Life in prison for making porn?

[7StringedBeast]

My point is not directed at people who draw some picture, and then get off on it in their own homes.  It is when it starts getting distributed that it becomes a problem.  Especially if that distribution is legal.  Like I said how many times, it promotes child porn, and having sex with a child.  The DISTRIBUTION should most certainly be illegal.  Stop with the thought crime bullcrap.  It has nothing to do with thought crime.  Thought crime is made up!

[Nigerius Rex]

So you're talking about people who draw things and then post it online or otherwise share it with other consenting adults?

I still don't see how exactly that is any different from persecuting thought crime.

If I draw a girl taking it hard and fast but don't describe her age and she looks 13-17, then post it online for other drawing enthusiasts to get their rocks off to after agreeing to the terms and conditions of my website which requires you to be 18 years of age and willing to look at my material, am I still breaking the law or encouraging the rape of children?

Its just a huge grey area. You cannot be consistent and although I don't necessarily disagree with you, you cant outlaw or discourage the behavior.

[ehra]

My point is not directed at people who draw some picture, and then get off on it in their own homes.  It is when it starts getting distributed that it becomes a problem.  Especially if that distribution is legal.  Like I said how many times, it promotes child porn, and having sex with a child.  The DISTRIBUTION should most certainly be illegal.  Stop with the thought crime bullcrap.  It has nothing to do with thought crime.  Thought crime is made up!

I'm honestly trying to see where you're coming from, but I don't get how drawing it and getting off to it would be fine while showing it to other people should be illegal.

[XJDenton]

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.

Wasn't quite my point. By obtaining/purchasing this stuff you are demonstrating demand for material that requires illegal activity to produce, and likely financing it, and thus supporting its production.

[7StringedBeast]

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.

Wasn't quite my point. By obtaining/purchasing this stuff you are demonstrating demand for material that requires illegal activity to produce, and likely financing it, and thus supporting its production.

Exactly.  Same goes with virtual.  The problem is, these pedohpiles and child molestors have a sharing community where they distribute it underground.  How do you think they get the stuff now?

Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.  Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.  The United States should not promote such behaviors.  It is not a right that should be granted to citizens.  It should not be protected speech.  That's what all of this falls under anyways.

[ehra]

Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.  Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.  The United States should not promote such behaviors.  It is not a right that should be granted to citizens.  It should not be protected speech.  That's what all of this falls under anyways.

Assuming you were replying to me, this doesn't even answer my question. Why is it ok to make it but not give or receive it from someone else?

XJ and El Barto were talking about the "real" stuff, as far as I can tell. It's not the same as what we were talking about.

[7StringedBeast]

Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.  Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.  The United States should not promote such behaviors.  It is not a right that should be granted to citizens.  It should not be protected speech.  That's what all of this falls under anyways.

Assuming you were replying to me, this doesn't even answer my question. Why is it ok to make it but not give or receive it from someone else?

XJ and El Barto were talking about the "real" stuff, as far as I can tell. It's not the same as what we were talking about.

dude, i have addressed your issue of why its bad to distribute it so many times.  Seriously.  It's there.  You can't stop one person from making it and keeping it to themselves.  That is ridiculous.  But you can stop the distribution of it.

[ehra]

Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.  Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.  The United States should not promote such behaviors.  It is not a right that should be granted to citizens.  It should not be protected speech.  That's what all of this falls under anyways.

Assuming you were replying to me, this doesn't even answer my question. Why is it ok to make it but not give or receive it from someone else?

XJ and El Barto were talking about the "real" stuff, as far as I can tell. It's not the same as what we were talking about.

dude, i have addressed your issue of why its bad to distribute it so many times.  Seriously.  It's there.  You can't stop one person from making it and keeping it to themselves.  That is ridiculous.  But you can stop the distribution of it.

The first thing you said on this page implies that you feel possession is fine but giving it to someone isn't. That doesn't make any sense.

[El Barto]

Man, this thread is all over the place.  I'll lay off "the real stuff" argument for now, though I stand by my position.

Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.  Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.  The United States should not promote such behaviors.  It is not a right that should be granted to citizens.  It should not be protected speech.  That's what all of this falls under anyways.

