiles? Do you think it’s good because it allows them to deal with their desires without hurting anyone? Or do you think that it shouldn’t be made because it may worsen the problem or because they should be dealing with stopping these desires instead? Thoughts? Opinions? Marriage proposals?
What do you mean by computer generated?
On Law and Order SVU, they showed a program that reversed aging in Olivia’s face. Cute kid. If this is what you mean, OK by me.
Mockingbird
What it refers to is the practice of digitally creating a nude child rather than using a photograph of an actual child to sexually satisfy pedophiles. This does not appear to break any existing laws, but is understandably disturbing to many.
I find pedophilia unspeakable disturbing, but I can’t say I think this manifestion of pedophilia should be illegal. No one is being hurt in practice, and it takes a bit of stretch to predict harm in the future.
Indeed – there has been a lot of talk of “computer CP” , particularly in the immediate aftermath of the SCotUS decision declaring that the CDA and other laws were unconstitutional – BTW these laws sought to outlaw even “the appearance” of “minors” in “sexual situations” (And as far as I know nobody is actually going into business hawking themselves as “your virtual CP source”. People will set limits even absent a law, or at least be discreet.) and people often overlook that it would not only apply to “computer KP” but also to movies like “Lolita” and various titles of European comic strip, Japanese anime, etc.
The courts said: if no actual child, then no child porn. The advocates of the laws did not really argue about “stopping these desires” (the legal and medical establishments have pretty much declared pedos incurable, the focus then changing to stopping these desires from being put into action). They advocated a broad preemptive approach, claiming that “fake CP” could still be used by the pedophile to (a) stoke the fire (b) perhaps lure or entice his victim (“see, Dolly? Other kids do it!”); © as a way to potentially slip in a real CP pic in among all the virtual CP; (d) as a way to perhaps “desensitize” society to the idea of pedophilia; and that (e) children exposed to images of minors in sexual context may be adversely affected anyway and (f) having to tell between “virtual CP” and “real CP” would task the police too badly because, allegedly, you could use image-processing prowess to create an image that could be undistinguishable from a real photograph, untraceable to an actual incident of child abuse, and thus harder to prosecute.
I agree with the courts because (a) accusing and prosecuting someone for a heinous crime SHOULD require more than “it looks maybe like it could, perhaps, and who knows what he will want it for later…” ; and (b) I see in it a potential reverse-perverse effect: if anyone must be investigated as a suspect for any involvement in the possesion and creation of ANY photograph, video, film, print, graphic or JPG file that in any way “looks like” it involves a minor in a sexual situation… will the police have the time or resources, or the incentive, to focus on, find and pursue cases in which IT IS a REAL minor getting abused? After all, their guy’s already in jail for possessing the banned materials. As it is, the real criminals have been doing it for decades, regardless of their penalty.
On the “computer CP” issue in particular: what I haven’t heard about is whether the technology really makes it worth worrying about. The news of arrests made every so often leads to an image of the average CP creator doing quick-n-dirty work in his basement or attic, using his camcorder and maybe a home PC-studio type setup. Jar-jar Binks, Scooby, the Jurassic Park dinos, Gollum, and the Hulk were multi-million-dollars, multi-thousand man+computer-hours, in the making – and someone who knows his CG can figure out it’s a simulation. Sad reality is that (a) for an infinitessimal fraction of that investment your average real CP creator can just lure two kids off the park into his garage and come out with several hours of crime-on-tape (b) the risk hasn’t stopped them for the past 30 years and © I can imagine that among the really depraved, there would be a premium for “certified real” footage.
Also, reiterating something I said earlier, I don’t think anyone has been specifically targeting the pedophile market for virtual CP (how the hell do you do the focus group???). The argument of “virtual CP as safety valve” has been made, but is probably a person-by-person phenom (i.e. it helps one guy, hurts the other, does nothing for the third) and probably untestable. I have my suspicions that the person who can successfully control a pedophillic urge and NOT abuse children can do so with or without vCP, and conversely.
