Should child pornography be legal

[JoshuaPopper]

It's called "child pornography" but what about cases in which the actors are 17 y/o rather than 18? I think that somewhat blurs the lines there. Also, what about actors who are over 18 playing characters younger than 18 like Ken Park? I think that blurs the distinctions as well.

Josh

[horsesforlife]

Computer generated, IE no children are actually involved[/b]

Oh, my mistake.

so just pornography in general?

Nothing to do with children?

I'm rather confused... why is the topic called 'should child pornography be legal?' then?

[Cato]

Oh, my mistake.

so just pornography in general?

Nothing to do with children?

I'm rather confused... why is the topic called 'should child pornography be legal?' then?

[/b]

*sigh*...No, not just "pornography in general." Again, computer generated child pornography.

No real children involved. Computer generated depictions of children, IE animation/3d cartoons of child pornography but no real, human children have anything to do with it. It's not real, it's computer generated like Jimmy Neutron.

Look at the subtitle. "Should child pornography be legal, Computer created child porn, that is."

[fuzz]

Alright. I admit I didn't read this entire thread. It seemed straying too much into morality v. legality. And it's long.

Pretty much, as I see it, it just seems like a giant catch-22.

1) You legalize CGCP, which probably reduces the amount of children exploited in real pornography. There is also the possibility that demented pedobears can get their fill off of virtual images and then be done with it, thus entirely protecting children from actual molestation.

On the other hand, that may not be the case, and this alternatively may increase the amount of pedophiles, due to the probable increased availability of CGCP, which then may increase the amount of said pedophiles who turn their virtual fantasies into real life.

Moreover, you will have more defendants claiming that their incredibly realistic-looking child pornography is in fact computer generated, so they're safe [check out the consequences of shutting down the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act - though I think it's worth mentioning that current US laws classify CGCP as illegal if "such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor..." so for the US, this is already taken care of =)].

As you can see, this point is entirely filled with speculation.

2) You illegalize CGCP, which doesn't leave an alternative outlet [albeit still morally objectionable] for sick child pornography producers, nor for their sick customers. Despite the laws, nothing much will change, and children will continue to be in danger by both.

Since point 2 is stagnant and lame, the main question about punto uno is such: Do the ends justify the means? I think if we had statistical evidence, that'd be helpful >.<. So yes, I realize I just rambled for awhile and gotten absolutely nowhere, but for now, I'm still on the fence on this.

[horsesforlife]

*sigh*...No, not just "pornography in general." Again, computer generated child pornography.

No real children involved. Computer generated depictions of children, IE animation/3d cartoons of child pornography but no real, human children have anything to do with it. It's not real, it's computer generated like Jimmy Neutron.

Look at the subtitle. "Should child pornography be legal, Computer created child porn, that is."[/b]

I was just asking...

I assumed it meant actual children, not just images.

But thanks for clearing it up anyway.

[umbr44]

First you would have to define what a 'child' is to you.

In the UK the age of consent is 16, in some places in America it is 18, in France it is 14, and I THINK in Canada it is 12??? Or it may also be 14.

There is already a moral dilemma, what I do in one country would see me arrested as a paedophile in another country.

So would it not therefore be fair to place categories on this CGI child pornography to better classify it.

1-5

6-10

10-11

12-13

14-15

16-17

Because I feel people may answer yes to some latter ones, whilst no to some earlier ones.

If we are to beliene peadophilia is a sexual preference or a disease, then it stands to reason the 'problem' is not going away any time soon, so surely something which could help lower the number of real children harmed is a good thing.

[i put 'problem' in brackets, because many people who are not paedophiles are easily accused of being so. For example, a 15 year old can go out with a 13 year old girl, but when he turns 16 and she is only 14, he is now a paedophile....but thats not right is it? Theres very little black and white, and a WHOLE giant section of grey areas.]

[tinkfuzz88]

No, no, no.

First sickos will being looking at child porn, next thing you know they'll be going after poor kids for real.

No way.

Child predators are worse than murderers.

[Cato]

First sickos will being looking at child porn, next thing you know they'll be going after poor kids for real.[/b]

Care to provide some sort of reasoning for that claim?

[Tickitytak]

No, no, no.

