This is unbelievably horrifying

[Sigz]

Yeah, I was molested too buddy. No, not a single person recorded it. However, allowing people to gain pleasure from the extreme pain of children should not be an act condoned by this country, or any person who can wake up and look at themselves in the mirror. Anyone who enjoys watching the torture of children is not just a person who "enjoys what he enjoys". They are someone with inability to function properly in our society, which is exactly why we have laws.

You're still advocating the prosecution of someone based on an uncontrollable thought. Regardless of how fucked up you or I may think it is, until that person has harmed or tried to harm another there no basis is to arrest them on.

[El Barto]

It is as simple as this, the enjoyment of watching the suffering of others is not an act that should be enjoyed. If someone has to go through what I had to go through just for some sick freak to have sexual pleasure, it just, it isn't right.

I'm inclined to agree, but I don't think that it's our place to deem such an act prosecutable.  Part of living in a free society is that you or somebody else are both allowed to be weird fucks.  You can't go around throwing people in jail because you don't like they way they think.

[Quadrochosis]

It is as simple as this, the enjoyment of watching the suffering of others is not an act that should be enjoyed, it just, it isn't right.

On what basis?

[7StringedBeast]

It is as simple as this, the enjoyment of watching the suffering of others is not an act that should be enjoyed, it just, it isn't right.

On what basis?

How about the basis of being a decent caring human being?  This thread is actually disgusting me right now so I think I'm outta here.  I've been rational and put down strong valid points for my arguments.  But at this point I am just kind of in disbelief at what is going on here.  So I'm done with this debate.

[Adami]

I'm all for being a decent caring human being, but we shouldn't be legally obligated to be.

[Genowyn]

It is as simple as this, the enjoyment of watching the suffering of others is not an act that should be enjoyed. If someone has to go through what I had to go through just for some sick freak to have sexual pleasure, it just, it isn't right.

But someone is going to have to go through what you did to get their pleasure whether or not they record it. As has been previously mentioned, noone has ever been poking around the internet and said "Huh, it looks like a lot of people here really want to see some child porn. I should rape my daughter and film it for them." What happens is more along the lines of "I want to rape my daughter, so I should film and distribute it so other people can see it."

In case 2 (that is, reality) the daughter is getting raped either way, sadly. The people who download it and get off to it are not facilitating the crime in any way. In fact, the only thing they are really generating a market for is evidence. Are they still screwed up people? Of course. But their 'crime' has neither directly or indirectly caused harm to another person. And I suppose this is where the debate comes down to the definition of what a crime is/should be.

[Quadrochosis]

I'm all for being a decent caring human being, but we shouldn't be legally obligated to be.

This is my view as well.

[chknptpie]

On a hypothetical note (as in I have no idea if this type of statistic even exists)...

If there was some sort of high statistical link between viewing child molestation leading to being a participant in child molestation, would this change opinions? Not saying the change would be drastic, just wondering.

[El Barto]

On a hypothetical note (as in I have no idea if this type of statistic even exists)...

If there was some sort of high statistical link between viewing child molestation leading to being a participant in child molestation, would this change opinions? Not saying the change would be drastic, just wondering.

Statistical links don't really impress me too much, but if there were an unquestionable link between the two, yes I'd have a much bigger problem with it.  Also keep in mind that there's a distinct possibility that availability of,  er, reading material might deter people form committing the actual act, which would offset.  That's one of the tricky bits here.

How about the basis of being a decent caring human being?  This thread is actually disgusting me right now so I think I'm outta here.  I've been rational and put down strong valid points for my arguments.  But at this point I am just kind of in disbelief at what is going on here.  So I'm done with this debate.

For my part, I'm enjoying the discussion from the standpoint of a logical debate.  Nobody here is supporting the notion of child abuse or saying that there's anything good about child pornography.  I for one am actually quite opposed to it.  You seem to be misconstruing our argument that something shouldn't be criminalized as actual support for it.  We're merely discussing when and why something becomes a criminal or harmful act.  Don't let it trouble you.

[ClairvoyantCat]

On a hypothetical note (as in I have no idea if this type of statistic even exists)...

If there was some sort of high statistical link between viewing child molestation leading to being a participant in child molestation, would this change opinions? Not saying the change would be drastic, just wondering.

No, probably not.  First of all, I'd be skeptic as to the validity of a statistical study such as that one, mostly because I can't imagine a way to distinguish between molesters being actually lead to molesting by their viewing and the fact that most actual molesters would probably already be a part of the population viewing molestation.  And, even with some validity to it, I don't think it would change my opinion in the same way I don't blame violent television for murder.  Anything like that is a small contributing factor at most, imo, and at least completely wrongly blamed. 

[chknptpie]

I guess I see a difference in watching a violent tv show and watching something that was a real event created for the disturbing, intended purpose such as child molestation or something like a snuff film.

[73109]

The way I see it, how can the state tell you what you can and can't get off on?

The people committing the act need to be stopped. Those watching (completely separate as El Barto has stated) should not be put down with such a great extent.

The way I look at these things is...

Imagine a new law passed stating that you can't have sex or watch sexual videos containing the opposite sex over the age of 18. You'd be fucking pissed. You'd be more than pissed. Your life would be ruined. You wouldn't know what to do, and you'd hate your government. It is not the government's job to make sure we are moral individuals.

