Child Pornography

[DaveR]

Hope this hasnt been covered before.

 

Here in UK, lots of people seem to be getting sent to prison for 'possessing' child pornography. 

Not participating in the production thereof, mind, simply downloading that what already exists.

 

My general belief has been that as it already exists, that childs rights have been breached anyway, and it seems rather pointless to criminalize people on that basis (although I would be very tough on those who go on to rape, to the point of castration even)  Possession by a third party does not alter the fact those images already exist. On a practical level (and perhaps this is irrelevant, principles are paramount) I imagine a cocooning effect (as Stefan I believe has mentioned in respect to online porn satiating the desires of would be rapists and sexual predators) may also reduce the incidence of child rapists.

 

On the other side of things, they are none the less consumers of illicit material. I don't know what Stefans views are on, say, handling stolen goods (even if you are unaware they are stolen...although that is unlikely to be an excuse where child porn is considered unless the child is near the age of consent), but should people be criminalized merely for possessing child pornography?

[shirgall]

It boils down to the fundamental question: "When is a person capable of consent?"

 

It is such a difficult question that the age is set by statute differently in different states and countries. The theory is that until a certain level of maturity, it is impossible to grant consent because it is impossible to understand the consequences of giving it. People who exploit people incapable of consent are predators. People who promote such exploitation are not deserving of high regard.

 

People who knowing seek out such material are supporting the subornation of consent. People who unknowingly have such material, because it looks very like similar legal material, deserve the "innocent until proven guilty" standard we are supposed to enjoy in the west.

[dsayers]

should people be criminalized merely for possessing child pornography?

No, for two reasons. The first being that the word "criminalize" means people who pretend to exist in a different, opposing moral category "righteously" initiating the use of force. Secondly because possession of something cannot be the initiation of the use of force. If I'm in possession of your bike, which I stole, my theft was the immoral act, not retaining it.

 

By the way, there is no such thing as child pornography. Pornography denotes consent. There is only child rape.

[Kevin Beal]

If possession increases demand and thus supply, then possession could cause more abuse. But if it reduces instances of abuse by meeting some "need" (for lack of a better word) by having it, then obviously, that would be good. I don't know if these things have been measured or even could be known, but I imagine a solution is a balance of each concern.

 

I don't know about criminalizing. Maybe social ostracism could suffice as a deterrent, and maybe already available legal alternatives to CP are good enough to meet this "need" (e.x. "lolicon" stuff).

 

Another balance worth considering, I think, is making it dangerous enough to scare people, but not so scary that they can't seek help to fix this in them.

[Cuffy_Meigs]

Harm is done to the child throughout the process. One assumes that during the capture of the images, considerable harm was done and that remains the case even if the images are immediately destroyed. However there is surely further damage done by distributing the images and in general the more widespread the distribution the greater the harm. Paying for and possessing the images both incentivises their creation and increases the harm done to the child.

 

I suggest that paying for such images falls into the same moral category as hiring a hitman. Whether that makes you morally culpable has been the topic of much heated discussion on this forum and it seems there is little agreement.

[NotDarkYet]

I'm having trouble unpacking the "watching rape = supporting rape" argument. 

 

Should the same argument be made for videos of other kinds of assaults?  Violence, one-punch-knockout videos, armed robbery.

 

I'm open to that argument.  But it seems inconsistent that you can go on youtube and watch thugs knock out an innocent woman,  maybe giving her permanent brain damage, and that's cool.  But if somebody watches a 17 year old couple engage in a (presumably) voluntary (and presumably pleasurable) act, they're a moral monster.

 

Something's inconsistent there.

 

Maybe the way to square the circle is to say that people shouldn't be allowed to watch videos showing people being assaulted too.  I know people who ENJOY videos of punching and attacks, and I find it sickening.

[shirgall]

I'm open to that argument.  But it seems inconsistent that you can go on youtube and watch thugs knock out an innocent woman,  maybe giving her permanent brain damage, and that's cool.  But if somebody watches a 17 year old couple engage in a (presumably) voluntary (and presumably pleasurable) act, they're a moral monster.

 

The theory is that those underage participants are not mature enough to consent, so their act is rape. Whether or not a particular age is an appropriate dividing line is a big debate of its own.

 

If you encourage them to do it and take steps to help them act upon it, that's conspiracy. To coldly plan and act upon the commission of a crime is the issue.

[Wuzzums]

The free market would easily solve the problem.

I would imagine that in the future there would be a lot of people that will have striving careers in CGI child porn. Actual children need not be involved at all making the whole issue merely a problem of aesthetics.

[Des]

I grasp the intention behind the law:

Reduction of demand would reduce supply, reducing the number of children forced to participate in production.

