Should CP be legal to *VIEW*

What I don't understand is, why is it illegal to merely VIEW images of child pornography? Why does the govenrnmet feel the need to prevent people from seeing something that has already occured, as if hiding it from view will change the fact that it has happened? Banning pictures of the holocaust won't change the fact that it happened.

Is it because it depicts an act that is illegal? We see illegal acts being committed all the time. Hell, we even have television programs dedicated to watching real video of illegal acts being committed. I can freely go online and watch videos of real robberies, thefts, carjackings, beatings, even murders and assassinations. BUT WAIT! That girl looks a little TOO sexy! Lock the fucker in prison!

Is it because it could encourage deviant behavior? There's nothing to stop murderers from going on to Rotten or Ogrish to download all kinds of grisly scenes of murder and death and getting off to that. Does the government think that banning possession of murder and crime scene photos will prevent murders from occuring? Apparently they are not that stupid. Why, then, the double standard? Because there are children involved? Again, I could go over to Rotten or Ogrish and download pictures of dead and mutilated children all day long. Nothing wrong with that, huh?

Is it because they think the only reason that child pornography is produced is because there is a demand for it? Yeah fucking right. That's like saying that if there was no longer a demand for art, all artists in the world would stop painting, all composers would stop making music, all writers would stop writing. It doesn't work that way. No I am not directly comparing child pornography to the fine arts, but the situation is the same.

I suppose what it can finally come down to is not wanting to give pedophiles the satisfaction. Everyone hates pedos, right? But everyone hates the KKK and ELF and the God Hates Fags people, and they're still allowed to think and believe whatever they want, as long as they don't act out violently. How is fapping to an image an act that affects anyone other than the one fapping? It is a victimless "crime," much like enjoying certain drugs in the privacy of one's own home.

I am no more in support of the production of child pornography than I am of the commiting of any other violent crime. But I am against censorship of any kind. Not letting one watch a video of JFK getting assassinated isn't going to change the fact that his fucking brains were blown out, just like not letting one see a picture of Vicky isn't going to change the fact that she took it in the pooper.

You make a lot of sense. No one is going to defend pedos though.

What about the girl's privacy rights? She didn't want to be raped.

Re: 3

Way to read his post. Neither did the people that are getting killed in guro pictures. Thats not really the point.

Re:1

Isn't it only illegal to possess child porn? (IE download it) I dont think its illegal to view anything as thats against the constitution.

>>5
what's the difference in viewing it on a website, and viewing it on your personal desktop?

>>6
Because the law defines the image being on your harddrive as possession, even if that image is a temp file sent to you from a website.

>>5

If that were true there would be a ton of overseas CP sites that people would be viewing without fear.

It's a subject that is so taboo that anyone who isn't hardcore anti-cp will be looked at funny.

Certainly OP's thoughts are logical, but since when has logic ever been used in making laws?

Oh hai, I am superior at analysing things than all of you so here are some policies for you to consider.

If you view child pornography unintentionally and report it to the police as soon as possible it is ok. That would be the equivalent of being witness to child abuse and reporting it to the police.

If it is in your hard drive and you didn't know it was there and have a proven allaby that's find too as long as you agree to send your hard drive in as evidence and assisst in investigating the matter. If you don't have an allaby the same will happen but you will have to accept being placed under suspicion.

Of you distribute child pornography instead of reporting it to the police you are guilty of child abuse since you are participating in an attack on the child's right to privacy.

With this in mind it is ok to search for child pornography as long as you report any you find to the police. This would be the equivalent of a politician accepting a bribe, but giving the bribe money to charity instead and informing the FBI. You cannot prosecute someone for accepting a bribe, but you can prosecute them for committing a corrupt act.

>>4

You could probably argue that since the subject in the video is a minor, they deserve more protection. I know some states have laws that prevent the media from disclosing names of rape victims if they're under 18, or something like that.

In any case, this will never pass because supporting anything similar to this is political suicide.

Re: 11

Definately political suicide. Maybe if the US becomes much more liberal down the line it'll go the way of old rome. God... I can't even imagine the uproar it would cause if they made it legal.