[chknptpie]

Well I personally don't really watch porn 

[MasterShakezula]

Imagine a new law passed stating that you can't have sex or watch sexual videos containing the opposite sex over the age of 18. You'd be fucking pissed. You'd be more than pissed. Your life would be ruined. You wouldn't know what to do, and you'd hate your government. It is not the government's job to make sure we are moral individuals.

Um, you know, you can always use your imagination...

[73109]

True, but how would you feel if you were put into that position?

It's more about the principle.

[rumborak]

Imagine a new law passed stating that you can't have sex or watch sexual videos containing the opposite sex over the age of 18. You'd be fucking pissed. You'd be more than pissed. Your life would be ruined. You wouldn't know what to do, and you'd hate your government. It is not the government's job to make sure we are moral individuals.

No offense, but the "the evil government!!!" argument is rather useless when it comes to trying to come up with a reasonable stance on a complex issue.
The question is the tradeoff of protection of innocent minors vs the curtailing of a leisure activity. Any useful discussion happens in that realm, not the Libertarian Paranoia realm.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

No offense, but the "the evil government!!!" argument is rather useless when it comes to trying to come up with a reasonable stance on a complex issue.

Why not?  If you believe the government tends to go beyond reason when it comes to restricting personal freedom, and you value personal freedom, wouldn't it then follow that any government policy should be looked through the lens of its potential to create new opportunities for the government to go too far?

[rumborak]

There is of course the necessity to keep an eye on the government if it starts grossly overstepping its authority or mandate. But, always viewing it from that angle oversimplifies the complexity of the issues at hand, and more often than not leads to policies that makes people's lives worse.

rumborak

[7thHanyou]

It seems to me a good number of people in this thread don't think privacy violation is an actual harm.  I do, and I think watching child pornography intentionally is participating in that violation actively.  Should it be a crime that warrants the death penalty?  Absolutely not.  But it is wrong, because it violates the rights of the victims who did not consent to be featured in those videos.

I would settle for at least making distribution of such videos illegal.  The severity of the crime, and the extent to which it harms and exposes the victims, should just make this common sense.

On the other hand, watching fake child pornography should not be a crime because no victim has been harmed or is being harmed.

[El Barto]

I actually alluded to that earlier in the thread, specifically relating to Erin Andrews.  I can certainly understand why she doesn't want video of her prancing around naked all over the internet, and I'd give the same deference to victims of abuse.  That said,  does anybody really think that being in possession of the Erin Andrews videos should be a felony?  Of course not. 

[7thHanyou]

I actually alluded to that earlier in the thread, specifically relating to Erin Andrews.  I can certainly understand why she doesn't want video of her prancing around naked all over the internet, and I'd give the same deference to victims of abuse.  That said,  does anybody really think that being in possession of the Erin Andrews videos should be a felony?  Of course not.  

If being in possession of it shouldn't be, intentionally distributing it should be.  I stand by that.  There is also something to be said for the severity of the violation here--a video of Erin Andrews prancing around naked is arguably not as much of a violation as a video of a woman or child (or man, though we don't hear about this as much) being raped, for the same reason that passively videotaping a person walking down the street isn't a violation at all.

There may be a certain degree of subjectivity, a certain need for context, but I don't think it's that hard to explain why distribution of child pornography should be illegal based on the premise of a victim's right to their own bodily sovereignty.

That said, I think arguments about "killing the market" and whatnot are absurd.  Anything can stimulate the market for anything else--if you're going to prosecute a crime, it has to be based on some harm.  I suppose we differ in our definitions of harm, or if we believe a videotape can be actual harm.

[slycordinator]

Looking back through this, with at least one person saying "16 is a good age of consent but 16-year-old girls shouldn't be having sex with 25-year-old guys" I'm honestly curious what people with this idea think age-of-consent is supposed to mean? Is the "they shouldn't go with older guys" meaning morally, legally, or both?

Although I know some states have a different age 16 only applying as "age-of-consent" if the other party is within 2 years of their age (and otherwise it's 18) although I think saying "at 21, you can fuck an 18 year-old but not a 17-year-old" is a strange distinction...

[Perpetual Change]

EDIT: Holy crap, my post is a grammatical mess. Will update later. Gotta stop posting before my coffee

[El Barto]

I actually alluded to that earlier in the thread, specifically relating to Erin Andrews.  I can certainly understand why she doesn't want video of her prancing around naked all over the internet, and I'd give the same deference to victims of abuse.  That said,  does anybody really think that being in possession of the Erin Andrews videos should be a felony?  Of course not.  

If being in possession of it shouldn't be, intentionally distributing it should be.  I stand by that.  There is also something to be said for the severity of the violation here--a video of Erin Andrews prancing around naked is arguably not as much of a violation as a video of a woman or child (or man, though we don't hear about this as much) being raped, for the same reason that passively videotaping a person walking down the street isn't a violation at all.

There may be a certain degree of subjectivity, a certain need for context, but I don't think it's that hard to explain why distribution of child pornography should be illegal based on the premise of a victim's right to their own bodily sovereignty.

Maybe it is to Erin Andrews.  Not everybody responds to being raped by blowing there brains out after 7 years of trauma-fueled addiction and misery.  Erin Andrews was pretty damned distraught over 2 billion people seeing her big, fake jugs.  That's irrelevant here though,  and I pretty much agree with you anyway.  Distributing illegally obtained pictures of someone against there will isn't cool, regardless of their age.