Encouragement means precisely jack-shit.  You keep denying that there's a thought crime involved, yet your entire argument seems to be that it "encourages" people to go out and collect the real thing.  No dice, amigo.

I can [but won't in deference to our fine modding staff] name half a dozen mainstream porn stars that are marketed specifically due to their youthful appeal.  Petite, small-chested, ponytails.  Should they be prohibited from doing their thing because it might turn people into active pedophiles?  It's a real slippery slope when you start trying to regulate things based on what people might do because of it. 

[ehra]

I was thinking of bringing up sexual roleplay where one person asks the other to pretend to be a kid and ask if that would also "encourage" sex with children, but I'm not too sure of if that's applicable here.

[7StringedBeast]

Man, this thread is all over the place.  I'll lay off "the real stuff" argument for now, though I stand by my position.

Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.  Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.  The United States should not promote such behaviors.  It is not a right that should be granted to citizens.  It should not be protected speech.  That's what all of this falls under anyways.

Encouragement means precisely jack-shit.  You keep denying that there's a thought crime involved, yet your entire argument seems to be that it "encourages" people to go out and collect the real thing.  No dice, amigo.

I can [but won't in deference to our fine modding staff] name half a dozen mainstream porn stars that are marketed specifically due to their youthful appeal.  Petite, small-chested, ponytails.  Should they be prohibited from doing their thing because it might turn people into active pedophiles?  It's a real slippery slope when you start trying to regulate things based on what people might do because of it. 

In direct response to this statement, there is a difference between two consenting adults doing something together on camera and child porn real or virtual.  No matter how you look at it, child porn is the raping of a child by law.  So even virtual child porn is depicting this act.  The freedom to distribute this promotes it and says its Ay OK for people to get into it.  

And if its ok to let virtual child porn get distributed freely, it will give the message that child porn is OK.  Do you see where the link is?  I don't understand how no one can follow that logic.  That the fake depiction glorifies the real thing.

[ehra]

No matter how you look at it, child porn is the raping of a child by law.  So even virtual child porn is depicting this act.  The freedom to distribute this promotes it and says its Ay OK for people to get into it.  

No it doesn't. We widely distribute virtual murder and no one gets the message that murder's ok to "get into."




We move in circles.

[7StringedBeast]

No matter how you look at it, child porn is the raping of a child by law.  So even virtual child porn is depicting this act.  The freedom to distribute this promotes it and says its Ay OK for people to get into it.  

No it doesn't. We widely distribute virtual murder and no one gets the message that murder's ok to "get into."




We move in circles.

I still hold that murder and child porn are completely different things dealing with completely different parts of the human psyche.

[ehra]

Thankfully the part of the brain that decides "I'm watching X, does that mean it's ok for me to do X?" is the same regardless of what X is. Being able to resist murdering someone and resisting your libido for children are likely two very different things, but I have a very hard time believing that seeing the right drawn picture will make them more likely to do it.

[7StringedBeast]

Thankfully the part of the brain that decides "I'm watching X, does that mean it's ok for me to do X?" is the same regardless of what X is. Being able to resist murdering someone and resisting your libido for children are likely two very different things, but I have a very hard time believing that seeing the right drawn picture will make them more likely to do it.

I disagree.  That is all.  I have made my point.  I can't really say anything more about it so.  We will agree to disagree I suppose.  Good debate ya'll.

[icysk8r]

@7stringedbeast:  You completely ignored my drug analogy, dismissing it as irrelevant, but not stating why it is so.  I see it as a perfect comparison.

[XJDenton]

Exactly.  Same goes with virtual.

No it doesn't. The production of virtual stuff requires a pencil and a piece of paper. Nothing more.

Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.

And not once have you demonstrated that to be the case.

Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.

Again, undemonstrated, and likely false.

The United States should not promote such behaviors.

It isn't. It's acknowledging the right to create works of fiction.

[icysk8r]

Exactly.  Same goes with virtual.

No it doesn't. The production of virtual stuff requires a pencil and a piece of paper. Nothing more.

Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.

And not once have you demonstrated that to be the case.

Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.

Again, undemonstrated, and likely false.

