Life in prison for making porn?

[7StringedBeast]

I love all the arguments against drawn child porn, and I always have to ask those people, do you support prosecution of thoughtcrime?

It's not a thought.  You can see that right?  It's an expression that can be distributed to people.  Very specific people who want a specific thing.  Don't set the argument backwards with something that has already been addressed.

Irrelevant. They haven't done anything, and there's no direct evidence that they're going to do anything.

Yes they have.  They have created obscenity.  And if they distribute said obscenity and are caught, they are going to prison.

[Volk9]

So let's say some people want to see Tom Cruise getting shot in the stomach. I draw that drawing. Should I be prosecuted in the same way as someone who shot Tom Cruise in the stomach and distributed that image on the internet?

But you don't see movies glorifying the butchering of children. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSKr27dyt9E

[Genowyn]

It's not important. Punish them when they actually hurt someone. Until then they haven't done anything wrong.

[Sigz]

Jesus fuck this is the most circular debate this forum's had in a while.

Obscenity laws are wrong -> no they're not, they prosecute crimes -> drawn child porn shouldn't be a crime -> yes it should, it's obscenity -> return to beginning


I'm done.

[7StringedBeast]

It's not important. Punish them when they actually hurt someone. Until then they haven't done anything wrong.

Are you not capable of seeing the connection?  IF they distribute those images they create.  It gets around.  Duplicated.  It goes into these rings of people who trade this shit around.  And a lot of those people are people who are willing to hurt children for kicks.  

Why do you think it is Ok to distribute images of child porn?  Why can you justify that people should be able to distribute those images to each other?  Everyone keeps knocking my argument, but no one can say why you think its actually good for people.  Cause it's not.  The people who want to look at that stuff are turned on by CHILDREN.  

God forbid something like this happens to someone you know.  It is a real problem that affects real people.  It ain't some stupid internet game.  Real people's lives are destroyed.  And distribution/promotion/glorification of child porn is all part of the problem.

[Genowyn]

I never said it's ok to distribute or create images of actual child porn.

Anyways, let's play a little game. This game is called "Should Genowyn go to prison for possession of child porn"

My favorite thing ever is a game called Fate/Stay Night. It has impacted me as a human being more than any other piece of media ever has. It changed my outlook on life and has made me a happier person today. It has a great balance of badass, funny, and emotional. It also has porn in it. Right at the beginning of the game it claims "All characters in this game are at least 18 years of age"...for obvious reasons. It's obviously untrue though, considering moooost of the case is in high school. The game is split into three routes, each focusing around a certain girl, each one having its own plot and villain. For example, my sig is from the climax of the "Unlimited Blade Works" route, where the girl it focuses on is Rin, who is the same age as the main character (17ish). Over the course of the game, they have sex. Similarly, in the games final route, "Heaven's Feel", the girl is Sakura, who is about a year younger than the main character (so about 16). The only one of the girls who isn't underage is Saber, and she's probably about 20~25, though she still looks like a teenage girl, and she certainly looks less developed than Sakura.

By the law, this should be considered child pornography and my possession of it should be prosecuted as such. Is that fair or reasonable in any way?

[7StringedBeast]

I never said it's ok to distribute or create images of actual child porn.

Anyways, let's play a little game. This game is called "Should Genowyn go to prison for possession of child porn"

My favorite thing ever is a game called Fate/Stay Night. It has impacted me as a human being more than any other piece of media ever has. It changed my outlook on life and has made me a happier person today. It has a great balance of badass, funny, and emotional. It also has porn in it. Right at the beginning of the game it claims "All characters in this game are at least 18 years of age"...for obvious reasons. It's obviously untrue though, considering moooost of the case is in high school. The game is split into three routes, each focusing around a certain girl, each one having its own plot and villain. For example, my sig is from the climax of the "Unlimited Blade Works" route, where the girl it focuses on is Rin, who is the same age as the main character (17ish). Over the course of the game, they have sex. Similarly, in the games final route, "Heaven's Feel", the girl is Sakura, who is about a year younger than the main character (so about 16). The only one of the girls who isn't underage is Saber, and she's probably about 20~25, though she still looks like a teenage girl, and she certainly looks less developed than Sakura.

By the law, this should be considered child pornography and my possession of it should be prosecuted as such. Is that fair or reasonable in any way?

This is an interesting example.   Was this game created and distributed in the United States?  I'm going to guess no.  But I want you to clarify.  The fact that there is a disclaimer that says all ages are over 18 changes things as well.  How do you know that the girls are not the same age?  You say it looks like they are this and that, but does the game actually say they are 16 or 17?  My guess is no given the disclaimer.  So right there we might be able to rule out that it is child porn legally.