>>7

I dont think you understand what i mean. currently, it's illegal to both view and possess child porn.

but, in the case where child porn is not illegal to view, how then would it still be illegal to possess? If the argument that simply viewing the content doesn't mean that you're any more inclined to commit these acts, then why would having the content be any differnt?


Also, as a side comment, why is it that we have varying ages of consent, but only a single age at which a person can be seen in a pornographic film? How is it legal for a person at the age of 16 to have sex in a specific state, but isn't allowed to video tape and distribute said content?

I predict you'll say something to the effect of 'you can't provide content that's legal in onestate, but illegal in another, because then the people in the state where it's illegal will have access to it.'

yeah, ok, well then you enforce the laws there when found. you wanna see porn with a 16 y/o in it? purchase and view it in its respective state where it's legal to do so. This goes for ANYTHING that's illegal in one place, and legal in another. You inforce the local laws, reguardless of whether or not the material is available legally somewhere else.

Japan seems to have what i think is a better system for AOC. Federal law states that it's lowest AOC for the country is 13, yet individual provinces are allowed to set their own AOC as they see fit.

Yea... pretty sure its legal to view... just can't have it on your harddrive or any other transmitting medium. Call it a loop if you will but having links to images isn't actually a crime in itself either... especially if theres no image at the end of the link (as text depicting child porn isnt illegal and neither is explicit text). Idk if you live in the united states but here is the law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

It says nothing about viewing it, just posession. NOWHERE does
it even mention saying that its illegal to view it, just
posess it under the guise that you are producing it. (If it was actually illegal to view it, then it would be illegal to walk in on a couple of underage kids at a party having sex. You would then be a sex offender. <--- Makes no sense) I think you could also watch it, but not instigate or record/take pictures.

The USA would have to become radically more socially libertarian in nature for anything to even be considered along these lines. 

Yes, you are right. Instead of worrying about war and poverty, we should be concerning ourselves with legalizing the viewing of child pornography.

ERROR. FALLACIOUS NON VALID ARGUMENT.

>>16
Its people's own fault they are poor, and even if it wasn't, it still isn't my responsibility to worry about them, to care, or to give a fuck in general. 

>>18
I know, all those lazy fuckers in Sub-Saharan Africa are all poor because they don't work.

>>16
He never gave the implication that you should be more concerned with freedom to view child pornography than war and poverty.

>>16
If there is nothing wrong with the viewing of CP, I don't think it is so much specifically this freedom that we should be watching out for as it is the kind of attitude dipshits like you have that if a freedom isn't 'important' from your perspective, we shouldn't worry about losing it.  If everyone had an attitude like you, who would be there to prevent, stop, or get rid of utterly pointless infringements upon individual liberty?

   Everyone that supports CP viewing needs to take a look at themselves closely and examine there base belief system. CP viewing is not like watching other criminal activities. Take the example stealing a car or robbing a bank. The person doing this was not doing it for any other reason then to gain money, and gain it by force, him being on camera was a side affect to the original act, but never is a motive. Child rape and molestation on the other hand does happen alot. 99% of it is done off camera, one can assume these cases are "pure" (LOL IRL BTW) as the adult just wants some pink starfish ass. BUT when the adult knowingly puts this act on camera you must assume its part of his motive, he has nothing to gain from the child by putting this on camera and uploading it to the web, the sexual act will be the same. This puts the adult at greater risk of getting V& (although not by much, gj FBI counter terrorism unit) so why then does he do it? It’s only logical to assume this was part of his motive, and making a motive to commit child rape (and yes it’s always rape so stfu) legal is wrong. The only way to get around this is to come up with a argument as to why raping children is awwwwright

Re: 22

Not that im for pedography(coin), but im going to pick you apart anyways. It's not about support CP viewing, its about supporting your ability to view everything. Looking at things is a god given right... and CP viewing is exactly like looking at other criminal activities. Look at snuff videos for instance (which are worse because its actually human loss of life). There is also a lot more murders off camera then there are on, I don't see you point. If you are somehow suggesting banning looking at it will stop people, one could argue itll only make it a forbidden object and make more people interested in it. When you ask why would he do it? Why would anyone do anything. I've seen videos of people chopping and mutiliating their own dicks... why would anyone wanna do that? It doesn't have to make sense to you in order for it to happen.

