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.

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.