Actually it violates the 1995 laws regarding age in photography and distribution of photographic and other pornographic items (I forget what the actual US Code is, but its posted on every internet pornography page, as required by that code.) The code requires that all ‘models’ depicted within a site (unless the photos were created prior to 1995, in which case they fall under a similar law) is over the age of 18. Note the terms models and depicted. This wording was created specifically to prohibit the marketing of child pornography in any form on any media, whether that be photographic, literary, artistic (eg, paintings, portraits, etc,) animated (think hentai) or computer rendered (3-D or ‘poser’ pictures.) And this law isn’t just limited to digital media (such as transmission over the internet.) If you’ve ever seen a ‘hentai’ video, the majority of them put in a blurb in the beginning about how ‘all models depicted in are 18 or older’ even if you know damn well they were originally high school or younger in the Japanese versions.
Anyway, to address the whole concept of pedophelia (I might get censured for this,) fans of that filth are an abomination and I for one would LOVE to see each and every one, both men and women, incarcerated for the remainder of their natural lives (and a bit of the afterlife too, but they’re going to hell anyway…)
That’s my $.02.
Kind of a dumb question: When people are creating the CP out of the whole cloth, as with anime or some such thing, are you dealing with models?
I’d love for you to be forced to attend mandatory lectures on slippery slopes, but I would not advocate such a thing, as I feel that you should have the right to espouse whatever views you please, be it to screw the pedophiles or screw the children. My $.02.
robertliguori, to answer your question (and no, it’s not dumb in the least) yes you are dealing with a ‘model.’ If I was at home, where I’ve got documentation (including the US code in whole to cite) I’d be able to give you the entire legal definition of a ‘model.’ While its not a model, as in a person posing, it is a representation of an individual who falls outside the allowable age range (eg, 18 or in some places, 21 years of age (depends on the state too.)) Any depiction, including written (stories, shorts, poems, books, etc) of an individual under 18 is prohibited by federal law. Gimmie a few hours and I’ll post a cite for you.
As for your second point, ‘slippery slopes’ as in wet floors and icy roads, or something else? Or are you just wooshing me?
For a long time the argument was that kiddie porn could not be produced without the molestation of a child. Now that it can, we’re seeing the real reasoning behind banning kiddie porn: simply that the majority of society considers it perverse and immoral. This gets into the whole unsolvable debate about “culture wars” and the question of whether government and law should enforce social norms by criminal penalties. I won’t open that can of worms here (see: sodomy laws, gay marriage), but I think it is telling that now that the utilitarian argument against kiddie porn is falling apart, opponents of k.p. are no longer even trying to hide their moral agenda.
Cite: As promised http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html
Paragraphs 8 and 9 spell it out pretty clearly. For you link haters:
(8)
‘‘child pornography’’ means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A)
the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B)
such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
©
such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D)
such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(9)
‘‘identifiable minor’’ -
(A)
means a person -
(i)
(I)
who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II)
whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii)
who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B)
shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor
Kiddie porn is heinous but this seems overly broad. I remember seeing a parody of the Peanuts charcaters (comic strip Peanuts) where Lucy comes upon Linus and gives him her usual hard time. Linus responds by taking his blanket and smacking Lucy on the ass with it. After that Lucy gets turned on and they proceed to have sex with the towel being used in creative ways.
Tasteless? Sure.
Kiddie porn? No way.
However by the definition above I would be guilty of possessing kiddie porn for having* that comic. That bothers me more than a little.
[sub]*Note to the feds reading this via Carnivore: I DO NOT possess that cartoon any longer (or any kiddie porn for that matter). This was several years ago that I saw it and have long since lost track of it.[/sub]
In theory, I find it creepy, repulsive, and otherwise disturbing.
In practice… man, how do you tell a person … in America… that they can’t draw pictures of whatever they want? Legal precedent EXISTS for this – the Mike Diana case, for example – but I still think it’s unconstitutional as well as being morally wrong.
