# Photoshop and child porn **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 27, 2007, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364 "2007-12-27T07:53:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/41 "2008-01-03T15:40:35Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] The damage done with even virtual child porn, goes beyond simple computer generated images of children and effects real live children, putting them at risk. [/QUOTE] Cite?!?! Sorry but I’ve gotta do it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/42 "2008-01-03T19:31:39Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] Yes, it should be illegal, and no it should not be labelled child porn. And yes, I’m more than happy to have my tax dollars spent prosecuting people who fantasize, and use the images of children in those fantasies, about sex with children. [/QUOTE] Are you saying that if a guy masterbates while looking at a picture of a kid on a box of Life cereal, without editing or altering it at all, he should be locked up? For that matter, are you arguing that pedophiles ought to be arrested wether or not they’ve victimized any children? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2008, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/43 "2008-01-03T21:21:42Z")
[QUOTE=GuanoLad] Paedophilia isn’t illegal. Child sexual abuse is what’s illegal. [/QUOTE] It might as well be. If it’s found out that a person is a paedophile, it’s pretty much over for them, regardless of whatever else they may have done. Even a paedophile who has been through prison and supposedly paid for their crimes is still treated the same as one who hasn’t. I’ve always heard that psychology can’t do anything for them besides curb their overall sexual desire chemically. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2008, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/44 "2008-01-04T17:18:47Z")
[QUOTE=Sunrazor] Rather than examine the letter of the law under a microscope, let’s step way back and look at this philosophically: Do you want your five-year-old child going to a school where the principal puts your daughter’s face on the body of a naked 18-year-old woman with small breasts and waxed genitals? Wouldn’t you wonder why he really wanted to be in charge of a school with very young students? [/quote] No, and Yes, respectively. But why does a single soul know that he created those pix? That’s the question. > [@](#): > > Feel free to question my credentials as a liberal, but I believe there are circumstances under which laws that were written with the intent of protecting the innocent can actually be used to protect the innocent. I’d prefer that the principal of my five-year-old’s school (if I had a five-year-old) used his personal computer to morph the faces of his students on the bodies of easily recognizable heroes. I’d feel better if the principal thought of my child as someone he’d like to admire rather than someone he’d like to fuck. Parse the law all you want to – the intent is what it’s all about. Yeah, but finding out someone’s intent _only **after** conducting a search that they didn’t seem to have any right to do in the first place_ seems like a way of embarrassing and harassing a hell of a lot of perfectly innocent citizens in the course of turning up one guy like this. And even in his case, we don’t know what his _intent_ was, beyond jacking off. ---
**Author:** ![milkshake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dc4da7/32.png) [@milkshake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milkshake)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/45 "2008-01-07T17:19:20Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] Even a paedophile who has been through prison and supposedly paid for their crimes is still treated the same as one who hasn’t. [/QUOTE] You can’t pay for your crimes by going to a prison, it is not equivalent - if it was so then you could first go and serve a sentence and then do something awful freely. Anyway, tastes vary and the society takes a dim view of grown men who go about dreaming about fondling little boys (“Dumbledore: The schoolboys are like Riesling wine. They are best enjoyed young”) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/46 "2015-03-23T03:11:04Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > I don’t know for sure. I said most likely, because ever since the USSC ruling, these cases have been very difficult to charge & prosecute & nearly impossible to get a conviction. Makes sense. I’m kind of wondering how he came to be on law enforcement’s radar in the first place… but I can see how what you’re saying applies if the case is literally and completely as described. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/47 "2015-03-23T03:15:39Z")
So, that was a while ago. Anyone know how it turned out? It seems to me that whoever publicized the contents of that briefcase is responsible for embarrassing and possibly harming the kids, as much as the principal. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/48 "2015-03-23T03:52:09Z")
> [@Br\_er\_Lapin](#): > > That’s a tough one. > > Child pornography isn’t illegal because it’s weird or ‘icky’ or morally wrong. It’s a crime because it causes harm to children. In this case, no children were actually being photographed in any sexual way, so if you look at it outright, no children were harmed. It’s at least in part illegal because it encourages people to fantasize about children, which makes it more likely for them to abuse one. The pictures of the Gerber baby face pasted on to a nude adult would presumably encourage the same kind of desires, so it seems to me they should qualify as illegal child p\*rn. ---
