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.

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.