No, it’s not.
I don’t think it’s quibbling at all. If someone was raping a child in public and it was filmed by a passer by that would qualify as news. Shocking and disgusting news, but news nevertheless. It certainly wouldn’t have been a planned orchestrated film. There’s a difference. If I’m out taking pictures and while shooting, say, a street mime (with my camera, not a gun, even though some might think that was justifiable 
) I caught somebody molesting or even raping a child in the background that wouldn’t qualify as child porn because there was no intent to portray the act for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in myself or any later viewer. Likewise the photo of the Vietnamese girl running down the road wasn’t intended to encourage sexual thoughts, but to inform and, yes, shock.
Now, if the passerby subsequently took that film and sold it as porn that would be different.
What kind of crack are you smoking? Because I’d like some.
The OP is clearly going on a sadly pervy “Child porn already exists. Why can’t I see it if the crime’s already been committed and over and done with.” argument.
The answer: because.
If your priest sodomized you while taking pictures when you were 10, you wouldn’t want people seeing it. But if Revenant Threshold was, he would. He was a slutty 10-year-old, just makin’ the rounds. I salute your commitment to Freedom of Expression, d00d.
It looks like I missed when the law on virtual child porn was struck down by the supreme court my mistake.
Existing child porn is often used by abusers to justify the abuse to children. ‘See? Everyone’s doing it, it’s ok.’
Even barring that that’s a weak argument, I don’t recall that situation ever being the case. Adult porn, yes, many a time.
Child porn, I’ve never heard of that being used to lower inhibitions, and with good reason. I’ve never seen it, but from what I’ve heard, the children seem anything but willing participants in it 
Probably wouldn’t make it seem like a fun thing to partake in.
I’m not sure that there is a good “first principles” reason to outlaw child porn. The only good reason I can think of is that by making it legal(er), it encourages the production of it which will in turn harm more children.
Without this argument, I can see it being used as evidence of the producers causing harm to a child (you have it on media, after all,) but the economic incentive is the only reason I see to ban its actual legality.
Um, so? I have. Multiple times. It wasn’t meant to be a final argument, just another log for the fire.
Child abuse is not always what we consider violent rape. Children can be talked into it, almost willing participants, even if they don’t know what’s really going on. If an authority figure tells them that it’s ok, then they might not consider that it is wrong. Abuse can happen for a long time with no one knowing anything about it because the child doesn’t tell anyone, not thinking anything is wrong.
Maybe you should try to imagine it from the point of view of the child.
So do we think happy slapping videos should be illegal?
Edited to add: apparently they are illegal in France…
What is the international view of child porn.? I know Thailand and other countries in that area have quite different attitudes toward sex. If they allow it in their country should it be allowed to be exported. The internets lets things travel fast.
In some countries marriages occur at 12 or 13 years old. Some arranged marriages are permitted. The internets allows their mores to be sent around the world.
I never said it was, I just said that I didnt recall any kiddie porn with happily participating participants. Frankly, I’m glad I was not aware of it.
When did I disagree with this?
Maybe you should cease appeals to emotion. Did I not already say that without a doubt the porn can be used as evidence for child abuse?
They don’t have to be happily participating, they just have to not resist. If the abuser can convince them that they aren’t doing anything wrong then they won’t report the abuse. Existing child porn can be used for this, and I think that is a reason it should be outlawed.
And there are cases where the children happily participated.
I didn’t appeal to emotion.
You can find the full text here. It’s pretty much agreed that child porn lies outside the protection of the First Amendment and for good reason; the only way it can exist is to commit a crime.
Wow, that’s not an exaggeration of my point at all! Well done, sir. You clearly have no need of my delicious crack.
I ask you to look back and see where I put “if said photos were innocently taken”, a point you - accidentally, i’m sure - left out of your quote from me. Oh, and while you’re at it, find me a quote where I said I personally would be happy to release such photos of me. I look forward to quotes or a retraction or a wimping out.
All i’m saying is, should some person feel that way, I see no reason to stop them releasing those photos for that purpose. Why the hell not? As I pointed out in my post - again, a point you neglected to quote yourself - I imagine there are very few people who would be happy with that.
