This is unbelievably horrifying

[chknptpie]

Are you meaning that looking at naked pictures of someone under the age of 18 isn't an actual crime because there wasn't any physical crime?

I hate to make blanket statements like that, but yes.

Is there a certain age in your mind where it becomes somewhat odd for to gain pleasure from looking at a naked person? Or are you okay with any pleasure from looking at anyone, of any age, naked? At what point does it become something you consider immoral or illegal?

[MasterShakezula]

Well, different cartoon character here, but, I'd say that 16-18 is the absolute lowest age I would consider moral to look at sans clothes.  And honestly, 16-17 would be really pushing it it.  Because, really, how mentally mature is your average high school upperclassman/lady?

[ReaPsTA]

Drugs are a different issue because they primarily involve direct harm to yourself.  And even in regards to that, I'm all for Meth being as illegal as possible.

Wait a sec, (Okay, this is not about naked children, but anyways), so you'd rather have the violence surrounding the meth trade around than let some dumb-asses become addicted and die, even though they'd of become junkies regardless of its legality?  Please explain. 

Two issues with Meth:

- It makes the users more violent towards others.

- Meth labs straight up explode in a killing people around them way.

Maybe I'm mis-reading this.  For all I know Meth labs would go away if it were legal, but based on the consequences of Meth, I'd rather have the illegal drug trade.  By legalizing any drug the demand for it will increase.  In the case of meth, that's frightening.

[MasterShakezula]

One could argue that alcohol has similar effects.  There are people who become extremely violent when drunk and end up committing acts of violence.  And obviously, the drinking and driving thing.  So, really, I don't see how meth could be handled too much differently from alcohol.  

Also, ever heard of the Prohibition? 

[Adami]

Drugs are a different issue because they primarily involve direct harm to yourself.  And even in regards to that, I'm all for Meth being as illegal as possible.

Wait a sec, (Okay, this is not about naked children, but anyways), so you'd rather have the violence surrounding the meth trade around than let some dumb-asses become addicted and die, even though they'd of become junkies regardless of its legality?  Please explain. 

Two issues with Meth:

- It makes the users more violent towards others.

- Meth labs straight up explode in a killing people around them way.

Maybe I'm mis-reading this.  For all I know Meth labs would go away if it were legal, but based on the consequences of Meth, I'd rather have the illegal drug trade.  By legalizing any drug the demand for it will increase.  In the case of meth, that's frightening.

Meth labs exist because it's illegal. Sure, some might exist, but right now meth labs exist because using those chemicals is the only way the illegal drug makers can produce meth. Meth is very easy to safely produce, but it being illegal stops it from being safe and easy.

[ReaPsTA]

One could argue that alcohol has similar effects.  There are people who become extremely violent when drunk and end up committing acts of violence.  And obviously, the drinking and driving thing.  So, really, I don't see how meth could be handled too much differently from alcohol.  

Also, ever heard of the Prohibition? 

Dude, come on.  Of course I've heard of prohibition.  But you're trying to compare meth and alcohol, which I don't think is reasonable.

[El Barto]

Are you meaning that looking at naked pictures of someone under the age of 18 isn't an actual crime because there wasn't any physical crime?

I hate to make blanket statements like that, but yes.

Is there a certain age in your mind where it becomes somewhat odd for to gain pleasure from looking at a naked person? Or are you okay with any pleasure from looking at anyone, of any age, naked? At what point does it become something you consider immoral or illegal?

Well for one thing,  what I consider somewhat odd and criminal are two very different things.  Hell, I think it's odd that half the girls out of Hollywood are considered hot.

Secondly,  age is inconsequential as far as I'm concerned.  If a person gets his jollies off looking at old people, fat people, barn yard animals or children is of no consequence to me.  When a person harms another, then it becomes a concern.  A person who harms a child, whether he videotapes it or not, should be punished (severely).  A person who get's off on the naughty pictures shouldn't be punished anymore than the guy who watches security camera footage of a homicide on the evening news.  Like I said earlier,  actor vs. observer. 

[chknptpie]

Well for one thing,  what I consider somewhat odd and criminal are two very different things.  Hell, I think it's odd that half the girls out of Hollywood are considered hot.