Again... it doesnt really have to do with childporn being ok to look at so much as it should be ok to look at anything you want to. There should NEVER be a law in existance that limits what you can look at... thats rediculous (and thank god they don't, with exception to classified documents where its not a 'victimless' crime).

Also, lets face the facts, the people that make these porno videos with children aren't doing it so they can only video tape it. It would be hard to imagine someone's only fetish is children and video taping them together. Its more likely then not that these individuals would be molesting children regardless of the factor of a video tape.

>>23
NO LAW IS AGAINST LOOKING AT CP ffs its only against Posession
 

Re: 23

Yea I know... look at my OPs

I still dont see the difference between viewing a file remotely on a website and having said file on your own computer. I understand producing such material would obviously be illegal, but what's the difference in the location of the content when you view it? You're not selling it, you're not producing it, you're simply moving the file from a website to your computer to view at your disgression w/o the worry the conent will move or be deleted.

It's to prevent CP black markets from spreading. For example lets say they make it legal to posess CP.  People in countries where nothing can be done about CP (like certain african countries?) would do the hosting there, then take money from americans paying to view cp.  This could cause a massive increase in kidnapping and the exploitation of children.  Also americans may begin to film cp there and then sell it to those sites.  Now the thing is these sites can easily be shut down quickly by hackers/crackers or w/e.  If people COULD store cp on their comp, they could pay for the site, save every pic, and not worry about it going down.  However thanks to current laws it would be incredibly risky to pay for sites like these and hope they stay up.  Therefore the laws work.   Now this is all just hypothetical and all and it may not be the exact reason but here you can see a possible justification of the laws.  Im sure multiple social and economic arguments can be made for how the laws are effective.  However I think Canada's laws on CP are more effective then the USA's

The difference is that it's illegal to view the said material and then store it on any electronic device. So, if you look at pedography that is not breaking the law. However, if your browser stores the image onto your harddrive then it has become illegal (either intentionally or not). If you are viewing child pornography via browser (in which case is recorded at your ISP including with how long you stayed at the site and what parts you visited) there will be proof you have looked at it and give cops a good reason to knock on your door. However, clicking on a link in itself is not a crime because there is no content in the link persay (the same loopholes that torrents get by on). If you are viewing the file from some other location then the person storing the information is breaking the law. I believe the law was set up the way it is now in attempts to stop production of child pornography (thus giving nothing for other people to whitness) while protecting people's civil rights to view anything.

Disregard that, I am absolutely clueless.

>>28
"I believe the law was set up the way it is now in attempts to stop production of child pornography (thus giving nothing for other people to whitness) while protecting people's civil rights to view anything."

What good is the right to view something if you don't have the right to possess it so that it can be viewed to begin with? Once again, property rights - the most basic of all human freedoms. 

Re:29
Faggot

Re:30
I wouldnt call child porn a basic human right but ok :L

>>30
You dont have the right to property that was gained through force/fraud. In order for your logic to work you would have to disreguard copyrights/patients all theift laws and money, everyone would have the right to anything under any circumstance. if you think you do then you have no idea what property is and should do some reading.

On a side note! This is also why all drugs should be legal, everyone has the right to own drugs as they are a product that was not created by force/fraud (usually)

>>32
I am well aware you are not allowed to  use force or fraud in a libertarian society. 

img155.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=54115_423yv9_123_435lo.jpg

legalize this at least plz!

>>33
umm this is how the law in 99% of the world works since capitalism first came around. its not a libertarian thing.

>>35
but libertarianism and capitalism do go hand in hand

>>36
Libertarianism is about preserving liberty, this means enforcing justice.

gb2 sociology class

>>34

it is legal. it's child modeling. no nudity and no sex = a-ok as far as i can tell.

so, wait. you mean we can post links to CP all we want, it's all legal to view, but we just cant download and reupload to 4chan because then 4chan posesses the content?