Now, it might not be considered obscenity at all.  Given that the sex depicted happens within a story and confines of a game, it can be seen as a piece of artwork.  Therefore it can have societal good. 

So it seems like your game is safe under the law.  Unless it was made in Japan and actually depicts child porn.  It also depends on how graphic the sex is.  Because underage kids are depicted having sex in movies all the time.  It's just fake and the actors are over 18.

So there are some variable that would need to be cleared up to figure out if this is indeed child porn or not.  It's kinda on the fringe.  I've never seen the game so I don't know.

[Genowyn]

It's made in Japan. The characters are all in high school and thus unless they all happened to fail for 2~3 years in a row the chances of them being over 18 is quite low (though in the main character's case I could see it happen, he's not bright). And the sex is quite graphic. Like I said, the sex scenes are porn. Hilariously badly written porn (seriously, nearly every scene he says something really disturbing like "It's so tight I feel like my dick might be ripped off if I pull out!"), but nonetheless, definitely porn. I suppose it could be saved by the whole artistic merit thing, especially considering the porn takes up about an hour of the 100+ hour game, but still. All it would take would be a judge who doesn't like anime for it to not have artistic merit.

[7StringedBeast]

It's made in Japan. The characters are all in high school and thus unless they all happened to fail for 2~3 years in a row the chances of them being over 18 is quite low (though in the main character's case I could see it happen, he's not bright). And the sex is quite graphic. Like I said, the sex scenes are porn. Hilariously badly written porn (seriously, nearly every scene he says something really disturbing like "It's so tight I feel like my dick might be ripped off if I pull out!"), but nonetheless, definitely porn. I suppose it could be saved by the whole artistic merit thing, especially considering the porn takes up about an hour of the 100+ hour game, but still. All it would take would be a judge who doesn't like anime for it to not have artistic merit.

Well since it was made in Japan, yeah you are already probably breaking a law by bringing it across the border.  But only if the kids are actually depicted as being younger than 18.  If the game doesn't say it.  You are fine. 

The thing is with Japanese culture is that they are obsessed with rape porn, and underage porn.  So it's pretty touchy stuff over here in the USA. 

I think there is a big difference between what you described here to me, and some guy drawing pictures of himself railing a 10 year old and distributing to his pedophile friends.  The law might not see the two as different.  But I personally can see the difference.  But again, the characters are over 18 as the game states.  So who knows what the Japanese were doing. 

[Nigerius Rex]

I think there is a big difference between what you described here to me, and some guy drawing pictures of himself railing a 10 year old and distributing to his pedophile friends.  The law might not see the two as different.  But I personally can see the difference.  But again, the characters are over 18 as the game states.  So who knows what the Japanese were doing.

You cant stop that in a way that doesn't infringe on other non offender's privacy. If you want to make distribution of physical and digital media made up of pictures and video of actual children being raped and violated, fine by me (which it currently is). But a drawing is completely unreal. Its imagining, creation, and transfer from person to person harms no one and is probably a creative and nonviolent way for people who may actually have urges to control them.

The only practical solution is to allow people to think and draw whatever the hell they desire and punish people who take those fantasies into the real world and cause harm to others. If you go any farther than that you end up inefficiently trying to coerce peoples thoughts into your own belief of how the world should be and that isn't fair to anyone but you.
 

[icysk8r]

So judging by your logic 7string, all people who smoke marijuana will eventually do cocaine.  I mean, they want to get high, don't they?  Surely cocaine gets you a better high than marijuana, so they must WANT to do cocaine and they WILL do it at some point.  Is this correct?  Because based on your logic, it should be...

[icysk8r]

I think there is a big difference between what you described here to me, and some guy drawing pictures of himself railing a 10 year old and distributing to his pedophile friends.  The law might not see the two as different.  But I personally can see the difference.  But again, the characters are over 18 as the game states.  So who knows what the Japanese were doing.

The only practical solution is to allow people to think and draw whatever the hell they desire and punish people who take those fantasies into the real world and cause harm to others. If you go any farther than that you end up inefficiently trying to coerce peoples thoughts into your own belief of how the world should be and that isn't fair to anyone but you.
 

Just about everyone but 7string's posts can be summed up into this beautiful paragraph.  Bravo.

[ehra]

And another thing is that people who go to see a movie with murder, are not going to see it just for the murder.

So should someone who looks up a snuff film be locked up?

Heading out for the night.

Legal porn is protected speech. So no.

