Why is looking at/possessing kiddie pron illegal?

[martindcx1e]

I probably shouldn't bring this up cuz everyone might think I'm a psycho perv (which I'm not), but oh well. I just enjoy good discussion. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the mere possession of child porn is illegal, at least in the United States. Can someone give me a good reason why? People go to jail for looking at this stuff. I do believe it is wrong and disgusting, but I don't think it should be illegal to look at or possess. These people are not responsible for creating this stuff. Who is the victim? I've heard arguments before saying that there are studies showing that greater exposure to it leads to a greater likelihood of committing sexual crimes with children. Well there are also studies that show that greater exposure to legal porn leads to a greater likelihood of committing rape. And there are also studies that show that neither of these are true. I just don't think these people belong in jail sitting next to the guy who is actually responsible for it. Thoughts?

[Phantaroth]

The idea behind those laws is that anyone who views or buys the material is contributing to the ability of the criminals to produce the material. It helps sustain the market.

Morally, it is the eqv. of watching a real rape scene IMO, which is pretty bad.

[swiggidy]

Because the child is generally exploited in the first place.

Now, if a girl (or guy) willing took naked photos of herself when she was 16/17, and still had them later in life. Should it be a crime for her to give them to you?

What if you were in a state where it was legal to marry at 16 and you married a 16yr old. On your wedding night you have sex with her (or him) and take pictures of it. Are those photos of you having consenting sex, with technically a minor, illegal?

[martindcx1e]

The idea behind those laws is that anyone who views or buys the material is contributing to the ability of the criminals to produce the material. It helps sustain the market.

Hmm. I still have a hard time with locking these people up.

Morally, it is the eqv. of watching a real rape scene IMO, which is pretty bad.
Agreed.

[Rondavu]

Is this the same country which outlawed online gambling, but makes the majority of it's internal revenue from gambling proceeds (ie scratch tickets, lottery)?

I would argue the United States government is the largest casino in the world, yet they claim to be saving you from the depravity of online poker.

Is it illegal to cheer on someone who is looking at kiddy porn? I guess it should be, because it "enables the industry". Enables, pwahahaha. I don't disagree Phantaroth, but it just makes me laugh. I'm going to enable a burglar tonight by leaving my door open, and leaving a sign on the porch that says "steal everything please" I guess that's grounds for my immediate arrest.

[martindcx1e]

Because the child is generally exploited in the first place.

This still shouldn't make the person who is looking at it a criminal imo. Like Rondavu said about the whole robbery thing...If I watch the house across the street get robbed and I enjoy watching it and perhaps even record it so I can look at it later should I go to prison? It's not illegal to not help someone.

[Phantaroth]

I didn't mean to imply that the law was succesful or logical, I am not an expert on the porn industry and don't feel comfortable outlining what legislation should be without knowing the details...

[bigred]

What about midgets that look like kids but are in fact not?

[miracleriver]

If I watch the house across the street get robbed and I enjoy watching it and perhaps even record it so I can look at it later should I go to prison? It's not illegal to not help someone.

I don't find the analogy to be adequate; we are talking about kids here and not inanimate objects.

[bigred]

If I watch the house across the street get robbed and I enjoy watching it and perhaps even record it so I can look at it later should I go to prison? It's not illegal to not help someone.

I don't find the analogy to be adequate; we are talking about kids here and not inanimate objects.

If they didn't want to be exploited they wouldn't wear such sexy clothes. Overalls are the worst.

[Renton]

anyone know where i can find some kiddie pronaments?

[Phantaroth]

I was at college and didn't want to spend too much time with this thread in my browser (and I didn't even start it. ). So I'll finish what I wanted to say now...

I think that the penalties for people who just view it are harsh if it lands them in jail. Some kind of psychological therapy would be more useful and fair. I strongly disagree with the governments current stance on legislation dealing with sexual conduct, especially when it comes to things like age of consent and the crimes one can be charged with if an 18 year old is in a relationship with a teenager relativly close in age, and then that teenagers family emotionally and economically manipulate said teenager to sign a form to press charges, landing 18 year old in some deep shit in a lot of states. Beyond that I obviously don't agree with the attempts and/or successes that various western governments have made to control the content of pornography because they deem it is not morally acceptable.