Where does it say that possession is illegal but viewing is legal? I don't see it.

Anyone ever thought about what it does to the child?

You guyz are sick mother fuckerz

CP IS legal to view. Atleast in most countries. I don't think cache could be seriously thought as possesion in most jurisdications and if someone else shows it to you from his video/magazine/computer it's 100% legal to view.

It doesn't say its illegal to view, just to posses or create. It says nothing about links either because links do not actually contain content. Although theres nothing to stop a judge for charging you with obsene behavior :p

>>43
obscene behavior applies only public places

Im pretty sure its illegal to posses, the logic being that the material is made with the sexual abuse of children,who even if the said material does not appear to be "abusive" that the child or children involved do not have a sufficient understanding of the concept of what they are doing to provide consent and the resulting psychological damage and warping can fall under the definition of harm,(at this point argueing that many parenting methods in the US and religions also psychologically harm children but are legal , in the defense of CP , would be a sad arguement to make, and come off as a somewhat immature "yeah but.." sort of arguement)
and that the exchange, buying or selling of such material supports such activities/and market and/or the illegal trade of children in the asian child sex slave market etc.

interesting and somewhat related sordid fact; a large majority of missing children in the US are kidnapped and sold into the sex slave industry in asia.

>>1


>>45 here , also JFK cant be killed again , but more children can be raped/sexually abused, even if you did not buy the CP , someone  usually had to make it available for your viewing or the amount of views on the material would show some sort of demand for the material would it not ?

CP is legal to view only because if not, the people who report sites to the police would be incriminating themselves

Considering that the common conception is that it's illegal to view it already (although it's not, it certainly might as well be considering you have to possess it in order to view it). I doubt that disencouraging video taping the act in progress would actually deter the crime as most child sexual abuse is off camera. It is more then likely that every sexual encounter that has happened with children would have happened with or without a camera. It may have even caused more children to be hurt considering that individuals participating might not have been caught as fast. Considering it is already illegal and very punishable for creating the videos and distributing the material, I would think thats enough deterant regardless of people watching it. The same thing applies for guro really, the only difference is that people killed do not come back. Stopping child pornography by stopping the viewers is no way to fight the child abuse, it's really to fight the distributers (which is whats currently being done) and I believe COULD bring about other laws banning what you can see or perhaps even listen to. There are a lot less real life guro for fun videos out there then pedography simply because the punishments for producing the videos would be sevear, much more so then any child pornography (ounce for ounce). Instead of punishing people who are simply watching these things, which is really just very immoral instead of a damaging act, the consequences for distribution should be much higher. If the argument is that those that view it will most likely harm children is completely unfounded as well. There are plenty of fans of guro/bestiality and other immoral/illegal acts that would never commit the act themselves. In response to the original poster, the law is probably the best it can be to protect people's civil liberties and to stop abuse of children. Like I said earlier though in response to those who want to make veiwing it illegal, making viewing it illegal would not really detur those who make it as most individuals see it as illegal to view in the first place. It would make it a crime for you to accidently see CP posted on /b/, regardless of if you didn't want to and ACTUALLY deleted the cache (hard delete). I feel like im rambling but the law as it is now is perfect as it is now. The first poster can look at his pedography as long as he hard deletes it and we can all send producers to jail. Win win I suppose. Write to your local congressmen or whatever to impose tougher punishment on those that commit these crimes... but to my understanding, a lot of those people in office are pedos anyways (hence molesters getting 6 months probation) Iiiits a sick world aaafter all (Tune of Its a small world after all, disney)

>>48
 "I feel like im rambling"

i loled, do you have a tab or enter key by any chance?

>>48
no, women get the soft sentances while people masturbate to teachers and 12 year old boys. Men are lucky if they don't get crucified publicly. I'm more pissed about the gender double standard than the act so you know lol

I believe that possession of CP should be legal because I like to collect interesting, bizarre, "sick" and unusual films. Porn and violence is my speciality. I'd like to expand my collection on CP especially from the times when it was still legal, but sadly I'm afraid of legalities. It's also bit frustrating that I have to really careful with some movies and especially old times porn as they could contain CP. Yeah, I'm a sick fuck, but I'm not pedo nor I would hurt anyone. I think distribution and definetly production should stay illegal as real child abuse is required.