Secondly,  age is inconsequential as far as I'm concerned.  If a person gets his jollies off looking at old people, fat people, barn yard animals or children is of no consequence to me.  When a person harms another, then it becomes a concern.  A person who harms a child, whether he videotapes it or not, should be punished (severely).  A person who get's off on the naughty pictures shouldn't be punished anymore than the guy who watches security camera footage of a homicide on the evening news.  Like I said earlier,  actor vs. observer.  

Okay so we've covered the aspect of the person viewing the child pornography... But now from a different perspective, what about the person responsible for taking the pictures/video of the naked person and using them for financial gain? I know you stated harm, so is the photography of a child harmful? Do you think children can consent to their picture to be taken and used like that?

[Adami]

I can't speak for El Barto, but we seem to have agreed on a good amount so far. Personally my main form of justice is harm reduction. At this point the age of a child should be considered. Taking pics of a 4 year old naked taking a bath probably isn't doing any psychological harm because they have no idea what's going on. However, there's no way they could even possibly consent to that and I believe the photographer should be punished in some way. Someone taking a picture of a 14 or 15 year old? Nah. Those kids can consent. Will they regret it later? Probably, but such is life. However the ones taking pics of actual harming a child? Yes, they should be punished.

[chknptpie]

And there in lies the issue. How do you allow the viewing of child pornography while banning its creation?

[MasterShakezula]

Um, make it so the only CP production allowed is minors over an age deemed mature enough taking pictures of themselves?  

I must say, that is a very difficult question to answer.  I tried my best. 

[Scheavo]

I think it's odd how much we idolize 18 as "being an adult." It's an arbitrary age, don't know what kind of history it has, but it's still completely arbitrary.

Someone taking a picture of a 14 or 15 year old? Nah. Those kids can consent. Will they regret it later? Probably, but such is life.

What's even bat shit crazier, is if a 15 year old girl takes a picture of herself and send it to her boyfriend, her boyfriend could be in trouble for possessing child pornography.

[Adami]

And there in lies the issue. How do you allow the viewing of child pornography while banning its creation?

The same way we ban murder but allow people to look at pictures of it.


Are there people out there jerking off to pictures of mutilated corpses? Yup. Should those people go to jail? Nah.

[El Barto]

What's even bat shit crazier, is if a 15 year old girl takes a picture of herself and send it to her boyfriend, her boyfriend could be in trouble for possessing child pornography.

Boyfriend???  They'll charge the girl with molesting herself and manufacturing KP!   

Well for one thing,  what I consider somewhat odd and criminal are two very different things.  Hell, I think it's odd that half the girls out of Hollywood are considered hot.

Secondly,  age is inconsequential as far as I'm concerned.  If a person gets his jollies off looking at old people, fat people, barn yard animals or children is of no consequence to me.  When a person harms another, then it becomes a concern.  A person who harms a child, whether he videotapes it or not, should be punished (severely).  A person who get's off on the naughty pictures shouldn't be punished anymore than the guy who watches security camera footage of a homicide on the evening news.  Like I said earlier,  actor vs. observer. 

Okay so we've covered the aspect of the person viewing the child pornography... But now from a different perspective, what about the person responsible for taking the pictures/video of the naked person and using them for financial gain? I know you stated harm, so is the photography of a child harmful? Do you think children can consent to their picture to be taken and used like that?

Now this is actually an interesting point.  Adami's probably right.  I'd consider it much like the Erin Andrews affair.  That guy shouldn't be allowed to profit from vid taken without her consent, and I suppose the same should be said for anybody else.

However:

And there in lies the issue. How do you allow the viewing of child pornography while banning its creation?

I see no reason why the two need be mutually exclusive.  Allowing the possession of something needn't automatically validate it's production.

[Scheavo]

What's even bat shit crazier, is if a 15 year old girl takes a picture of herself and send it to her boyfriend, her boyfriend could be in trouble for possessing child pornography.

Boyfriend???  They'll charge the girl with molesting herself and manufacturing KP!   

I thought this might be true, but it seemed too insane to spew without having a good memory of it...

[rumborak]

And there in lies the issue. How do you allow the viewing of child pornography while banning its creation?

The same way we ban murder but allow people to look at pictures of it.


Are there people out there jerking off to pictures of mutilated corpses? Yup. Should those people go to jail? Nah.