By this I do not mean child pornography, or rape being filmed, but things considered taboo such as BDSM, "fake" rape scenes, and what not. This also brings up prostituion, which of course I feel should be legalized to ensure the safety of both the customers and workers.

Also there are many sodomy laws on the books in states that are just ridiculous, though they are not enforced, should be removed for obvious reasons.

To sum it up, yeah, the government goes way overboard on punishing petty or just plane made the fuck up sex crimes, lumping them in with REAL sex crimes, which most likely hurts more people than it helps.

[martindcx1e]

If I watch the house across the street get robbed and I enjoy watching it and perhaps even record it so I can look at it later should I go to prison? It's not illegal to not help someone.

I don't find the analogy to be adequate; we are talking about kids here and not inanimate objects.

i meant someone going into another person's house while they are home - not just the house itself.

[bigred]

There girls are horny and ready to talk! Call 1 900 IMGOINGTOHELL

[boost]

If I watch the house across the street get robbed and I enjoy watching it and perhaps even record it so I can look at it later should I go to prison? It's not illegal to not help someone.

I don't find the analogy to be adequate; we are talking about kids here and not inanimate objects.

If they didn't want to be exploited they wouldn't wear such sexy clothes. Overalls are the worst.

its blatantly clear that the children attending these schools are just too damn sexy for thier own good.

[swiggidy]

If I watch the house across the street get robbed and I enjoy watching it and perhaps even record it so I can look at it later should I go to prison? It's not illegal to not help someone.

I don't find the analogy to be adequate; we are talking about kids here and not inanimate objects.

i meant someone going into another person's house while they are home - not just the house itself.

I find watching someones house get burglarized and doing nothing, especially while they were home, also morally reprehensible.

If you're going to use this argument is pertains to child pornography. If you posses something that was stolen, you can get arrested for it. A crime was committed during the "creation" of the object (i.e. stealing created its availability).

If we consider taking pictures of underage people a crime then you should also punish those who try to benefit from the crime. This is fairly consistent (stolen property, insider stock info, etc).

[swiggidy]

There girls are horny and ready to talk! Call 1 900 IMGOINGTOHELL

I tried to dial this number but it didn't work. I got a too-many digits dialed error. Any suggestions?

[martindcx1e]

If I watch the house across the street get robbed and I enjoy watching it and perhaps even record it so I can look at it later should I go to prison? It's not illegal to not help someone.

I don't find the analogy to be adequate; we are talking about kids here and not inanimate objects.

i meant someone going into another person's house while they are home - not just the house itself.

I find watching someones house get burglarized and doing nothing, especially while they were home, also morally reprehensible.

so do i, but i don't think it's the government's job to punish that person.

[miracleriver]

If I watch the house across the street get robbed and I enjoy watching it and perhaps even record it so I can look at it later should I go to prison? It's not illegal to not help someone.

I don't find the analogy to be adequate; we are talking about kids here and not inanimate objects.

i meant someone going into another person's house while they are home - not just the house itself.

wow?!

[bigred]

There girls are horny and ready to talk! Call 1 900 IMGOINGTOHELL

I tried to dial this number but it didn't work. I got a too-many digits dialed error. Any suggestions?

call the operator and ask for assistance.

[bode]

why is this thread still going?

[Pelion]

I'm going to enable a burglar tonight by leaving my door open, and leaving a sign on the porch that says "steal everything please" I guess that's grounds for my immediate arrest.

Its a pretty silly analogy as it is but if you want to make it make it right.

If a kid stuck a sign up saying "I am a kid, have sex with me please" , the kid wouldnt go to prison. The person having sex with them probably would.

If you stuck a sign up saying "steal everything in my house please" you wouldnt go to prison. The person stealing stuff probably would.

If you opened up one of your neighbours houses while they were away and then stuck a sign up saying "steal everything please" then yea you probably would get into some sort of trouble.