Freedom of expression does have some limitations. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre, and you can’t do kiddie porn. Among other things it is illegal, and you will be put into jail for it. That is a very good law.
True, of course under the law porn made with a 17 year old is just as illegal as porn made with a 7 year old.
This is true. I was referring to cases involving much younger children though.
Regarding legality of “virtual” CP, the status right now in the US is that yes, the SCotUS struck down in 2002 the parts of laws defining that it was just as much CP as “live action”; BUT they did leave it open to “try and get it right next time”, which led to the PROTECT Act of 2003. See this post in an earlier thread for a summary of PROTECT as best I’ve understood it (and a link to the law). (Another ruling came down since, but it was on the still-standing parts of the EARLIER law, not on the new one)
And yes, it was “sold” with dire warnings that soon CGI will be so good as to be undistinguishable form real. As late as last year I was :dubious: about whether the average loser creating CP in his garage would have that kind of grafix firepower, but I must admit, it could happen eventually. Yet **even so ** I still think that if there’s no actual child, there should be no crime; it should just mean that the police/Feds have to hire some CG geeks with mad skillz for the CSI lab, to tell one from the other. (Would it be feasible to design 3D rendering software with a feature accessible only through a “backdoor”, that registers if the image was 100% rendered in the grafix engine or if it was imported from a sampled photograph, and embeds that info in the finished image? Have “legit” sim programs embed a secure “stamp of approval”? I really don’t know)
Anyway the application of this law has been kinda all over the place, most published cases of prosecutions have to do with people who were already in hot water for some OTHER sex/obscenity offense.
…
As to restriction of freedom of speech v. CP, the reasons that "mere possession’ and noncommercial copying/forwarding is illegal include a whole bunch of angles; some of those are that it’s evidence of a crime of such magnitude that noone should ever derive ANY satisfaction from it; that as crime evidence people should report and turn it in upon encountering it, not keep it for their own use; that even noncommercial sharing keeps alive the distribution network; that the “speech content” is an incitation to commit crimes; etc.
BTW, I have no trouble with Revenant’s “innocent use” argument, I am under the impression he may be referring to cases of people prone to hysterics in regards to mere nudity or sexual suggestion in a picture of a minor.
Well, sort of. I mean, my parents have lots of naked photos of me as a kid, because they’re parents and that involves horrible embarrassment. Obviously they shouldn’t be arrested simply for owning them. But what if I or someone else said “You know what, i’m actually fine with letting these innocently taken photos be given to a pedophile”. Like I said, ridiculously small amount of people would say that, and i’m sure it’s pretty much just a hypothetical. But if someone did say “Yes, here, take these photos of me” - I don’t think that someone possessing them has committed any crime. It’s not an invasion of privacy since that’s being waived, the actual taking of them wasn’t an offense. They’d just be equivalent to any copied media under the law.
Photos of you that your parents took aren’t per se pornographic because they did not take them with the intention of causing sexual arousal. Pornography has to be defined by the intent of the person creating it at the time it was created. The OP specifically said pornography – when it comes to images, that means images created with the intention of causing sexual arousal. And that has to be obvious by looking at the photos. If a pervert snaps a photo of an innocent 2-year-old scampering across the beach sans diaper, he may have the intent of sexually arousing himself (or others) with the dissemination of the photograph. But if the photo is seized by the coppers, they’d have a damn hard time persuading any jury that the photo is per se pornographic, because millions of photos exist of 2-year-olds enjoying the freedom of being nekkid, and they are presumed to be perfectly innocent.
Real kiddie porn portrays small children displaying their genitals in a sexually suggestive manner for the obvious reason of arousing the viewer. There is no mistaking it. Creating it is a crime, and it should be.
Where have I said i’m for it being legal? If i’ve given the impression I somehow think creating child porn is fine, please point it out so I can avoid it in the future. Yes, it’s a crime, and yes, it certainly should be.
Other than that, Sunrazor, I fear i’m missing out on your point, beyond the lesson about what is and isn’t considered pornographic (thanks, btw). Could you possibly dumb it down for me?