Should Existing Child Porn be Legalized?

[ku]

There is evidence that Internet porn reduces rape. According to Lansburg, "A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth." Lansburg even claims that the release of violent movies reduces violence and crime.

 

The hypothesis for this result is that the availability of pornography allows sexually aroused people to satiate their desires indoors in front of a computer. If the pornography were not available, the individual would have to look for an alternative outlet for his sexual desires, and these alternative outlets may involve the rape of innocent women. Likewise, there are those who have a desire for violence, and violent movies may satiate that desire indoor in front of a television screen. The violent individual then doesn't need to express his anger and violence in public.

 

Child porn is banned presumably because its creation involves the abuse of a child. Legalizing child porn may stimulate its production, which leads to more child abuse.

 

Suppose the government banned the production of further child porn to prevent any further child abuse yet kept a national database of child pornography that already exists. This national database of child porn is freely available to the public so that members of the population with pedophilic tendencies can satiate their desires in private without actually harming any children.

 

Because no new child porn is produced, no child is abused. Because pedophiles consume existing child porn, this will perhaps decrease child molestation in a way analogous to the decrease in rape and crime following the release of porn and violent movies.

 

What is required for this argument to be sound is evidence that availability of child porn results in less child molestation. Some will argue this is not the case, that child porn actually encourages pedophiles to act on their instincts. However, if the government takes the policy philosophy that they should ban anything that can encourage someone to do something illegal, then shouldn't violent movies also be banned because they can encourage people to murder?

[Pangloss]

It's an interesting suggestion, but does that actually eliminate the harm issue? Just because nobody's making any money off the images doesn't necessarily mean that there's no harm, and similarly the re-use of those images might constitute ongoing harm.

 

I'm curious how this board will respond on that point. Internet debate is typically adverse to support for parental oversight issues (opposition to music and movie censorship being a typical example), but this board tends to be a bit more objective and insightful than most.

 

I'll give you this: It's an improvement over the current situation. Of course implementation of such an idea might be difficult, but I think we should set aside technical issues for the moment.

[MangoChutney]

Never

 

Child pornography is not a victimless crime, even when the porn is old porn and you have to realise that most child abuse is by a member of the childs family or immediate friends of the family.

 

I know this appears to be a knee jerk reaction, but I strongly believe that child pornography can never be justified

[ku]

Let me criticize some of my ideas to try push the adversarial process.

 

One problem with my idea is that victims in legal child porn may not consent to the release of videos of them in public. A victim of child abuse may suffer greatly if videos and images of the sexual abuse were made public. To protect these people, the government would have to obtain consent from victims. The victims will be reminded that the child porn will be made legal because of the belief that legalization will reduce further child abuse. In an act of altruism to future generations, the victims of child abuse may consent to the videos being available to the public. In the event that no child abuse victims consent, the government may have to turn to virtual child porn.

 

Another problem is that the existence and availability of child porn may create demand for more child porn. Even if there is a national database of public child porn, an individual may not want to watch the same videos over and over again. They demand new child porn, which will create supply, which will result in more children being abused. This argument does not apply to virtual child porn or child porn fiction because the creation of these do not involve the abuse of any actual child. If one piece of child porn fiction results in an increased supply of child porn fiction, the creation of child porn fiction comes not from actual abuse of children but from the imagination of child abuse by the writer. It could be argued, however, that even virtual child porn and child porn fiction can induce greater demand for actual videos depicting child abuse or even actual physical contact when children. But then again just about anything can induce demand for child sex, including child photography for clothing catalogs, nudism photography, etc, and banning anything that a politician believes might induce greater demand for child porn may pose a threat to freedom of expression.

[YT2095]

no it Shouldn`t be legalized EVER.

 

we don`t negotiate with Terrorists, nor should we with Perverts!

they need to be destroyed.

[insane_alien]

i can see a major problem with legalising existing child porn appart from the fact that it will encourage certain people.

 

how do you determine if it is old porn. especially if it is a digital image. changing the creation date on a digital image is a trivial process with no way to recovery the origional date as it could have been produced on devices with clocks set back a few years.

 

the only people who would see this as a good move are those who look at child porn as it practically gives them unlicensed ability to produce more child porn.

 

legalising it is the worst thing you could do with it.

[Paralith]

You can come up with all the logical reasons you want for legalizing existing child porn, but you will never, and I mean never get past the visceral gut reaction of the vast majority of people who despise the very idea of it. These people don't want to satiate potential child molesters, they want to punish them. They don't want to live side by side with these people, they want them removed from society. And whether or not the porn is old, whether or not the victim consented to it's use, no one will like the idea of saying, "It's ok to watch children being abused - in fact, it's good to watch children being abused." It might be an interesting idea in some aspects, but it will never ever happen.