The actual argument is obviously a boycot argument. If nobody pays for child porn then hardly anyone will make it. If fewer people make it then fewer children are harmed making it. The assumption is that the industry is controlled by organised crime and run for a profit rather than for the direct pleasure of the people who control making it. Its a pretty sensible argument imo.

[uscheese]

why is this thread still going?

Why did it ever start?

[flomo]

anyone who opened this thread is an idiot.

anyone who posted is a sick, disgusting, perverted, pedaphile.


why is bigred's house on boost's map, he seems OK

[a500lbgorilla]

felt like i had to post in this thread for some reason.

[swiggidy]

If you're going to use this argument is pertains to child pornography. If you posses something that was stolen, you can get arrested for it. A crime was committed during the "creation" of the object (i.e. stealing created its availability).

If we consider taking pictures of underage people a crime then you should also punish those who try to benefit from the crime. This is fairly consistent (stolen property, insider stock info, etc).

martin you commented on making laws based on morals wrong, which is easy. Is this not a good reason?

[martindcx1e]

why is this thread still going?

Why did it ever start?

guys stop dismissing this so easily. i enjoy good discussion, and i thought this would promote that. you can't just blindly accept every single law, and not question anything. yes, looking at this crap is disgusting and horrible and the people who do it should rot, but is it the government's job to punish those who look at it? i think it is a fair question.

If you're going to use this argument is pertains to child pornography. If you posses something that was stolen, you can get arrested for it. A crime was committed during the "creation" of the object (i.e. stealing created its availability).

If we consider taking pictures of underage people a crime then you should also punish those who try to benefit from the crime. This is fairly consistent (stolen property, insider stock info, etc).

martin you commented on making laws based on morals wrong, which is easy. Is this not a good reason?

i don't know. this feels like a stretch to me. looking at pictures on the internet is different from possessing some speakers a guy stole and sold to you in my mind. i'd like to know what others think though.

[bode]

why is this thread still going?

[Warpe]

is it the government's job to punish those who look at it? i think it is a fair question.

Who's job is it if not the government's? Passing laws and enforcing them is the government's job.

[martindcx1e]

is it the government's job to punish those who look at it? i think it is a fair question.

Who's job is it if not the government's? Passing laws and enforcing them is the government's job.

ok so when the government bans online poker it will be acceptable because it is their job to pass laws and enforce them? give me a break. remember what i just said about not blindly accepting things. we all got angry when frist's bill got passed because we didn't think it was the government's job to police online poker. you are allowed to question the government.

[uscheese]

There is a big difference between questioning government and saying that pedophiles should be allowed to look at pictures of young naked children are two different things.

There is also a huge difference between banning online poker and child pornography...come on dude.

[swiggidy]

i don't know. this feels like a stretch to me. looking at pictures on the internet is different from possessing some speakers a guy stole and sold to you in my mind. i'd like to know what others think though.

Some questions:
1) Do you believe taking a picture of a naked minor is a crime?
-a) If they agree to it.
-b) If they do not willingly agree to it.

2) If a minor agrees to allow naked pictures to be taken of them, do you believe they actually capable of making this decision?

3) If you think someone under the age of 18 is capable, where would you draw a new line? Surly a 5 year old couldn't give consent as they wouldn't understand/comprehend what they were agreeing to. At what age should the government stop protecting them from themselves?

[Phantaroth]

There is a difference between acknowledging that it should be illegal, and discussing aspects of a law like penalties, and whether or not it is actually effective.

I'm disgusted at how many of you just shit on a subject because it doesn't effect you, then you whine when other people shit on poker. Yes, people who look at child porn have some psychological issues, so we should just say 'fuck them' or 'who cares?'.

Just so you know, thats what most politicians think about poker players.

[Phantaroth]

i don't know. this feels like a stretch to me. looking at pictures on the internet is different from possessing some speakers a guy stole and sold to you in my mind. i'd like to know what others think though.

Some questions:
1) Do you believe taking a picture of a naked minor is a crime?
-a) If they agree to it.
-b) If they do not willingly agree to it.

2) If a minor agrees to allow naked pictures to be taken of them, do you believe they actually capable of making this decision?