So one of your primary arguments for why violent movies are ok is because people don't watch them just for the murder, then when I ask about a recording of an actual murder you turn around and go "well legal porn is legal, so I guess this should be ok." What? You're arguing that, because something's legal it's ok and if it's illegal then it's not? In a discussion about whether certain things SHOULD be legal or illegal in the first place? Excellent arguments. 

[7StringedBeast]

I think there is a big difference between what you described here to me, and some guy drawing pictures of himself railing a 10 year old and distributing to his pedophile friends.  The law might not see the two as different.  But I personally can see the difference.  But again, the characters are over 18 as the game states.  So who knows what the Japanese were doing.

You cant stop that in a way that doesn't infringe on other non offender's privacy. If you want to make distribution of physical and digital media made up of pictures and video of actual children being raped and violated, fine by me (which it currently is). But a drawing is completely unreal. Its imagining, creation, and transfer from person to person harms no one and is probably a creative and nonviolent way for people who may actually have urges to control them.

The only practical solution is to allow people to think and draw whatever the hell they desire and punish people who take those fantasies into the real world and cause harm to others. If you go any farther than that you end up inefficiently trying to coerce peoples thoughts into your own belief of how the world should be and that isn't fair to anyone but you.
 

And still EVERYONE here ignored the fact that it promotes and glorifies child pornography. Everyone here ignores the link between virtual child porn and the real thing. 

[7StringedBeast]

So judging by your logic 7string, all people who smoke marijuana will eventually do cocaine.  I mean, they want to get high, don't they?  Surely cocaine gets you a better high than marijuana, so they must WANT to do cocaine and they WILL do it at some point.  Is this correct?  Because based on your logic, it should be...

You are making the most inane completely unequivocal comparisons.  Why don't you stay on the topic at hand.  Stop with terrible unrelated "comparisons". 

[Orbert]

And still EVERYONE here ignored the fact that it promotes and glorifies child pornography. Everyone here ignores the link between virtual child porn and the real thing. 

Maybe because there isn't one.

To me, it's really very simple.  If someone is being harmed, there should probably be a law against it.  Murder, rape, robbery.  Those are the easy ones.  When you get to taking pictures of underage children, you start talking about "psychological damage".  Okay, fine, let's say we allow that into the conversation.  So possessing kiddie porn is illegal because somewhere in the process, a child was potentially damaged by having her picture taken while naked.

How does "virtual child porn" hurt anyone?  No children involved, everyone's a consenting adult.  You cannot legislate what goes on in someone's imagination.  No crime.

[ehra]

And still EVERYONE here ignored the fact that it promotes and glorifies child pornography. Everyone here ignores the link between virtual child porn and the real thing. 

Kind of like how you ignore that "simulated violence" glorifies violence using your same argument. The media has certainly jumped through hoops to draw parallels between kids that shoot up their school and them owning a violent video game, and there have been studies done that supposedly show that people who play violent video games are, on average, more "aggressive" than those that don't.

But, wait. Violent games and movies are ok because the streets aren't full of people going around just killing random people like what happens in violent video games like GTA. So does that mean tentacle porn featuring a kid is ok because we don't see many Octopuses walking around having sex with children? I doubt it.

And then we've got snuff films, which are only watched for the purpose of seeing a person getting murdered (for real). You said that these should be allowed because "porn is protected" (what? Watching a recording of someone ending the life of another person is ok because it's ok to watch two consenting adults have fake sex?), but yet that contradicts your "it glorifies X and we need to keep people from having X thoughts and thinking it's ok."

There's no consistency.

[Genowyn]

I honestly think he just misunderstood the definition of a snuff film, give him a break 

[7StringedBeast]

I honestly think he just misunderstood the definition of a snuff film, give him a break 

Yeah what is your definition of snuff film?

[7StringedBeast]

And still EVERYONE here ignored the fact that it promotes and glorifies child pornography. Everyone here ignores the link between virtual child porn and the real thing. 

Kind of like how you ignore that "simulated violence" glorifies violence using your same argument. The media has certainly jumped through hoops to draw parallels between kids that shoot up their school and them owning a violent video game, and there have been studies done that supposedly show that people who play violent video games are, on average, more "aggressive" than those that don't.

But, wait. Violent games and movies are ok because the streets aren't full of people going around just killing random people like what happens in violent video games like GTA. So does that mean tentacle porn featuring a kid is ok because we don't see many Octopuses walking around having sex with children? I doubt it.

And then we've got snuff films, which are only watched for the purpose of seeing a person getting murdered (for real). You said that these should be allowed because "porn is protected" (what? Watching a recording of someone ending the life of another person is ok because it's ok to watch two consenting adults have fake sex?), but yet that contradicts your "it glorifies X and we need to keep people from having X thoughts and thinking it's ok."

