" In June, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 413 to 8 for a bill that would outlaw computer-generated sexually explicit images of anyone under 18 years old, even if no actual minor was involved. The Senate is considering a similar bill but has not voted on it. "
This got me wondering on the board’s views of inactive pedophiles. I am assuming that there is general agreement that sexual acts involving children are wrong and that this includes ownership of pornography which involves minors.
So the question is:
Are adults whose sexual thoughts involve children intrinsically immoral?
My opinion is that a pedophile who is able to suppress their sexual urges is to be pitied. Save the demonization for those who falter. Temptation is not a sin, succumbing to temptation is.
I suppose if it could be demonstrated that there was a pattern of behaviour that consistently resulted in eventual acts of paedophilia, then there would be an argument for catching it before harm is done, but I’m still not sure it would be a compelling argument.
I’ve never agreed with the idea of “thought crime.”
RE the quote, part of the problem is that it’s not always very easy to prove whether an image is real or CG. Is there any ethical reason to outlaw CG porn in which no real models were used? No. Is there a practical reason (in that it removes a possible loophole for kiddy-porn types)? Yes.
I spose that an inactive pedophile would be analogous to an inactive adulterer – it’s not the thought that makes someone a pedophile/adulterer, it’s the thought and the action. If somebody told me that they were an inactive adulterer, f’rinstance, then I’d assume that they meant that they’d cheated on their spouse in the past, but were currently taking a break from marital infidelity. Same with an inactive pedophile.
Before you decide that sexual urges that involve children are immoral whether you act on them or not, consider this: Is it more likely that a person, when he/she realizes that they have these feelings, will seek help for their problem if they are treated as people with an illness or as criminals?
Immoral? By my moral standards, yes. By other moral standards? Maybe. By the moral standards of traditional Thailand? No.
As for the law, I strongly disagree with attempting to legislate morality. Stick to cases where there is actually abuse, a victim. Real child pornography has a victim and should be illegal because it harms the victim during the process of its creation. Computer generated child pornography harms no one. I oppose the idea of victimless crimes. By the definition I use, crimes have victims.
The justification people are trying to use to ban the creation of computer-generated child pornography is that it might encourage paedophiles to commit real acts of abuse. The word “might” is the key word there. Anti-pornography groups have been trying to prove links like this for years. I’ve not seen evidence that pornography leads to rape or other sexual misconduct. All the arguements I’ve seen were correlations, not proofs of causation. If the proof of causation appears, then I’d admit computer-generated child pornography leads to real crime and should be outlawed. Until that happens I consider it an overzealous attempt to protect the children against some nebulous danger.
Self-stimulation to computer images of anything is not immoral to me, and if this anything is an image of a child it is not pedophilia, either. I am not having sex with my wife if I jerk off to her picture, and I am not cheating on her with a copy of Penhouse.
I really could care less what people think about. Its none of my business, and it should never be. People go through some strange stuff in their lives and entertain all sorts of crazy thoughts that could (IF acted out) be harmful to others. But lots of times people who go through whatever screwed up times know the difference between crazy thoughts and non-crazy thoughts. Its when you have chosen to give up that control and give into urges that you should be punished. Action, not thought, must be the basis for punishment.
Even if you could, making thinking about something a crime is about as un-American as you can get. You’re supposed to be able to actually say almost anything you want, let alone just think it.
Besides, what is meant by the term ‘thinking about’ something? Thinking about:
[ul]
[li]actually doing something[/li][li]imagining doing something[/li][li]the definition of something[/li][li]the history of something etc.[/li][/ul]
You see my point. A person’s thoughts are intrinsically ‘not for the public’ and should not (and cannot) be interpreted accurately be anyone else. Especially in terms of any legal action.
BTW, I believe the Supreme Court ruled that that bill was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court doesn’t rule on bills. Bills are created by the Congress, signed or vetoed by the President, and, if signed, become law. The law, once established, can be challenged in the courts, but the courts are not part of the process of passing law. Only laws which are challenged end up being judicially reviewed. At this point I’m hoping this bill doesn’t get passed, but since the house passed it by such a huge vote, it looks like it’s got a good chance.
Well, some here would no doubt disagree with the contention that the courts don’t regard themselves as part of the process of passing law, at least since the days of E. Warren . . . .
But seriously now – right on as to the mechanism, which is as you and Schoolhouse Rock described it (I’d add that at least in theory a law can’t be “challenged” in court by just anyone who philosophically disagrees with it, assuming standing reqts. are taken seriously).
However, the earlier (“unconstitutional”) post by Hail Ants was, I think, a reference to the law (not bill, you’re right) already held unconstitutional, the CPPA (http://www.cdt.org/speech/020416cppa.pdf) for which the currently pending bill is an intended replacement/v 2.0.
I wouldn’t consider thinking of it to be immoral, only the action. Why would thoughts be immoral if they don’t actually do anything? All sorts of people get urges at various points in time to do immoral things, but considering a temptation, or even fantasizing about it, is definatly not the same as actually doing it…