 

If I follow the underlying principle:

If I kill off everyone other than me, I reduce the number of people other than me, doing immoral things.

 

This would imply that my doing of immoral things is not taken into my consideration.

 

To reduce the number of adults immorally producing child pornography by increasing the number of adults immorally locking in cages people who have done nothing immoral (by looking at already-produced child pornography), is to show no concern for the morality of the action done to stem other immorality. It is, in short, hypocritical.

 

Hypocrisy is not (to my knowledge) illegal in any jurisdiction, and is not immoral per se, but you won't get my signature to a contract/treaty where we agree to act morally towards each other - but with a hypocritical standard for morality. Send emails to people comfortable with hypocrisy, for signatories to that.

 

[dsayers]

Paying for and possessing the images both incentivises their creation

 

Reduction of demand would reduce supply

This is not the case in terms of child rape. The general consensus as I understand it is that sex offenders are motivated by control, not sex. I would imagine that the amount of it that is engaged in to supply the demand is comparable to the degree that murder is committed for the profit of a 3rd party.

 

I suggest that paying for such images falls into the same moral category as hiring a hitman.

I don't think this proposal lands in the way you intended for two reasons. The first being that indeed, the hiring of a hitman is not immoral. Also in the fact that the hiring of a hitman takes place before the anticipated murder, whereas possession of the depictions of child rape occurs after.

[NotDarkYet]

Does watching videos of assaults/robbery on youtube (with advertising) incentive their creation?

[Kevin Beal]

Does watching videos of assaults/robbery on youtube (with advertising) incentive their creation?

Probably not.

 

But "pornography" is done specifically for the consumption of other people. That is a measure of success is having other people watch it and/or pay for it. So, it's not an accurate analogy.

[NotDarkYet]

Probably not.

 

But "pornography" is done specifically for the consumption of other people. That is a measure of success is having other people watch it and/or pay for it. So, it's not an accurate analogy.

 

Take the scenario of a "knockout game" video.  Clearly the video camera holder is either:

 

1.  Filming a crime with intent to have other people watch it later.  or

2.  Filming a crime with the intent to have other people watch it later, and pay for it

 

The person filming it is obviously complicit in the crime and should be prosecuted as accessory to the crime.

 

But should a person watching it be considered a criminal?

 

I don't LIKE the conclusion (ie, you can watch any horrible thing and not be a criminal).  But I can't square the circle.  How can a watcher of a crime be complicit in the crime? 

[Kevin Beal]

If there were a 9-11 scale sexual abuse of a child, then I would consider those different circumstances than whatever typical CP is. People watching that would be something akin to watching beheadings by ISIS, and be treated differently, I think.

 

I think some negative incentive is in order, but I don't think it should be an arrest. I don't know what it should be, and maybe watching it turns out not to contribute to the production of more CP, in which case, no negative incentive aside from their own personal shame would be advantageous.

 

I'm just saying that, if it does cause more abuse to occur (it may only cause the recording of that abuse), then they are not completely innocent and have something coming to them.

 

If the knockout game's victim was a child, then I'd see it as far more severe than if happened to an adult. I'd want to cause anyone perpetuating that some degree of grief. Again, I don't know what should happen to them.

[labmath2]

Probably not.

 

But "pornography" is done specifically for the consumption of other people. That is a measure of success is having other people watch it and/or pay for it. So, it's not an accurate analogy.

A website posting real rape videos of adults would be comparable. Would a visitor of such site be immoral for doing so?

[dsayers]

But "pornography" is done specifically for the consumption of other people.

Did you mean to specify COMMERCIAL porn? I made a number of pornos not long ago and not one of them was intended for 3rd party consumption.

[Kevin Beal]

Did you mean to specify COMMERCIAL porn? I made a number of pornos not long ago and not one of them was intended for 3rd party consumption.

Nope. I mean the kind that is distributed for the consumption of other people, as was clearly implied by the statement you quoted. Whether or not we call it "porn" is of zero concern to me.

 

Call it whatever you like, Mr Alpha Male.

[dsayers]

Nope. I mean the kind that is distributed for the consumption of other people, as was clearly implied by the statement you quoted.

The statement I quoted was explicit in that it was all inclusive. As opposed to your use of the phrase "the kind" here, indicating that there ARE in fact different kinds. Meaning that we cannot accurately make blanket statements as to what consumption patterns all porn is made for. Which was the correction I was offering.

 

Trying to make it personal will not alter the fact that not all porn is made for 3rd party consumption.

[Kevin Beal]

Trying to make it personal will not alter the fact that not all porn is made for 3rd party consumption.

You got me! You are right in assuming that it's personal for me. I don't like you.