Whats a tabkey? lolz

Negroids like kiddie porn.

So what if people get angry over pedophilia, if you had children you loved as parents and a bunch of people came along saying "oh we want to MAKE love to your kids!" you'd feel quite reactionary aswell.

I say don't let this turn into a witch hunt, but by all means let people vent their anger at pedophiles. Public impalement for instance. That would be cool.

You mean impale child molesters, not pedophiles. :p
I think a lot of males find girls under 18 attractive. I would figure this true seeing as there is a large group of men that like 18-19yr old girls.

CP will never be legal to view for the same reason that narcotics and marijuana possession will never be legal.  The minute a politician chooses to advocate legalizing it is the same minute that that politician's career is over.  No one like a pot smoking pedophile.

>>55
Since there is little I can do o persuade you that children are human and should not be raped and enslaved, I will at least remind you that my plan would be beneficial to pedophiles.

When our ancestors were hunter gatherers they would impregnate them at the ages 17+ because around that time a woman is fully developped and won't die during childbirth, women and men have evolved to do this for 100000s of years. Any deviance from this must be due to psychological illness, which can only be cured by the deterant of horrific torture. So would be pedophiles are given the motivation to solve their problem.

tl;dr this thread, but according to OP's logic, if the "governmet" made child porn legal, it'd be okay because it's already happenned. Wouldn't making it legal lead to more and more of it?

>>56
hey... idiot, did you not read a few posts up? CP is legal to view  SO PEOPLE WHO REPORT SITES TO POLICE AREN'T INCRIMINATING THEMSELVES.

cuz they create a market?

>>60
The government should interfere to preserve justice, so that market wouldn't be allowed.

>>30
Alright, then I have a basic unalienable right to keep a human head under my bed?

uh cause in order to view it it means that it was uploaded which means someone had it on their computer which is illegal?

Re: 63
If you delete it you are no longer breaking the law.
Example: You have an illegal drug. You throw it away. You are no longer guilty of possessing a drug.

Real videos of any other acts than sexual acts with children are 100% legal to posses. Some of these videos can be extremely controversial and they can contain stuff like real murder, torture, non-sexual child abuse etc. I don't understand why child porn should be any exception. Just make it illegal to produce and distribute. Hell, pedos and other child porn collectors could help law enforcement to track down makers and distributors of it.

The problem isn't the porn. The problem is pedofaggery. Pedofags abuse kids. It seems to me that banning child porn is a roundabout way of flushing out pedofags, aka using a sledgehammer to squash a mouse.

(yes, a mouse, not a bug: it's a larger problem than just a bug.)

>>66
Better way would be to just kill(or something) all pedofags who abuse kids. I mean make it so that abusing kids is extremely unappealing due to consequences. Then again I had fantasies of having sex men when I was kid and I have heard rumors of some cases where kids enoyjed it, but I mean generally one should absolutely not have sex with children because we don't know enough about it to say if it's good or bad.

>>68 "I mean generally one should absolutely not have sex with children because we don't know enough about it to say if it's good or bad."

we need better sex education then. we as a country have to stop BS'ing to our kids and tell them what's what when they ask. where do babies come from? from mommy's womb. what's a womb? etc.

no one is telling you to give a detailed bio lesson, but cut this shit where you either ignore the question as being a 'grown up' question, or lying to kids saying some dumb shit like a stork brings babies (though i doubt anyone still does that).

As they get older, refine the explination. Treat sex ed and anatomy as if it were math. basic stuff first, head shoulders knees and toes, then get onto the more specific and complicated bits.

at the very least, you'll teach your kid what their body does and what's appropriate touch and what's not and WHY. most of these kids could have probably said no on their own and avoided the whole 'oh wow this tickles i wonder what it is' molestation thing if they just knew what it was in the first place. parents are so afraid they their precious babies will be tainted by this knowledge that they risk these kids going out into the world with pedo's praying on their ignorance of their own bodies.