3) If you think someone under the age of 18 is capable, where would you draw a new line? Surly a 5 year old couldn't give consent as they wouldn't understand/comprehend what they were agreeing to. At what age should the government stop protecting them from themselves?

I know you arn't talking to me, but I'll put in my 2 cents. I obv. believe that the law should be consistent with whatever existing age of consent is the standard. But I think the age of consent should be lower... this is a tough issue as there is certainly no line we can go by except for the general line of puberty. Puberty is certainly a more factual line (altho quite a wide range of ages) when compared to the age-line for developing the ability to make mature decisions. But becayse puberty happens at quite a young age relativly, it is widely believed that the age should be higher...

Me personally, think 16 would be good. I also think that most of the laws should not apply to two teenagers (like 14, 15ish) experimenting with sex, or an 18 year old having a relationship with a 15 year old that is consensual. We have to leave people room to make decisions without worrying about penal consequences, while at the same time, protecting minors ability to press charges in areas that concern manipulation or any kind of forceful action.

[Pelion]

why is this thread still going?

You dont have to post in every thread. If this doesnt interest you then dont post. Everyone ignored you the first time because your post was worthless. That doesnt mean you have to repeat it.

[swiggidy]

I'm disgusted at how many of you just shit on a subject because it doesn't effect you, then you whine when other people shit on poker. Yes, people who look at child porn have some psychological issues, so we should just say 'fuck them' or 'who cares?'.

Just so you know, thats what most politicians think about poker players.

not sure if this is or

An interesting/relevant article from ESPN the mag
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/etick...ry?page=wilson

[thenonsequitur]

Just off the top of my head, it seems that anti-child-pornography laws are simply the wrong way to approach the problem, especially in the way they are currently implemented. But I'm not versed enough in the subject to make a good argument either way.

[Miffed22001]

If I watch the house across the street get robbed and I enjoy watching it and perhaps even record it so I can look at it later should I go to prison? It's not illegal to not help someone.

I don't find the analogy to be adequate; we are talking about kids here and not inanimate objects.

If they didn't want to be exploited they wouldn't wear such sexy clothes. Overalls are the worst.

its blatantly clear that the children attending these schools are just too damn sexy for thier own good.

if that is real, i am fucking scared.

[miracleriver]

no, it's been doctored (sp?). It says it found 21 offenders but has many more than that. You can also go on the website yourself and type the same search criteria; there are much fewer (too many, that being said) red squares.

[martindcx1e]

There is a big difference between questioning government and saying that pedophiles should be allowed to look at pictures of young naked children are two different things.

There is also a huge difference between banning online poker and child pornography...come on dude.

i'm not talking about banning child porn. i think you (and some others) may be letting your emotions get the best of you. you think about some creep looking at kiddie porn and you want them to be punished. why? is it because you believe it to be morally wrong? if so, then do you think that it is the government's job to step in in such a case (someone looking at/possessing child porn), and punish them because it is morally wrong? what about people who believe things like smoking/drinking are morally wrong? what if ppl in the govt agreed? should they then be allowed to punish those who participate in such activities? don't just say "omg i hate those ppls they should go to jail!"...think about it first.

Some questions:
1) Do you believe taking a picture of a naked minor is a crime?
-a) If they agree to it.
-b) If they do not willingly agree to it.

2) If a minor agrees to allow naked pictures to be taken of them, do you believe they actually capable of making this decision?

3) If you think someone under the age of 18 is capable, where would you draw a new line? Surly a 5 year old couldn't give consent as they wouldn't understand/comprehend what they were agreeing to. At what age should the government stop protecting them from themselves?

1. This is already a crime so yes, I think it is a crime.
2. and 3. This is such a grey area that I don't think any hard rules will ever be the perfect solution. Everyone matures differently. There are some 13 year olds who can make decisions for themselves. There are some who can't. FWIW I think 18 is too high. I don't like the fact that the system allows for someone to go to jail for taking naked pictures of someone who is 17 years and 364 days old. Do I have a better system in mind? No. But it's probably better to have a line that is set too high rather than too low.

