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.
Name:
LordRiordan2007-01-01 15:44
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)
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-01 19:34
>>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.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-02 9:34
>>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.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-02 19:45
>>38
Ummmm...You can see her vagina through the dress...That's nudity..
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-02 20:04
>>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.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-02 20:05
>>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.
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.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-03 7:28
>>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.
Name:
LordRiordan2007-01-03 8:05
Its not really any worse then regular rape videos, just involves children is all. Anyone know if having rape videos is legal? (US)
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-03 8:07
>>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.
Name:
Cynic2007-01-05 2:51
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.
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.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 4:20
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
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.
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.
>>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.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 17:43
>>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.
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?"
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-05 0:52 ID:8K8L4Kvh
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.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-05 1:09 ID:JArrVNrd
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?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-05 2:32 ID:G5GfAsF4
>>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.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-05 7:00 ID:vSRCndPo
exterminate pedophiles
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-05 8:25 ID:z+UsPmMs
every pedo has to die but slowly. it needs to be at least 24hrs full of torture.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 1:11 ID:F22DZ45V
I BELIEVE CP SHOULD BE LEGAL TO VIEW BUT NOT TO MAKE AS VIEWING A PICTURE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CHILD IN THE PICTURE.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 1:17 ID:h7aADObQ
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.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 6:16 ID:aJ8MjHz5
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.