The upshot of all this would not only be better understanding of a childs' own body at a young age, but they'd also be more likely to practice safe sex when and if they do have sex, and hey, we might even find out kids are smarter than we think they are and that 16 might not be such a bad age of consent after all.

>>69
I had consentual sex first at age of 10 and I truly enjoyed it. I don't regret it all. Those were happiest times in my life. Now this is just one case, but something for people to think about.

I first had sex at the age of 14 with another 14 year old older than me. I would have felt abused if it were with someone too far outside my age group.

The "men should only have sex with women at least half their age +7" rule is a good measure.

>>38

lol didn't you hear about florida? lawmakers are trying to get non nude but overtly sexual child modeling illegal.

>>57

as i understand it, sex began in hunter gather society as soon as the girls and boys hit puberty, so you would have 13 year olds having sex too. you're right though, it should be considered as some sort of psychological illness. however, we do not treat the psychologically ill by torturing them, we try to understand and treat the disease through therapy, drugs, etc. of course, i believe that psychology itself is mostly bullshit (save for the more biochemical aspects of it), so even then it seems immoral to treat that as a disease -- we should just try to bring a more clear understanding of the maturity of individuals involved (the child and the adult), and treat every case with a degree of uncertainty...

The issue is when a society can dictate that a human is capable of a consensuality that is reached by properly developed reasoning faculties. That limit is reached and dictated by culture, and so, why fuck with it on some pragmatic, philosophical basis?

>>72 This is Sir . and Lady , and they are good friends of yours. Please let them frolic in your sentences so that people can know you are not from Alabama.

>>73

uh, i think my periods and commas are fairly distributed throughout my post, please make a note of them next time you attempt to insult me.

>>74 Upon closer inspection it was the lack of capitalized letters after periods that created the perception. Apologies, now you may ask mother to explain to you how useful capitalized letters are.

Your post is still difficult to read due to this lack of form, indicating you are either lazy and undereducated (Alabama) or believe people should make the effort to read your posts - as if it would actually be of value to mentally process your worthless musings, muddled though they are by the lack of capitalized initial letters after periods.

I'm bored now.

I enjoy young girls and rail them daily.

Only fucking fags rag on ppl for grammer on the net. You people are as bad as pedos in my opinion.

You might want to construct an argument instead of just whining your way through several paragraphs. "Pedophiles are no worse than racists," geez. You fuckers go learn to write and stop lookin at so much pr0n, pls.

Child porn is defined, in the U.S., as any acts of intercourse, or anything imitating intercourse, any nudity, or lasvicious showing of genital areas (close-ups of tits, cocks, vags, clothed or not).

The law on CP often stretches from the granted definition and will even prosecute against those who even simply own photographs of children in skimpy clothing, thought not nude and not lasvicious showings of genital areas. This is why I argue in favor of pedos, the law should NEVER stretch as much as this has been, regardless of how moral it may seem.


In the U.S., just LOOKING at child porn is illegal. Owning and creating child porn is, obviously, illegal. Mind you, technically YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING ILLEGAL if a little girl would flash you, and you would go to jail, and probably nothing done to the girl. Well, that hasn't happened yet, but that seems to be the rediculous precident set.

A good contrast to CP would be beastiality, or pornography involving animals and humans. Beastiality is illegal to PERFORM, but NOT to view. I believe CP should be like that, but of course you have to stick to proper laws. I do NOT believe that underaged children should have sex, let alone be posted on the internet. Nudity itself should be allowed, and the actual act of intercourse should be legal to view as long as it has been created with teenagers at the proper age limit. Since age of consent of intercourse varies state to state, the nation would have to ammend an age where sexual intercourse would be considered appropriate, PROBABLY 16. However, I'd vote for nudity at a reasonable age, probably near 12-14, where teenagers hit puberty.


It would have to be fairly thought out, and the change would be complicated, time consuming, and most likely political suicide. It will never happen unless the law starts to stretch the insane precidents TOO far, which would have to affect the common family. Extreme case, the law starts to ban images of anyone under 18, and violently sends any owners of the redefined CP to jail.