The United States should not promote such behaviors.

It isn't. It's acknowledging the right to create works of fiction.

You just made this debate your bitch.

[7StringedBeast]

Exactly.  Same goes with virtual.

No it doesn't. The production of virtual stuff requires a pencil and a piece of paper. Nothing more.

Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.

And not once have you demonstrated that to be the case.

Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.

Again, undemonstrated, and likely false.

The United States should not promote such behaviors.

It isn't. It's acknowledging the right to create works of fiction.

Find proof of the other side.  All you are doing is saying I'm wrong and my opinions aren't merited.  Well until you can back yourself up, either are yours.  You have done nothing to add to the debate.  You are just saying the opposite of what I'm saying and acting like you are proving a point.

[Adami]

You're making the positive claims, we're denying those claims. The burden of proof is on you.

[7StringedBeast]

You're making the positive claims, we're denying those claims. The burden of proof is on you.

That's not true at all.  It has to go both ways or neither side is right about anything. 

Basically what needs to be found is if virtual porn leads to the real thing or worse.  Does virtual child porn deter the real thing or get people into it?  That is what needs to be answered.  So far it has only been answered with opinions.  I was able to find some research relating real child porn to people who have actually harmed a child.  At least that is something in the ballpark of what we are talking about (given the belief that I believe the two are closely related (virtual and real child porn).  I think the issue has to do with the communities that share this stuff, which I do not think should be covered by freedom of speech.

That's how I feel about it.  If someone can show me some kind of hard study that says this is not the case, I will re-think the way I feel about this issue.  But currently I stand the way I do because I feel that virtual child porn and its distribution is harmful to the society more than it is good.  That's how I feel.

[ehra]

https://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0019.html

The government presented four arguments supporting the CPPA's constitutionality. First, it claimed that "virtual child" pornography causes indirect harm to actual children,17 contending that the production of virtual pornographic images can lead to child abuse.18 The Court did not accept the government's indirect harm argument noting instead that "virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children"19 and that "the causal link is contingent and indirect."20 The government relied on the Ferber case, but to no avail. The Free Speech Coalition court held that Ferber provides no support for the elimination of the distinction between actual and "virtual child" pornography.21 In fact, the court in Ferber recognized that some works might have societal value as an alternative means of expression.22

¶          Second, the government argued that "virtual child" pornography could have the tendency to persuade the audience to commit crimes.23 The Court struck down this argument, stating, "the prospect of crime, however, by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech."24 Even if virtual pornography encourages unlawful acts, "it is not a sufficient reason for banning it."25 "The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse" therefore, the government may not prohibit the speech expressed in "virtual child" pornography based on this unsupported argument.26 The government can punish the perpetrators of sexual abuse of children and punish people who provide explicit materials to children in order to seduce or convince the child to engage in sexual activities.27 Also, the government may not prohibit adults from material protected by free speech in an attempt to prevent children from obtaining it.28

¶          Third, the government argued that eliminating the market for actual child pornography was a sufficient reason for the Court to uphold the constitutionality of the law.29 The Court disagreed and noted that the market for actual child pornography might be eliminated if there was an alternative source.30 "If virtual images were identical to illegal child pornography, the illegal images would be driven from the market by the indistinguishable substitutes. Few pornographers would risk prosecution by abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice."31 The Court held that virtual pornography does not necessarily promote the market for actual child pornography and recognized the distinction between the two.32 The Court stated that the government's market theory was unpersuasive especially because there is no crime involved in "virtual child" pornography since no children are used in the production of the work.33

¶          Fourth, the government also argued that "virtual child" pornography could result in more difficult prosecutions of actual child molesters and pornographers since the virtual images look so realistic.34 The government wants to pass this difficulty on to the potential defendant through the statute's affirmative defense option.35 The defendant can rely on the affirmative defense if he can prove that the alleged child pornography was made using real persons who were adults and the material was not marketed as depicting children.36 The affirmative defense option raises other constitutional concerns because the defendant would have the burden of proving that the material was protected by the First Amendment. The Court noted that, "the Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected speech merely because it resembles the latter."37 All four of the government's arguments were unsuccessful and the Supreme Court held that the CPPA was unconstitutionally overbroad.38

[Nigerius Rex]

Lets pretend you are right. Even if it does make you to rape a child or at least seek a willing one out to have sex, you are still not breaking the law as thoughts, desires, etc are not causing harm to anyone. When you act, you should be prosecuted. Before that and there is no way to fairly control or prevent the behavior.