**Author:** ![Mnemnosyne](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mnemnosyne/32/3347_2.png) [@Mnemnosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mnemnosyne)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/49 "2015-03-23T04:05:09Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > It’s at least in part illegal because it encourages people to fantasize about children, **which makes it more likely for them to abuse one.** The pictures of the Gerber baby face pasted on to a nude adult would presumably encourage the same kind of desires, so it seems to me they should qualify as illegal child p\*rn. Cite? I have heard this said, but never seen anything even vaguely resembling a proper study to back it up. I have also heard the opposite argued, that it makes people less likely to abuse one if they can satisfy their urges via masturbating to such material. I also have not seen any studies supporting that viewpoint, either. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/50 "2015-03-23T04:36:03Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > So, that was a while ago. Anyone know how it turned out? He was convicted and then [successfully appealed](http://www.theledger.com/article/20101203/NEWS/101209887) in 2010. ---
**Author:** ![Syne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Syne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syne)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/51 "2015-03-23T04:49:49Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Part of the rationale given for the banning of the possession of child porn, while the banning of the possession of pictures of other criminal acts is not, in and of itself, illegal, is that child porn is made because a market exists for it. The same rationale is extended to the ban of this kind of material. > > I’m not defending the reasoning there, but that is what is put forward. Given how tenuous this logic is, how did simple ‘accessing’ ever become a crime. Is a blip on a sever log considered to be contributing to the market? ---
**Author:** ![Syne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Syne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syne)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/52 "2015-03-23T04:53:14Z")
> [@Charger](#): > > What I wonder about is the legality of taking a photo of a student at a school and using that for “personal” hobbies. Is it legal to take photos of people in public and then do whatever one wants with them in private? I’m sure there would be a case if he sold the photos, but I have to wonder if someone could take a trip to the local mall/bank/hairstylist/etc. with a digital camera and collect, for themselves, a little file of pictures off of which to jack. > > As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), someone could go to Hooters with a camera and make their own Hooters calendars, blow-up dolls, trading cards, Halloween masks, t-shirts, etc. as long as they do not _sell_ them. Still, you could probably give them away. I think you can argue about whether someone owns rights to their own likeness, but what seems pretty clear to me is that if deemed a legal issue, it would be a civil and not a criminal matter. It would be up to the person affected or their parents to press charges. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/53 "2015-03-23T18:40:53Z")
> [@Mnemnosyne](#): > > Cite? I have heard this said, but never seen anything even vaguely resembling a proper study to back it up. > > I have also heard the opposite argued, that it makes people less likely to abuse one if they can satisfy their urges via masturbating to such material. I also have not seen any studies supporting that viewpoint, either. Regarding underage p\*rn in general, I think there would be some fairly clear ethical issues running that kind of study, so I’m not anxious to see one done anytime soon. Regarding whether _porn_ in general (involving adults), it’s inconclusive. The common argument is that rape rates in western countries declined contemporaneously with the increase in availability of porn. The counterargument is that lots of other things were going on at the same time- more focus on women’s rights, taking lead out of paint and gasoline, throwing more people in prison, etc.- that may have masked the effect of porn on rape. My friend who’s a professional statistician (and generally on the sex positive, pro-porn liberal end of the spectrum) recently looked at a study from Norway which purports to show the opposite, that porn contributes to rape. They found that areas of Norway which got internet access earlier (and thus greater access to porn) also had higher effects of rape. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/54 "2015-03-23T19:43:27Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > Which begs the question…how can a pedophile get aroused by a naked ADULT body? 😕 That makes no sense! **LOL!!!** > [@Syne](#): > > Given how tenuous this logic is, how did simple ‘accessing’ ever become a crime. Is a blip on a sever log considered to be contributing to the market? I believe it’s a justifiable defense, if you access computerized kiddy porn, to immediately destroy it and avoid that site in the future. Naturally, that defense is no good if it’s established that you “accidentally” accessed it 100 times a day for the past six months… (By the way, am I crazy or did some replies get “disappeared” from this thread?) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/55 "2015-03-23T21:19:23Z")
Not “LOL” but “LOLI.” ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Gay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@Enola\_Gay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Gay)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/56 "2015-03-23T21:33:45Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > \*\* > > [SIZE=“1”](By the way, am I crazy or did some replies get “disappeared” from this thread?) Yep a bunch of posts vanished, including some of mine. ---
