For expressing an opinion?
Sexual acts are not intrinsically damaging. Anyone who has grown up on a farm—which, at one point in history, was a lot of people—has seen sex acts. There’s nothing inherently victimizing about sex. Even if we were to admit that children will explore their bodies, and their friends’ bodies, though, the act of packaging this for sale is decidedly different. If I were to have sex with a loved one, or a one night stand, or whatever, that’s my business. To say it is ok to be filmed by a third party and sold because I was going to do it anyway is the problem, not that they’re kids.
Well, that depends on the class. If it was a criminal law, psychology, or class of some other sort where the discussion was germane to the subject matter, no.
If it was calculus, hell yes.
I don’t think college professors are under the condition of expressing opinions only that is germane to the subject of the class. That’s what academic freedom is about.
I don’t think I’m trampling on the principles of liberty by suggesting that academic freedom ought to be at least somewhat constrained by good judgment. In any event, “they’ll do it eventually anyway” sounds less like the exercise of academic freedom and more like, “I am a sick son of a bitch and I need help.”
In your opinion. He’s just expressing an opinion too. Professors get to do that. Professors also get to display bad judgment, to the extent that they’re not actually violating the law or school policy, like sexual harassment.
I can see the argument that child pornography like written stories or comic books or drawings isn’t really harmful. No actual real children were involved in the production. I’m not saying I agree with this argument but I can see where there’s an argument there.
But claiming a movie of children having sex is just pixels on a screen? That’s ridiculous. There’s no plausible defense of this.
It’s ludicrous to say that children would do those things anyway. Clearly there is an adult coercing them into doing those things.
Even if they wanted to do those things on their own, children cannot consent to having their nude pictures taken and then distributed forever. As an adult I can decide if I’m okay with being in porn and the effect that will have on the rest of my life. A child can not.
You don’t think discussing children having sex rises to the level of sexual harassment?
When I went to high school, there was a teacher famous for making statements such as, “Slavery was the best thing that ever happened to black people.” Although he was really and legitimately a raging Southern conservative, he was also a provocateur. He really respected students who would stand up to him and poke holes in his arguments, even when those students were politically on the opposite side of his beliefs.
I strongly suspect something similar was going on here.
Again, to play’s devil’s advocate, anyway, I don’t understand how someone’s directly harmed.
Suppose Bob takes a number of files from Computer A, and copies them, using a thumb drive, onto Computer B, which is a computer in Bob’s possession. As it happens, one of those files is a nude picture of a child. Bob is unaware he possesses that file; it was amongst a stack of other files. How is the child now harmed more than s/he was before by virtue of that picture being on another computer?
And congratulations on being a protective parent. I am too. So are a billion other people.
Did the professor make it clear he was merely playing devil’s advocate, that these weren’t his own real views, and invite people to come up with good arguments against? If so, it’s a pretty disturbing discussion, but just a discussion. But even then it’d still be really weird to even come up with the ‘having foreign poor kids fuck for food isn’t so bad’ argument.
'They’d be doing it anyway; only applies to some kids doing it with other kids not on video. Sex can have permanent repercussions, of course, but broadcasting it on video or photos has permanent repercussions even if they don’t get an STD or fall pregnant.
(I assume he meant teenagers there - most pre-pubescent kids don’t want to have sex. I’m sure a few do, especially those that have already been abused, but not enough for ‘they’d be doing it anyway’ to hold water).
As for having little Indian kids fuck for food… Woah. Hard to think of a better example of ‘exploitation’ than that. Yes, some Indian kids are so poor they might do it; the way to deal with that is to give them money and education and other help, not tell them to make pornos.
By itself? Of course not, especially in a college setting. The same as its not sexual harassment simply to discuss any sex-related crime in an academic setting.
Well, there is an argument to be made that without the DEMAND of those who purchase/own/use child pornography, it wouldn’t be PRODUCED in the first place (which admittedly DOES harm someone and is not a victimless crime).
Along the same lines as pointing out that if not for publications and their readership who BUY papparazzi photos, celebrities wouldn’t be stalked and/or have their privacy violated.
As for the OP’s professor, I wouldn’t automaically assume he was advocating the position he put forth. Part of the function of higher education is the encouragement of critical thinking and debate; he could have simply been facillitating that among his students.
If the professor was attempting to challenge his students’ views, he’s a pretty poor educator. He picked a ridiculous position that can easily be dismissed for the reasons given in this thread. If he’s encouraging them to exercise their debating skills, he should pick positions that require more effort to refute.
Well, as of right now we’ve got more than 30 posts in this thread discussing that very thing. I don’t detect any harassment going on. Methinks you need to update your definition of “harassment”.
I also find it passing strange that, in a forum where people usually argue from a reasoned and even enlightened position, suddenly there are cries of “creepy;” “report him;” “sick son of a bitch”; “off with his head;” and so forth (OK, I made that last one up). Most of us here are quick to decry conservative types and religious zealots with their moral agenda and their witch hunts - and rightly so. But look at what’s happening here. An educator, who is probably playing devil’s advocate expresses an opinion. Not a very popular or attractive one, and suddenly people are calling for his head. I guess it makes a difference whose sacred meme is being questioned.
SS
I don’t think he was trying to get people to debate him, considering when anyone did that he’d shoot down their views, claiming he was correct.
I’m sorry. I thought it was implied that the pedos I’m refering to do not act on their tendencies.
Besides, I think your point is a strawman. But I don’t think I want to get into it as it may derail the thread.
It’s not a strawman to point out that having a desire for consensual sex with adults is different to non-consensual sex with children. The better analogy for paedophilia is rape, not homosexuality.
I guess if someone actually bought the pictures it would affect demand. Someone pirating them from the internet is just violating copyright… …Er, I wonder how that lawsuit would play out in court!
Lawyer (Lionel Hutz): " Your Honor. My client sells pictures of children having sex with adults and seeks damages from this person who, without paying for them, downloaded them from the internet."
Judge: “Mr. Hutz, could you please repeat that!?”