First sickos will being looking at child porn, next thing you know they'll be going after poor kids for real.

No way.

Child predators are worse than murderers.[/b]

why bother with the real thing when you can get a realistic virtual experience? keeping real CP and paedophilia illegal should be enough to keep them from pursuing a real kid.

in all honesty, i don't care about teh child pronz. if pedobear wants to get off on little kids, let him. i don't even care if it's real (i will never even venture to type it in the google search bar in fear of accidentally pressing "feeling lucky?" and seeing something that will haunt me forever) because only a pedo would search for it anyway. legal action should be pursued in those cases though since they're sexually exploiting a child.. haha but i think any exploitation of children is wrong (yes christians and Disney, i'm looking at the both of you).

but if pedobear tries to have sex with a kid, he should be smacked with serious time in prison (as much as i wuvs him). even murderers hate pedos.

[TeenLeaderTom]

Care to provide some sort of reasoning for that claim?[/b]

for the millionth time, here are sources

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/porno.html

another one

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html

this shall provide some information as well

http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=34

^this site is full of much information showing how pornography will only make the problems worse, whether they be real photos or not

[Cato]

for the millionth time, here are sources

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/porno.html

another one

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html

this shall provide some information as well

http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=34

^this site is full of much information showing how pornography will only make the problems worse, whether they be real photos or not[/b]

I asked for reasoning, not biased sources/articles.

Her post was a slippery slope fallacy.

[Deeper]

I asked for reasoning, not biased sources/articles.[/b]

I'm pretty sure that any source given other then a (EDIT: non conservative/Christian website) you'd give a biased rating. It probably wouldn't matter how intelligent the person behind the article is, scientifically, logically and so on you'd probably still write it off as biased.

Moving on.

[Cato]

I'm pretty sure that any source given other then CNN you'd give a biased rating. It probably wouldn't matter how intelligent the person behind the article is, scientifically, logically and so on you'd probably still write it off as biased.[/b]

Still waiting to here that reasoning behind the claim that "men looking at CG child porn = they will go out and molest a child."

Let's look at the quote again:

"First sickos will being looking at child porn, next thing you know they'll be going after poor kids for real."

I want someone to justify that jump in logic for me. Actually, since that's impossible, I actually just want someone to admit that that type of jump in logic is not valid. I asked for reasoning, not an article. Any article you link to isn't going to address my question at hand since they'd be admitting to supporting a logical fallacy.

"First sickos will be looking at people getting killed in movies, next thing you know they'll be killing people for real."

"First sickos will be looking at people getting raped in movies, next thing you know they'll be raping people for real."

ETC.

Do you agree with those statements? They feature the same jump in logic. You just agree that CG child porn should be illegal, so you "fudge it" to support any logical fallacies in your favor. Talk about dishonesty.

[Zme]

"First sickos will be looking at people getting killed in movies, next thing you know they'll be killing people for real."

"First sickos will be looking at people getting raped in movies, next thing you know they'll be raping people for real."

ETC.

Do you agree with those statements? They feature the same jump in logic. You just agree that CG child porn should be illegal, so you "fudge it" to support any logical fallacies in your favor. Talk about dishonesty.[/b]

They actually probably would agree with those statements.

There's no doubt that what we watch does affect us, AFA. I mean, it shouldn't be the basis of law, but I don't think you can deny that it affects us.

[Tickitytak]

for the millionth time, here are sources

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/porno.html

another one

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html

this shall provide some information as well

http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=34

^this site is full of much information showing how pornography will only make the problems worse, whether they be real photos or not[/b]

haha and violent videogames make children more violent. give me a break.

[Cato]

They actually probably would agree with those statements.

There's no doubt that what we watch does affect us, AFA. I mean, it shouldn't be the basis of law, but I don't think you can deny that it affects us.[/b]

It affects us in ways that can't be conclusively determined, thus the point is moot anyway. It's just as valid to say that violent video games "quench" violent urges and thus result in less real life violence. Such statements are pure speculation.

[Zme]

It affects us in ways that can't be conclusively determined, thus the point is moot anyway. It's just as valid to say that violent video games "quench" violent urges and thus result in less real life violence. Such statements are pure speculation.[/b]

Mmm, true. No doubt there are studies into it.