**Author:** ![Mnemnosyne](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mnemnosyne/32/3347_2.png) [@Mnemnosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mnemnosyne)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/57 "2015-03-23T23:01:50Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Regarding underage p\*rn in general, I think there would be some fairly clear ethical issues running that kind of study, so I’m not anxious to see one done anytime soon. > > Regarding whether _porn_ in general (involving adults), it’s inconclusive. The common argument is that rape rates in western countries declined contemporaneously with the increase in availability of porn. The counterargument is that lots of other things were going on at the same time- more focus on women’s rights, taking lead out of paint and gasoline, throwing more people in prison, etc.- that may have masked the effect of porn on rape. My friend who’s a professional statistician (and generally on the sex positive, pro-porn liberal end of the spectrum) recently looked at a study from Norway which purports to show the opposite, that porn contributes to rape. They found that areas of Norway which got internet access earlier (and thus greater access to porn) also had higher effects of rape. Sadly, I know little to nothing about how to perform studies of this sort, so I can’t quite imagine how it would be done, but assuming we’re talking strictly about fictional depictions of children and not real ones, I don’t really see ethical concerns there. If those findings in the Norway study are shown to be correct within a reasonably small margin of error, then I can see it being extrapolated toward pedophiles as well with pretty decent justification, but without strong evidence I just don’t support criminal penalties on any fictional depictions of children just because some people believe it may make pedophiles more likely to abuse real children. It strikes me too much as a ‘we’ve got to do **something!** ’ attitude because people are so outraged. Granted, there are a lot of laws made that smack of a similar attitude in many fields that I also don’t support. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/58 "2015-03-24T03:18:26Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > It’s at least in part illegal because it encourages people to fantasize about children, which makes it more likely for them to abuse one. The pictures of the Gerber baby face pasted on to a nude adult would presumably encourage the same kind of desires, so it seems to me they should qualify as illegal child p\*rn. > [@Mnemnosyne](#): > > Cite? I have heard this said, but never seen anything even vaguely resembling a proper study to back it up. I haven’t either, but I have indirect anecdotal evidence. Obviously I don’t consume CP, even the kind that doesn’t involve actual child abuse in its production. But I have had experience with pornography that depicts $THING. As a result, I’ve noticed myself regarding $THING as normal and common, despite my belief that $THING is actually a part of only a minority of sexual encounters and actually plays a part in the sex lives of only a relatively small number of people. Similarly, a consumer of CP might come to regard children as legitimate targets of sexual attraction, or to regard it as possible that children might welcome sexual contact, even if they don’t believe that to be the case, and even if they don’t consume CP that records actual abuse of actual children. I don’t know if sticking the Gerber Baby’s head on porn stars’ bodies will have that effect. Besides, everyone knows the Gerber Baby grew up to be Marilyn Chambers. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/59 "2015-03-24T04:49:39Z")
As pornography was becoming more available in our society the social conservative cry was ‘porn will lead to more rape’ it hasn’t. Pornography is more available than ever before and instances of rape have gone down. Based on that I wouldn’t expect manufactured child pornography to lead to more instances of rape either. My opinion is the crime committed regarding child pornography is victimizing children. If no children are involved I don’t think it should be a crime. Draw or photoshop dirty pictures all you want. I’ll want nothing to do with you but i don’t support legal action against you. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364/60 "2015-03-24T05:52:14Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > As pornography was becoming more available in our society the social conservative cry was ‘porn will lead to more rape’ it hasn’t. Pornography is more available than ever before and instances of rape have gone down. > > Based on that I wouldn’t expect manufactured child pornography to lead to more instances of rape either. > > My opinion is the crime committed regarding child pornography is victimizing children. If no children are involved I don’t think it should be a crime. Draw or photoshop dirty pictures all you want. I’ll want nothing to do with you but i don’t support legal action against you. As I said, “more porn, less rape” is not necessarily an argument against the “porn causes rape” thesis. If porn causes prevalence of rape to increase by 5%, and lead exposure causes it to increase by 10%, then by simultaneously removing lead from paint and gasoline, and deluging society in porn, you can expect an overall decrease of about 5% in the rate of rape. But that doesn’t really mean that the claim “porn causes rape” is untrue, it just means the effct was masked by other factors. Society has changed in many other ways since 1967 or whenever, that might cause the rate of rape to decrese. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photoshop-and-child-porn/431364.md?page=4)