[Pangloss]

What about images that look like child porn, but in fact are actually images of mature adults with written consent? (I just toss that out there for additional discussion, not in response to anybody.) Would these images be legit, or do they further the problem of child sexual abuse (more than, say, a typical trendy clothing or perfume advertisement)?

 

Reason I ask is that a number of cases have come up lately (including one case in which I spoke to a juror) in which the jury had difficulty determining whether some images were of minors or not. How these cases are handled seems to still be something of a gray area.

 

One thing I've always wondered about this is how the police decide whether the images are actually images of minors. Sadly, I don't think they actually locate the victims and determine their ages -- I think what they do in many/most cases is just... guess! And I know in at least this one case (in which I spoke to the juror) the images were all of girls who were completely unknown. The prosecution simply stated that the subjects were minors, and the jury looked at the images and simply accepted that fact, except in certain cases where the images were obviously of older women, and those images were rejected. Is it just me or is that a little bit unfair?

 

Given the state of modern technology, how long will it be before they won't be able to tell if the victims are even real live human beings?

[BLueRibbon]

Okay, I'm an 18 year old, non-offending paedophile.

 

I discussed the criminalisation of mere possession of images here - http://anu.nfshost.com/2007/should-the-possession-of-child-pornography-be-illegal

[fattyjwoods]

will that really help, im not questioning the research but isnt that really just rubbing it in and making things worse? i mean looking at porn would make you want to do it wouldnt it? not saying i had past experience though........

[abskebabs]

These people don't want to satiate potential child molesters, they want to punish them. They don't want to live side by side with these people, they want them removed from society.

Not that I feel particularly sorry for child molestors or sex offendors, but it does seem they are ostracised by society in this way, in a fashion that is slightly illogical when you look at the bare facts and figures. I was under the impression, that the reoffending rates for these kinds of crimes was actually very low. In fact the biggest danger for women, children(perhaps men too) comes from those that are close friends and family.

 

The truth may hurt, but I think people ought to start facing up to it and question themselves more. In such a light the opening proposal could be taken more seriously, but I'm still in doubt myself whether it would be useful.

 

The reason for this is because a peopdophile's sexual desire may be temporarily satiated by this, but they may want more and more to "satisfy" themselves. They could soon find that this "virtual child porn" is not enough for them, and thereby creating a spiral of supply and demand, not removing the problems we still have today.

 

Also, we need to really find out more about what determines our sexual desires and orientations; whether the phenomenon is purely psychology, something in nature, or more likely; lying in the difficult gray area in between. Then we can begin to look for ways to deal with it more effectively.

[mike90]

There was an episode of Law and ortder SVU several years ago dealing with a company that made porn with 18-20 year old girls then digitally altered the images to look like children. On the show what eventually happened was it tempted a pedophile too much and was a factor in him raping , and then inadvertently murdering a little girl. Granted this was only a tv show, but it raised many good points.

 

I don't beileve that we as a society should be trying fulfill the fantasies of disturbed people in any way, wether that be through fake snuff films or fake kiddie porn. What your going to end up doing is legitimizing sick behavior and giving ammunition to organizations like the child love movement or whatever its called. Personally i beileve we should treat sexual abusers with bullets.

 

I don't think that most people that stick up for these people in one way or another understand how likely reoffending is, and that 9/10 times sexual abuse pretty much ruins the persons life permanently

[ParanoiA]

Interesting thread. I would not promote legalizing any kind of child porn no matter when it was made. Some of these children, probably most, are still alive today anyway and there is further harm to be done.

 

18 year olds and up dressing like a 12 year old or something, or digitally altering the pictures - I see no violation of anyone's rights. There is no issue. Even cartoons depicting child rape have not violated anyone's rights. The only violations of rights are those that want to impose restriction out of fear.

 

Anyone caught with pictures of minors are innocent until proven guilty. So, in my opinion - and what should be the constitution's opinion - the subjects in the pictures have to be found, their age determined, so that guilt can be proven. This is not as daunting as it may sound. Consider the number of popular child porn images in circulation. You only need to prove it once - then the repeats of that picture are automatic.

 

Also, shouldn't the source matter? If I download a picture of what is supposed to be an 18 year old girl, trying to look 14, and it's really a 14 year old girl, then why should I be punished for it? I have no reasonable way to verify age of people in pictures. Theoretically, this could happen when I buy a porn magazine at the store. All the people who bought the magazine should be arrested, as well as the magazine maker - to be consistent.

[BLueRibbon]

i mean looking at porn would make you want to do it wouldnt it?

 

I don't look at child porn, for obvious legal reasons. I do know many people who have been convicted of offences involving child pornography, who state that they haven't molested children.