[XJDenton]

Basically what needs to be found is if virtual porn leads to the real thing or worse.  Does virtual child porn deter the real thing or get people into it?  That is what needs to be answered.  So far it has only been answered with opinions.  I was able to find some research relating real child porn to people who have actually harmed a child.  At least that is something in the ballpark of what we are talking about (given the belief that I believe the two are closely related (virtual and real child porn).  I think the issue has to do with the communities that share this stuff, which I do not think should be covered by freedom of speech.

That's how I feel about it.  If someone can show me some kind of hard study that says this is not the case, I will re-think the way I feel about this issue.  But currently I stand the way I do because I feel that virtual child porn and its distribution is harmful to the society more than it is good.  That's how I feel.

I didn't say you were wrong, I said you haven't proved what you are stating. All you have done in this thread is repeat your personal feelings on the issue repeatedly.

As for the statistics, I very much doubt any definitive statements could be drawn on any conclusion. Lets face it, if asked in a questionnaire, who the hell is going to answer honestly about whether they look at this stuff given the stigma attached to it?

[icysk8r]

One of the problems is the government and people in general do not want studies to be done about pedophilia.  We don't want to know about it.  We don't want to know how it works or how it affects a child.  The ONLY time a study is allowed is when it makes the pedophiles look monsters and the kids look like poor victimized empty souls.
I don't have a source (seriously, I need to save this shit) that says the government halts pedophile studies that seek to discover more about the attraction and how it's formed, but I'm sure it happens a lot more than you would think.

[7StringedBeast]

One of the problems is the government and people in general do not want studies to be done about pedophilia.  We don't want to know about it.  We don't want to know how it works or how it affects a child.  The ONLY time a study is allowed is when it makes the pedophiles look monsters and the kids look like poor victimized empty souls.
I don't have a source (seriously, I need to save this shit) that says the government halts pedophile studies that seek to discover more about the attraction and how it's formed, but I'm sure it happens a lot more than you would think.

I'm sorry but when does a pedophile not look like a monster?  Are you trying to justify pedophilia?  Are you actually defending it?  And yeah, the children ARE victimized by it.  Taking advantage of a child is so wrong.  It's right up there with rape and murder.  Shit, even murderers think people who sexually abuse children are terrible people.  What could you possibly be trying to get at here?

A lot of people develop a  lot of different things for a lot of different reasons.  Pedophilia can never be justified or qualified.  Seriously, Icy, what are you trying to get at?

[icysk8r]

One of the problems is the government and people in general do not want studies to be done about pedophilia.  We don't want to know about it.  We don't want to know how it works or how it affects a child.  The ONLY time a study is allowed is when it makes the pedophiles look monsters and the kids look like poor victimized empty souls.
I don't have a source (seriously, I need to save this shit) that says the government halts pedophile studies that seek to discover more about the attraction and how it's formed, but I'm sure it happens a lot more than you would think.

I'm sorry but when does a pedophile not look like a monster?  Are you trying to justify pedophilia?  Are you actually defending it?  And yeah, the children ARE victimized by it.  Taking advantage of a child is so wrong.  It's right up there with rape and murder.  Shit, even murderers think people who sexually abuse children are terrible people.  What could you possibly be trying to get at here?

A lot of people develop a  lot of different things for a lot of different reasons.  Pedophilia can never be justified or qualified.  Seriously, Icy, what are you trying to get at?

Read the Hughes for Governer!  thread if you would like my stance on pedophilia.  (paraphrase in the edit)

EDIT: I don't think pedophilia is wrong.  Being attracted to children is not something you can help.  I don't believe it is a sickness, but rather a sexuality in itself.  I don't support having sex with children.  But we aren't debating whether pedophiles are sick or a sexuality or monsters in this thread.  If you want to debate whether pedophiles are good or bad, do it in the hughes thread, because we should keep the current thread steady with the topic at hand.