>>79
Tits aren't genitals(ultra-fail) and looking CP is not illegal in US other than that it's true. Also beastility is legal in many(if not most states), no federal law against it. Go read your united states code again.

79 fails. It's not illegal to look at, read the laws. Nothing is illegal to look at (excluding classified documents, although looking and 'reading' are slightly different)

>>79
"It will never happen unless the law starts to stretch the insane precidents TOO far, which would have to affect the common family."

:x in Britain, it already is... If a family kept innocent pictures like their children taking baths or stuff like that, you could be prosecuted, or at least have charges brought against you, which in itself is embarrassing and emotionally and socially distressing. And, by the looks of it, it seems America is following Britain's lead.

>>62
"Alright, then I have a basic unalienable right to keep a human head under my bed?"

Sure.  (Or I don't see why not myself.)  I can imagine a scenario in which you might be able to attain a human head without violating an individual's rights. 

Suppose person A who knows person B decides to transfer ownership of his body to person B after death.  Person A's body then becomes the property of person B following the death of person A.  Person B would then have the right to the head... and the rest of the body for that matter. 

I don't really see why anyone would give a fuck about this, but I also don't see why possession of a given body part should be illegal, provided you didn't violate the rights of another human being to get it.

I know that when you wrote this you were probly trying to compare the body part situation to CP, but this is not a good comparison, since you can't really obtain CP without violating the rights of a child (depending on what 'rights' you believe children have/should have)... but you CAN obtain a body part without violating the human rights of an individual...as I pointed out in my example.

>>38
Ummmm...You can see her vagina through the dress...That's nudity..

>>83
Actually human body parts are 100% legal to own in US and most countries. Rarely with flesh and all although shrunken heads are big hobby to some. Also everyone knows skulls and skeletons are often valued by rich and eccentric people. Hell, I'd get skull on my shelf if they weren't so expensive. It's only problematic when A.) body is murder victim and/or B.) body has family.

>>83
Also you can obtain CP without violating anyone's rights. I don't see anything wrong with possession of CP, but the production of it and making possession might fuel producers to make more.

>>85 Cool. 

>>86
I'm not sure about this.  Could you explain to me how CP is obtainable without harming another person?

>>87

read the OP

really, the question isn't whether or not it is obtainable without harming another person, since you usually have to commit an act of rape to just make it; the question is whether or not the current law is consistent with the logic under our system of government.

>>87
For example you download/buy/get cp video or whatever. No-one is harmed. Now production of CP ofcourse harms children and possession of it MIGHT be problematic as it could fuel producers to make more CP, but I'm not sure. On the otherhand legalizing possession might infact make it harder for distributors and producers, since their clients could bust their networks any day without fear of being busted themselves.

Its not really any worse then regular rape videos, just involves children is all. Anyone know if having rape videos is legal? (US)

>>90
Ofcourse it is. You dumb or something? Only videos/pictures that are illegal to posses in US are CP videos. Everything else is fine.

I guess the argument is that viewing CP leads to increased production of CP, because the production becomes economically viable.

CP's criminalisation thus punishes the wrong people for crimes they didn't really commit, but our governments obviously believe that stopping the abuse of children is more important.

Which it may well be.

There are probably people smarter than I who have analysed every variable in great detail. Then again, the legislative reaction is probably intrinsically knee-jerk and lacking in any real understanding of psychology or indeed justice. I don't trust governments, lol.

>>92

Do the production of rape videos, murder videos, etc. necessarily induce more people to commit the crime?

>>93
Yes and even if they don't they still abuse the child's right to privacy.

>>94

A)You provide no proof.
B)I'm not talking about children.

Rape videos and murder videos are legal to possess in the US. Yet according to you they would be violations to the right to privacy.

Let me ask you this. What kinda sick fuck are you ("you" isn't referring to the op, im not going to speculate whether or not he's into that stuff) that you want to look at an underage child being psychologically scarred for the rest of their life, whether it's tame or not, anyone who would get pleasure out of something that is extremely harmful to a child is A. prone to actually molesting a child B.  a fucking disturbing fuck who deserves to be locked up

>>96

lol way to have a gut reaction that has no place in an intellectual discussion.