There's no consistency.

Yeah I definitely didn't know what was meant by snuff film.  No that is definitely not protected!  Not at all.  And violent video games aren't making kids more violent.

Murder and child porn are 2 completely different issues dealing with completely different psychological things.  Stop comparing them.  It does not support your argument.

[ehra]

Actually, the argument this whole time has been about obscenity laws hasn't it? There needs to be consistency in how these laws are applied. Either we're trying to do what we can to "prevent people from having certain thoughts" or from "encouraging" certain urges or we're not.

Does watching something happen or engaging in a simulated version of the act make people want to do that act more or does it not? Whether people actually do it is irrelevant to if it's encouraging the thought and act of it, according to your own arguments on drawn child porn.

[icysk8r]

So judging by your logic 7string, all people who smoke marijuana will eventually do cocaine.  I mean, they want to get high, don't they?  Surely cocaine gets you a better high than marijuana, so they must WANT to do cocaine and they WILL do it at some point.  Is this correct?  Because based on your logic, it should be...

You are making the most inane completely unequivocal comparisons.  Why don't you stay on the topic at hand.  Stop with terrible unrelated "comparisons". 

How is that unequivocal?  I see it as a perfect comparison.  Show me how it is not.

[El Barto]

Actually, the argument this whole time has been about obscenity laws hasn't it? There needs to be consistency in how these laws are applied. Either we're trying to do what we can to "prevent people from having certain thoughts" or from "encouraging" certain urges or we're not.

Does watching something happen or engaging in a simulated version of the act make people want to do that act more or does it not? Whether people actually do it is irrelevant to if it's encouraging the thought and act of it, according to your own arguments on drawn child porn.

Bingo.

As I've said so often, there should be no such thing as a thought crime.  IMO, any prohibition of any pornography is just that.  Who or what somebody wants to look at or think of while they rub one out is nobody's business but their own. 

[hefdaddy42]

And DTF hits another one out of the park!

[7StringedBeast]

Please stop ignoring my argument.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS.  This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn.  These are outward expressions that are not protected.  They are not thoughts.  Get that through to yourselves.

[ehra]

Please stop ignoring my argument.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS.  This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn.  These are outward expressions that are not protected.  They are not thoughts.  Get that through to yourselves.

Why are drawn images of child porn not allowed but simulated violence is? Without contradicting your own argument on why drawn child porn should be banned.

And how can you say this isn't about thoughts when you said:

It promotes the idea of having sex with a child.  I don't want to live in a society that accepts this.  It is morally wrong no matter how you look at it.

The way people think does matter, also.  Actions start in the mind.  The idea has to come from somewhere.  So the less ideas people get about child porn being OK, the better.

"This isn't about persecuting thoughts! This is about preventing people from coming into contact with things that might put certain dangerous thoughts into their head!"

[7StringedBeast]

Please stop ignoring my argument.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS.  This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn.  These are outward expressions that are not protected.  They are not thoughts.  Get that through to yourselves.

Why are drawn images of child porn not allowed but simulated violence is? Without contradicting your own argument on why drawn child porn should be banned.

And how can you say this isn't about thoughts when you said:

It promotes the idea of having sex with a child.  I don't want to live in a society that accepts this.  It is morally wrong no matter how you look at it.

The way people think does matter, also.  Actions start in the mind.  The idea has to come from somewhere.  So the less ideas people get about child porn being OK, the better.

"This isn't about persecuting thoughts! This is about preventing people from coming into contact with things that might put certain dangerous thoughts into their head!"

Let me rephrase, its not about arresting people over a thought. 

So you see no connection between virtual child porn, and the real thing at all.  In your little own world, the people who look at virtual child porn are not also going to be collecting the real thing?  You act like its completely innocent.  It does cause harm.  I showed evidence from research.  Where is your evidence and research showing it doesn't end up harming anyone?

[ehra]

Research has shown that kids that play more violent games are more aggressive. Why aren't you answering my question about violence?

Where is your evidence and research showing it doesn't end up harming anyone?

The thing about your "evidence" is that it doesn't say, as far as I can tell, if the offenders were in possession of images of actual children or if it was drawn. Images of real children being sexual abused should be banned for obvious reasons.

As for your "people who look at drawn stuff will then try to find the real thing" argument, you've really got absolutely no basis for that claim.

[El Barto]

Please stop ignoring my argument.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS.  This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn.  These are outward expressions that are not protected.  They are not thoughts.  Get that through to yourselves.