 

Also, we need to really find out more about what determines our sexual desires and orientations; whether the phenomenon is purely psychology, something in nature, or more likely; lying in the difficult gray area in between. Then we can begin to look for ways to deal with it more effectively.

 

Sexual desire/orientation can't be "cured" or changed, but actions can be controlled.

 

I don't beileve that we as a society should be trying fulfill the fantasies of disturbed people in any way, wether that be through fake snuff films or fake kiddie porn. What your going to end up doing is legitimizing sick behavior and giving ammunition to organizations like the child love movement or whatever its called. Personally i beileve we should treat sexual abusers with bullets.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that paedophiles are disturbed - http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/5/838

 

People can be arrested for naturist images (of children) in my jurisdiction. I don't think that many paedophiles would even want to see snuff films.

 

I don't think that most people that stick up for these people in one way or another understand how likely reoffending is

 

The rate for re-offending is significantly lower for sex offenders than for the majority of criminals.

[Pangloss]

BTW, is that one of those British-vs-American spelling things, with the AE dipthong instead of the E alone? Just curious.

[insane_alien]

yeah like in encyclopaedia

[iNow]

will that really help, im not questioning the research but isnt that really just rubbing it in and making things worse? i mean looking at porn would make you want to do it wouldnt it? not saying i had past experience though........

 

Not really. Generally, when one picks up porn, it's to satisfy an existing desire. The desire, however, was there prior to picking it up.

 

Now, the question should be, "does looking at porn increase or decrease the urge which caused one to pick it up... are the desires sated or not?" The answer to which, of course, is "it depends on the individual."

[Pangloss]

yeah like in encyclopaedia

Thaenks, maete!!

[Dak]

There is evidence that Internet porn reduces rape. According to Lansburg, "A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth." Lansburg even claims that the release of violent movies reduces violence and crime.

 

The hypothesis for this result is that the availability of pornography allows sexually aroused people to satiate their desires indoors in front of a computer.

 

however, heterosexuals (which i'm using to mean people attracted to adult members of the opposite sex) do not have their sexualities repressed: their sex drive is there and fully encouraged by society, so internet pictures would act as an outlet, maybe, but would not encourage anyone to be heterosexual; it would not stimulate any dormant desires.

 

for paedoes, tho, the desire is repressed and discouraged by most aspects of society: internet pictures could, therefore, stimulate an otherwize latent desire, and actually result in more child-rape.

 

i remember this from a previous debate on the subject on SFN: the question of wether child-porn images act as an outlet (redusing likelyhood of activity) or as a stimulant/gateway thing (increasing likelyhood of activity). without the question answred, i'd veer towards saying that no, existing pictures should not be legalised.

[doG]

I could only imagine one good use for legal child porn. If it were to become suddenly legal to dispose of those that are interested in it and there was an open season on such subjects then the porn would probably be good bait to lure them out with...

[ParanoiA]

I don't look at child porn, for obvious legal reasons. I do know many people who have been convicted of offences involving child pornography, who state that they haven't molested children.

 

But they were watching children who were. That is offensive.

 

Incidentally, those children are adults now. Can you imagine how that would feel to be abused as a child to that extreme, and then know your images and media are being used by a sesspool of pedophiles? This is wrong on so many levels...

 

There is no evidence to suggest that paedophiles are disturbed - [url']http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...full/157/5/838[/url]

 

I appreciate the sexual orientation argument clinically, but that doesn't excuse any burden on society to denounce that orientation with prejudice. That's an out-group behavior we should keep.

 

My concern is more with providing help for those who seek it before they commit a crime. I don't like the idea of society overcompensating by punishing people who come forward for help, and likewise I have no sympathy for those who don't seek it and rationalize the rape of a child.

 

for paedoes, tho, the desire is repressed and discouraged by most aspects of society: internet pictures could, therefore, stimulate an otherwize latent desire, and actually result in more child-rape.

 

I would think anything that feeds an obsession, contributes to it's growth.

[ku]

There was an episode of Law and ortder SVU several years ago dealing with a company that made porn with 18-20 year old girls then digitally altered the images to look like children. On the show what eventually happened was it tempted a pedophile too much and was a factor in him raping , and then inadvertently murdering a little girl. Granted this was only a tv show, but it raised many good points.

I won't post the link here, but I'll just say that a simple search for "young porn" gives a site that takes barely legal girls and then digitally enhances the images to make the girls look more like children, e.g. making the skin smoother, having the girls dress up in kiddy clothes, have teddy bears, etc lying around, and having the girls' hair done up in pigtails.

 

Scientific studies have shown that men are highly attracted to females who has faces that have childish features such as large eyes; smooth, healthy, and clear skin; and absence of hair. Pedophilia then could be seen as an extreme form of an instinct that men already have in the same way that the desire to be raped is an extreme form of an instinct that women already have for men, i.e. the female desire for male domination.