>>97

Yes I can see how you are so concerned about the prestige of an intellectual discussion by your use of the acronym "lol" Furthermore how the subject as to whether or not we should allow people to view child porn is "intellectual" or if it is intellectually equivelent to "should we allow kids to play with ak47's" not making intellectual at all but a desperate way for people who like looking at child porn to validate their sick actions - when they know they would rape a kid and ruin his or her life if they had the chance.

>>98

cite sources please. oh wait, those were baseless gut-reaction rantings that contribute nothing to discussion. my bad.

it's all well and good to say that potentially consensual sex damages a child, and that anyone who would actually like to have sex with a child would take it by force rather than not, but only if you can back it up with SOMETHING. same goes for the opposite.

>>100 get

>>96
SPOILERS: nobody, not even the die-hard pedos would like to watch an underage child being psychologically scarred for the rest of their life, everyone wants to see them enjoing sex.

>>101
I don't want to see them enjoying sex, neither do I want them to have sex with other people. I don't care if they learn to masturabte when they are 10, just so long as their sexual experiences are done alone until they are mature enough to handle the consequences of sharing sexual experiences.

CP = B&, sorry you'll just have to develop a normal fetish.

>>102

Yes, and only you are the master of morals and only you have the right to dictate the actions of others, correct?

Would the CP still be illegal if it existed on the hard disk in an unbreakable encrpyted form that could not be viewed by anyone?

>>103
Seeing as the moral in question here is "child rape is evil"... Yes.

>>105

Yes rape is evil. However, not all child sex is rape. Simply blanketing all cases of people having sex with people below some arbitrary age as evil is silly.

Even then, the question isn't, "Is child rape illegal?", it's "Why aren't US laws concerning child pornography consistent with other similar cases? Why should CP be banned while videos containing murder or rape of people over 18 be completely to own and view?"

Rape videos vs. CP is the best comparison.

Consider the following:
a) Rape videos are legal
b) Creating rape videos isn't viable economically because a person doing so be too likely to be caught.
c) Rape videos aren't as much of a taboo as child pornography
d) Rape videos arne't nearly as widely discussed as child pornography
d) Rape vidoes aren't as popular as child pornography

I would argue in light of the above, that by legalizing ownership of child pornography, you would discourage the production and reduce the consumption of it.  As pointed out above, consumers could safely turn in producers, and more importantly, the great taboo around child pornography would be removed.  I think it may be this taboo that gives it much of its popularity because people receive an illicit thrill in consuming something they aren't supposed to.

taboo? it's not fucking taboo it's sick and twisted shit.

want to fuck a really tight hole? tried fucking your mother in the ear yet?

>>everything
You are allowed to view anything you want, as long as not a single trace of it gets written onto your hard-drive.  Click on /b/ and there's a CP flood?  Just erase your cache and you should be fine.
This is the law.

Ok lets move on.

Why is CP illegal to possess?  Even if it did no harm to the individual, legal CP would encourage AND create a bigger demand for moar kiddy sechs, which is obviously not a good thing for society...

Whether or not 8 year old girls are able to consent, well that's a totally different topic.

exterminate pedophiles

every pedo has to die but slowly. it needs to be at least 24hrs full of torture.

I BELIEVE CP SHOULD BE LEGAL TO VIEW BUT NOT TO MAKE AS VIEWING A PICTURE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CHILD IN THE PICTURE.

I was porn surfing today and some child porn popped up on my PC. I quickly clicked it off. Could I get busted for this.

I *think* (I could be wrong) CP is legal in the Netherlands, but the children have to be foreign. As long as the kid isn't native to the Netherlands, they don't give a fuck. It could just be a rumor though.

>>112
It violates the child's right to privacy.

>>115

Ironically, the news media and the courtroom violates the child's right to privacy when they deal with CP-related issues.

>>113
Not normally, but since you've admitted to it, the Party Van is on it's way.

Should Paris Hilton be legal to *VIEW*?

>>118
It calls for Capital Punishment