[King Postwhore]

I realy didn't want to get into this again but Icy,

"I don't think pedophilia is wrong.  Being attracted to children is not something you can help.  I don't believe it is a sickness, but rather a sexuality in itself.  I don't support having sex with children.  But we aren't debating whether pedophiles are sick or a sexuality or monsters in this thread.  If you want to debate whether pedophiles are good or bad, do it in the hughes thread, because we should keep the current thread steady with the topic at hand".

You are wrong.  Wanting to have sex with a prepubescent is a sickness. It's not two consenting adults that mentally and physically can handle sex.  It is a sickness.

[El Barto]

You're making the positive claims, we're denying those claims. The burden of proof is on you.

That's not true at all.  It has to go both ways or neither side is right about anything. 

Basically what needs to be found is if virtual porn leads to the real thing or worse.  Does virtual child porn deter the real thing or get people into it?  That is what needs to be answered.  So far it has only been answered with opinions.  I was able to find some research relating real child porn to people who have actually harmed a child.  At least that is something in the ballpark of what we are talking about (given the belief that I believe the two are closely related (virtual and real child porn).  I think the issue has to do with the communities that share this stuff, which I do not think should be covered by freedom of speech.

That's how I feel about it.  If someone can show me some kind of hard study that says this is not the case, I will re-think the way I feel about this issue.  But currently I stand the way I do because I feel that virtual child porn and its distribution is harmful to the society more than it is good.  That's how I feel.

What you're going to find is that plenty of people who fuck children will say that they dig kiddie porn, both real and virtual.  That means precisely jack shit.  Aside from good ole correlation does not imply causation,  there's still the issue that you can't go around banning anything that might lead some people to improper behavior.  Those same people who got their kicks with kiddie porn probably also watched a boatload of Nickelodeon.  They probably preferred their mainstream porn to include those aforementioned young looking actresses.  I'll bet they also enjoyed hanging around at beaches and public pools from time to time.  I'm sure you're not going to suggest that those things should be banned as well.

[Adami]

If we're arguing prepubsecent, then I agree more with kingsypoo than Icy. I won't call it a sickness, but coming even from a strict psychological and/or evolutionary point of view, it's not something that's natural and probably has psychological factors influencing it more than most other sexual desires. However, this argument only works with prepubescent kids, which is why I see nothing wrong with girls 14 or so and up.

[King Postwhore]

kingsypoo

Hey!  Only my wife can can call me that.

[icysk8r]

I realy didn't want to get into this again but Icy,

"I don't think pedophilia is wrong.  Being attracted to children is not something you can help.  I don't believe it is a sickness, but rather a sexuality in itself.  I don't support having sex with children.  But we aren't debating whether pedophiles are sick or a sexuality or monsters in this thread.  If you want to debate whether pedophiles are good or bad, do it in the hughes thread, because we should keep the current thread steady with the topic at hand".

You are wrong.  Wanting to have sex with a prepubescent is a sickness. It's not two consenting adults that mentally and physically can handle sex.  It is a sickness.

Again with the thought crimes.  It is THOUGHTS.  THOUGHTS CAN'T CONSENT WHETHER THEY ARE ABOUT A 6 YEAR OLD OR A 60 YEAR OLD.  THEY ARE THOUGHTS. 

[7StringedBeast]

dude there is no such thing as a thought crime.  What the hell?  This is not minority report here (a fictional movie)  Thought crimes do not exist. 

It's the outward expression of pedophilia that is bad.  Not the inward thought of it.  No one can get arrested for liking little kids in that way, as long as they don't do anything outward about it.

[Nigerius Rex]

If there is an outward expression of pedophilia made by raping or having sex with a child, that person should be arrested. If there is no offending act, what is the issue?

[7StringedBeast]

If there is an outward expression of pedophilia made by raping or having sex with a child, that person should be arrested. If there is no offending act, what is the issue?

I suppose none.  You just gotta hope that person isn't a ticking time bomb until they finally can't take it anymore and do something about their inward desires and emotions.  How long can a person go without letting anything out?  I don't know.