Bullshit.  You prosecute someone for simply possessing a picture, the possession of which caused no harm to anybody, then you're prosecuting a thought crime.  I think what you need to distinguish is the difference between the manufacture, which does cause harm, and the possession which is completely irrelevant. 

[XJDenton]

There is a connection. Just as there is a connection between axe murderers and axes and hit and run drivers and the 1993 Ford Taurus. A connection on the other hand is not adequate justification for banning something. There needs to be substantial evidence that it actively causes dangerous behaviour.

The evidence your link provided was that people who abused children also generally possessed child pornography. That is not surprising, and I don't think anyone is disputing. What statistics are needed however are ones which show how many people who at some point look at drawn images, or written depictions of such actions actually go on to performing the actual actions that have been at this point confined to thought or fiction. Like people who are exposed to virtual/fictional violence, I suspect that the conversion efficiency is low, and actually caused by deeper rooted psychological issues.

[eric42434224]

Please stop ignoring my argument.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS.  This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn.  These are outward expressions that are not protected.  They are not thoughts.  Get that through to yourselves.

Bullshit.  You prosecute someone for simply possessing a picture, the possession of which caused no harm to anybody, then you're prosecuting a thought crime.  I think what you need to distinguish is the difference between the manufacture, which does cause harm, and the possession which is completely irrelevant.  

possession is not completely irrelevant.

EDIT: unless you are specifically referring to a picture that is not illegal, like something drawn...then I agree.  But if the manufacture of the picture is illegal and does harm, like child porn, then the thoughts are irrelevant...you are in possession of a product that is illegal, and harmed someone.   

[El Barto]

Please stop ignoring my argument.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS.  This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn.  These are outward expressions that are not protected.  They are not thoughts.  Get that through to yourselves.

Bullshit.  You prosecute someone for simply possessing a picture, the possession of which caused no harm to anybody, then you're prosecuting a thought crime.  I think what you need to distinguish is the difference between the manufacture, which does cause harm, and the possession which is completely irrelevant.  

possession is not completely irrelevant.

EDIT: unless you are specifically referring to a picture that is not illegal, like something drawn...then I agree.  But if the manufacture of the picture is illegal and does harm, like child porn, then the thoughts are irrelevant...you are in possession of a product that is illegal, and harmed someone.   

I don't buy it.  The person who made the picture has [conceivably] harmed someone. The person he gives/sells/shows it to has not harmed anyone.  If he proceeds to sell it to 20 million people, there has still been no further harm. 

[eric42434224]

Please stop ignoring my argument.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS.  This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn.  These are outward expressions that are not protected.  They are not thoughts.  Get that through to yourselves.

Bullshit.  You prosecute someone for simply possessing a picture, the possession of which caused no harm to anybody, then you're prosecuting a thought crime.  I think what you need to distinguish is the difference between the manufacture, which does cause harm, and the possession which is completely irrelevant.  

possession is not completely irrelevant.

EDIT: unless you are specifically referring to a picture that is not illegal, like something drawn...then I agree.  But if the manufacture of the picture is illegal and does harm, like child porn, then the thoughts are irrelevant...you are in possession of a product that is illegal, and harmed someone.   

I don't buy it.  The person who made the picture has [conceivably] harmed someone. The person he gives/sells/shows it to has not harmed anyone.  If he proceeds to sell it to 20 million people, there has still been no further harm. 

Do you think it is OK to knowingly recieve, purchase, or be in possession of stolen property?

[XJDenton]

Please stop ignoring my argument.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS.  This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn.  These are outward expressions that are not protected.  They are not thoughts.  Get that through to yourselves.

Bullshit.  You prosecute someone for simply possessing a picture, the possession of which caused no harm to anybody, then you're prosecuting a thought crime.  I think what you need to distinguish is the difference between the manufacture, which does cause harm, and the possession which is completely irrelevant. 

possession is not completely irrelevant.

EDIT: unless you are specifically referring to a picture that is not illegal, like something drawn...then I agree.  But if the manufacture of the picture is illegal and does harm, like child porn, then the thoughts are irrelevant...you are in possession of a product that is illegal, and harmed someone.   

I don't buy it.  The person who made the picture has [conceivably] harmed someone. The person he gives/sells/shows it to has not harmed anyone.  If he proceeds to sell it to 20 million people, there has still been no further harm. 

You are knowingly contributing to a business that does harm people though. You cant exactly feign ignorance about how this stuff is produced.

[El Barto]

That presumes that the producer was acting out of a commercial interest and not just trying to get his jollies.  I suspect that the number of people who decide to start molesting kiddos for financial gain is pretty much nil compared to those who do it because that's what gets them off.