Although I still think I dislike the idea of producing it specifically for pedophiles.
Then again… this really opens the can of worms labeled “PORN CAUSES RAPE.” Many would argue that pedophiles, primed and driven insane by computer-generated kiddie porn, are more likely to go out and try and act on those fantasies.
Not sure I agree with that; I’m a big believer in personal responsibility, and the idea that NOBODY “makes” you do anything, particularly commit crimes.
…but if CGI kiddie porn is NOT being produced to sell to pedophiles… then what function does it serve? Why would it be produced in the first place?
I believe this portion of the law was struck down in 2002:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/
Don’t know if it has subsequently been reintroduced in a different form.
So, “America’s Funniest Home Videos” should be banned because it had videos of nude and denuded kids winning $100000.
Tamerlane:
The ruling by the US Supreme Court did in fact rule that the law did not apply to reasonable artistic depictions of ‘teenagers’ engaging in sexual activities. I’ve read Justice Thomas’ opinion on the matter, and if his was in line with the majority vote (I believe it was) the depiction could not have any actual minors involved. It would be ‘simulated’ in a sense, with the matter of charachter age being used for artistic value.
This still doesn’t apply to 18 USC 2256, seeing as that was merely a refinement of two standing Supreme Court rulings. The first ruling is Roth v. United States (1957) (cite: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&invol=476 ) which determines that “…Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press - either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States…” and “Since obscenity is not protected, constitutional guaranties were not violated in these cases merely because, under the trial judges’ instructions to the juries, convictions could be had without proof either that the obscene material would perceptibly create a clear and present danger of antisocial conduct, or probably would induce its recipients to such conduct…”
The second would be Miller v. California (1973) (cite: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=413&invol=15 ) which states “…Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , reaffirmed. A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value…” and “…The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and © whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary…”
Basically, for it to be ‘child pornography,’ you’d have to apply whether or not it 1: is obscene (which the majority of CGI ‘child porn’ pics are, by definitions set in Roth v. US,) 2: meets the standards criteria of a community (the ‘newsstand’ criteria set by Millver v. Cali) and if failing either the 1st or 2nd criteria, 3: if it is an act prohibited in a medium declared by 18 USC 2256. If 1 is a no, 2 is a yes, then 3 can’t be considered. If either 1 or 2 are in conflict, then you must determine if it is kiddie porn under 18 USC 2256.
Because the law that was struck down by SCOTUS would have included certain types of Japanese manga, hentai, and doujinshi (a visual form of slash fiction) which are NOT marketed to pedophiles at all.
It would have also made illegal any movie that “depicted” minors having sexual activity, whether or not any REAL sex took place, or even if the actors were legal adults! Got a DVD of “Ramblin’ Rose”, “Endless Love”, or “American Beauty”? Well, technically you could have been arrested for possessing child pornography, under the old law.
Think that’s too far fetched? Ask the people of Oklahoma City who were arrested after the movie “Tin Drum” was declared obscene in 1997:
Unfortunately (at least, for the federal court that made the ruling) one of the men arrested was an active ACLU member. The ruling was vigorously contested and overruled in October 1998.
Note: From all accounts I’ve read, the oral sex scene mentioned above was simulated. (Under a blanket, so I’ve been told.) Unfortunately I haven’t been able to watch the film myself, because for some odd reason, neither Blockbuster nor Hollywood video will carry it. :rolleyes:
Stemba, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition went well beyond how you are describing it.
Contrary to your assertion that
Free Speech Coalition explicitly
found that §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional.
Further, your statement that the law “was merely a refinement of two standing Supreme Court rulings,” is also wrong - it was an unsuccessful attempt to refine Miller and Ferber (not Roth - Roth is old news). It didn’t work - as Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority decision in Free Speech Coalition:
“The CPPA, for reasons we have explored, is inconsistent with Miller and finds no support in Ferber.”
IOW, Stemba, the situation is precisely the opposite of how you describe it.
Sua