[swiggidy]

1. This is already a crime so yes, I think it is a crime.

But just because it is a crime doesn't mean you think it should be. We should think for ourselves and not let the government tell us how to think

So the pictures are created during by the process of a crime. When someone looks at this picture they are gaining (in this case pleasure). I understand why you would say it's different than receiving stolen property as that's physically tangible. What about receiving insider information about a company, and selling off your stock. All you received is physical vibrations in your earlobe, but because you interpreted and used this as information to benefit yourself (not loosing money) you can be persecuted.

I know I basically repeated my other post but it's pretty convincing to me.

[martindcx1e]

1. This is already a crime so yes, I think it is a crime.

But just because it is a crime doesn't mean you think it should be. We should think for ourselves and not let the government tell us how to think


lol i was just answering your question. now if the question is "do i think it should be a crime? yes, but then again there is the whole debate about age of consent.

So the pictures are created during by the process of a crime. When someone looks at this picture they are gaining (in this case pleasure). I understand why you would say it's different than receiving stolen property as that's physically tangible. What about receiving insider information about a company, and selling off your stock. All you received is physical vibrations in your earlobe, but because you interpreted and used this as information to benefit yourself (not loosing money) you can be persecuted.

Maybe I don't think getting your money out when you hear the bad news should be a crime?

[bigred]

THINK OF THE CHILDREN OMGH

[martindcx1e]

THINK OF THE CHILDREN OMGH

haha classic

[boost]

I edited it for some bbv post, figured it applied here too. And yah its disturbing how many of them tehre are out there.

[uscheese]

There is a big difference between questioning government and saying that pedophiles should be allowed to look at pictures of young naked children are two different things.

There is also a huge difference between banning online poker and child pornography...come on dude.

i'm not talking about banning child porn. i think you (and some others) may be letting your emotions get the best of you. you think about some creep looking at kiddie porn and you want them to be punished. why? is it because you believe it to be morally wrong? if so, then do you think that it is the government's job to step in in such a case (someone looking at/possessing child porn), and punish them because it is morally wrong? what about people who believe things like smoking/drinking are morally wrong? what if ppl in the govt agreed? should they then be allowed to punish those who participate in such activities? don't just say "omg i hate those ppls they should go to jail!"...think about it first.

Some questions:
1) Do you believe taking a picture of a naked minor is a crime?
-a) If they agree to it.
-b) If they do not willingly agree to it.

2) If a minor agrees to allow naked pictures to be taken of them, do you believe they actually capable of making this decision?

3) If you think someone under the age of 18 is capable, where would you draw a new line? Surly a 5 year old couldn't give consent as they wouldn't understand/comprehend what they were agreeing to. At what age should the government stop protecting them from themselves?

1. This is already a crime so yes, I think it is a crime.
2. and 3. This is such a grey area that I don't think any hard rules will ever be the perfect solution. Everyone matures differently. There are some 13 year olds who can make decisions for themselves. There are some who can't. FWIW I think 18 is too high. I don't like the fact that the system allows for someone to go to jail for taking naked pictures of someone who is 17 years and 364 days old. Do I have a better system in mind? No. But it's probably better to have a line that is set too high rather than too low.

With smoking and drinking someone is choosing to do something which in most cases can only affect them (IN MOST CASES) but with kiddie porn some child was forced to do something against his will that he doesn't even know is wrong

Is this whole thing some sort of setup? Are you seriously saying it should be legal?

Unbelievable.

[swiggidy]

With smoking and drinking someone is choosing to do something which in most cases can only affect them (IN MOST CASES) but with kiddie porn some child was forced to do something against his will that he doesn't even know is wrong

Is this whole thing some sort of setup? Are you seriously saying it should be legal?

Unbelievable.

How are they forced to do it if they don't know it's wrong? They could be tricked into thinking it's right, or they could know it's wrong but be forced into it. Not both.

He's looking for a reason beyond "It's bad" or "because I believe it is wrong". Don't miss the forest for the trees.