The problem with not punishing the mere viewing of CP is that it would incentivize the further production of it. And CP is, unlike murder, almost a "white collar" crime, in that it leaves little trace. When you murder someone you end up with a giant mess and it will very likely screw you up as the perpetrator too, meaning a request for photos of it is hardly going to spur any production. CP is much less scarring for the perpetrator and leaves no trace other than the photos, so a demand for them will much more likely egg someone on to do it.

BTW, way back when ogrejedi still posted here he was a proponent of legalizing CGI CP, kinda as a "methadone" of CP. I think the reality is that a certain percentage of society will have this drive, it would be interesting if somebody ever did a study whether CGI CP relieves the urge and lowers the crime rate, or whether it eggs on people to have the "real deal".

rumborak 

[Chino]

Well that article started my day on a depressing note, that's absolutely disgusting.

[Genowyn]

i

BTW, way back when ogrejedi still posted here he was a proponent of legalizing CGI CP, kinda as a "methadone" of CP. I think the reality is that a certain percentage of society will have this drive, it would be interesting if somebody ever did a study whether CGI CP relieves the urge and lowers the crime rate, or whether it eggs on people to have the "real deal".

rumborak 

I've spoken to people who like lolicon/shotacon but find actual CP disgusting and are not attracted to real children. I've also spoken to people who fantasize about doing the same things they see in images like that in real life. I see it as the same as rape porn...no one was actually raped, but someone pretended to be raped or an artist drew someone being raped...and someone who gets off to that may find the actual idea of rape appalling or might wish they had the balls to do it in real life. Does stuff like that ease some of those people's 'urge' to commit an actual crime? Probably. Does it encourage some people to commit such crimes now that they have a taste for it? Probably.

Either way, it comes down to thought crime and a debate that has been had 10000 times.

[rumborak]

I dunno dude, I couldn't say either way whether it would encourage them, or relieve the urge enough for them to stop trying the real thing. I think it can go both ways. I for one (and I doubt I'm the only one here) enjoy looking at certain porn that I however have no real desire to partake in. So, looking at something doesn't always spur the desire to also do it.
Then again, the stuff I look at isn't illegal, so I guess I know that I *could* have it if I really wanted it. That often quells the desire to actually do it. Especially the Dreamboard thing seemed to partially float on the thrill of its illegality.
I always assumed that CP appears magically in the ether through dubious channels, and then there's an anonymous consumer base. That Dreamboard actually encouraged people to create that stuff.

rumborak

[Genowyn]

I'm not sure of what kind of effect it would have either...the point is that we can't be prosecuting someone for doing something that might inspire them to commit a crime...that's thought crime.

I'll even say that watching actual child pornography should be illegal. Period. Watching it creates a market for it, which means that real children are suffering somewhere. A drawing of a naked little girl should be legal, as long as there wasn't a model 

[7StringedBeast]

I think this event brings the fact that this stuff is being made every day by people, for people all of the time, right in our faces.  I feel like the overall mentality of this board is, oh CP is ok if you just look at it.  And people don't fully conceptualize where it came from.  I feel like watching it and not reporting it to the authorities is an illegal act in its own right.  This behavior just let's this sort of thing persist.

I think every single person on that board should be held to the highest accountability for letting that go on.  At any time, any member of that board could have reported the atrocious abuses going on, but they did not.  It's like 600 people saw a murder happen and no one said a damn thing about it to anyone.  Disgusting.

I don't see how anyone can have any sense of leniency for the members of that community.

[chknptpie]

Okay so we've covered the aspect of the person viewing the child pornography... But now from a different perspective, what about the person responsible for taking the pictures/video of the naked person and using them for financial gain? I know you stated harm, so is the photography of a child harmful? Do you think children can consent to their picture to be taken and used like that?

Now this is actually an interesting point.  Adami's probably right.  I'd consider it much like the Erin Andrews affair.  That guy shouldn't be allowed to profit from vid taken without her consent, and I suppose the same should be said for anybody else.

However:

And there in lies the issue. How do you allow the viewing of child pornography while banning its creation?

I see no reason why the two need be mutually exclusive.  Allowing the possession of something needn't automatically validate it's production.

