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.