[uscheese]

With smoking and drinking someone is choosing to do something which in most cases can only affect them (IN MOST CASES) but with kiddie porn some child was forced to do something against his will that he doesn't even know is wrong

Is this whole thing some sort of setup? Are you seriously saying it should be legal?

Unbelievable.

How are they forced to do it if they don't know it's wrong? They could be tricked into thinking it's right, or they could know it's wrong but be forced into it. Not both.

He's looking for a reason beyond "It's bad" or "because I believe it is wrong". Don't miss the forest for the trees.

So you think it's ok then?

Hey I don't have kids...I don't really have a personal agenda here...I just find this topic mind blowing.

[swiggidy]

So you think it's ok then?

Yes, that's exactly what I think. Obviously you have an excellent ability to read between the lines.

[uscheese]

So you think it's ok then?

Yes, that's exactly what I think. Obviously you have an excellent ability to read between the lines.

OH AND YOU RUN A SWEATSHOP TOO???

THIS IS RIDICULOUS

[swiggidy]

you're an idiot

[uscheese]

you're an idiot

I prefer mildly retarded swiggidy thanks.

[bigred]

Child pornography claims two more victims!

[martindcx1e]

With smoking and drinking someone is choosing to do something which in most cases can only affect them (IN MOST CASES) but with kiddie porn some child was forced to do something against his will that he doesn't even know is wrong

Is this whole thing some sort of setup? Are you seriously saying it should be legal?

Unbelievable.

we all believe it is morally wrong to take those kinds of pictures of children. we all believe it is morally wrong to look at those pics. my point is the person who finds the pic on the internet has not done anything to the child. they did not force them into anything. they did not take a picture of them. who are they victimizing by looking at the pic? you can find pics and vids on the net of ppl hurting animals, but you don't go to jail for it. the ppl creating the pics/vids are committing the crime. the person looking at it online is not. that's the point here.

[Pelion]

It is illegal because if people dont pay for it, people wont make it. If people dont make it, kids wont be hurt by people making it. It doesnt matter if the people looking at the pictures hurt the kids or not. They drive the industry and they are easiest to target.

[martindcx1e]

It is illegal because if people dont pay for it, people wont make it.

we can't assume that. if ppl stopped paying for drugs would drugs disappear? i don't think so...

[Pelion]

It is illegal because if people dont pay for it, people wont make it.

we can't assume that. if ppl stopped paying for drugs would drugs disappear? i don't think so...

I never said it would work. I said thats the reasoning behind it.

[Warpe]

I'm thinking about the Special Olympics, for some reason.

[martindcx1e]

It is illegal because if people dont pay for it, people wont make it.

we can't assume that. if ppl stopped paying for drugs would drugs disappear? i don't think so...

I never said it would work. I said thats the reasoning behind it.

k. that point did come up earlier. you prob didn't read the whole thread, but it has now pretty much turned into whether or not we agree with the law and reasoning behind it.

[martindcx1e]

well if no one else has anything to add i will now declare victory. kthx.

[Warpe]

I'm thinking about the Special Olympics, for some reason.

[martindcx1e]

I'm thinking about the Special Olympics, for some reason.

you perv...

[Irisheyes]

I'm oo drunk to post in such a serious thread as this is

[swiggidy]

well if no one else has anything to add i will now declare victory. kthx.

You're declaring victory because you are using a "no one can prove me wrong" argument. Prove that child porn should be legal or else I am declaring victory too.

Except our major sticking point (along my way of thinking) is weather benefiting from a crime someone else committed should be legal/illegal. This is almost an impossible point to sway someone on.

I gave up because you are being difficult without offering much of a concrete argument return.

[martindcx1e]

well if no one else has anything to add i will now declare victory. kthx.

You're declaring victory because you are using a "no one can prove me wrong" argument. Prove that child porn should be legal or else I am declaring victory too.

Except our major sticking point (along my way of thinking) is weather benefiting from a crime someone else committed should be legal/illegal. This is almost an impossible point to sway someone on.

I gave up because you are being difficult without offering much of a concrete argument return.

lol i was joking. i guess we tie then...

[swiggidy]

lol i was joking. i guess we tie then...

oh, nice bump then