Well I'm glad you found some part of my questioning interesting lol I guess my thoughts behind it are like this: you can grow some marijuana, but you cant use it or sell it. How does that make sense at all? What would be the purpose of creating child pornography, if not for its intended use - profit from pleasure. Or if you limit the creation, it only creates a black market for those things that are not allowed, like we have currently. Really I see no way to allow for the viewing while banning or limiting its creation.

[El Barto]

I think this event brings the fact that this stuff is being made every day by people, for people all of the time, right in our faces.  I feel like the overall mentality of this board is, oh CP is ok if you just look at it.  And people don't fully conceptualize where it came from.  I feel like watching it and not reporting it to the authorities is an illegal act in its own right.  This behavior just let's this sort of thing persist.

I think every single person on that board should be held to the highest accountability for letting that go on.  At any time, any member of that board could have reported the atrocious abuses going on, but they did not.  It's like 600 people saw a murder happen and no one said a damn thing about it to anyone.  Disgusting.

I don't see how anyone can have any sense of leniency for the members of that community.

That, sir, is an interesting argument which I hadn't considered.  I do see a couple of problems with it, though.  For one thing,  obviously it was reported.   In cases like this, they're going to observe and participate for quite some time to gather evidence and round up  more people to bust.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if one of the original members of their little group was the first cop to infiltrate.  Quite frankly,  I suspect that a very large percentage of people involved in the KP underworld are LEA.  I've always thought it amusing that the number of fake, horny 14 year old girls in chat rooms greatly outnumbers the real ones.  

The other problem is of course Kitty Genovese, or any other example of good people ignoring a bad thing.  There are plenty of reasons why it happens, and rarely to we feel the need to prosecute people for it.  Now, I'm obviously not calling these guys good people (except for the sarcasm in my first post).  I'm merely pointing out that their inaction doesn't necessarily make them as vile as the actors.  

[El Barto]

Well I'm glad you found some part of my questioning interesting lol I guess my thoughts behind it are like this: you can grow some marijuana, but you cant use it or sell it. How does that make sense at all? What would be the purpose of creating child pornography, if not for its intended use - profit from pleasure. Or if you limit the creation, it only creates a black market for those things that are not allowed, like we have currently. Really I see no way to allow for the viewing while banning or limiting its creation.

There's already an illicit market, and it's not related to profit.  The people who create it are doing it because they get off on it.  Regardless of it's legal state, that won't change.  The question here is whether or not you go after the people who actually commit these acts, or the people who download it after the fact.  Part of my concern is that the latter is much easier than the prior, but nowhere near as harmful.  Rounding up a "massive underground kiddy porn ring" gets you on the national news.  Busting Mr. Peterson down the block for feeling up little Jenny barely gets you in the newspaper. 

[RuRoRul]

Not much to add to the debate going on but just to one of the original points, I highly doubt that this article is "exaggerating" it. If anything, I feel like stuff related to child porn or abuse goes too much the other way. "They were obviously and intentionally in pain or distress". Do you think that begins to capture what this stuff is really like? I don't really think that reading that lets us understand at all, and is the just the opposite of exaggerating how bad it is. Obviously we can never really know since it is literally illegal to show anyone the type of stuff they are dealing with, and I don't think people would really want to show or to be shown it, even despite morbid curiousity.

[7StringedBeast]

Not much to add to the debate going on but just to one of the original points, I highly doubt that this article is "exaggerating" it. If anything, I feel like stuff related to child porn or abuse goes too much the other way. "They were obviously and intentionally in pain or distress". Do you think that begins to capture what this stuff is really like? I don't really think that reading that lets us understand at all, and is the just the opposite of exaggerating how bad it is. Obviously we can never really know since it is literally illegal to show anyone the type of stuff they are dealing with, and I don't think people would really want to show or to be shown it, even despite morbid curiousity.

I agree completely here.  I can't even imagine how horrifying a video of a child being harmed like this would be.  The line "They were obviously and intentionally in pain or distress" paints a very ugly picture and they hardly go into detail.  I mean jesus no matter what, it boils down into child rape.

[chknptpie]

Well I'm glad you found some part of my questioning interesting lol I guess my thoughts behind it are like this: you can grow some marijuana, but you cant use it or sell it. How does that make sense at all? What would be the purpose of creating child pornography, if not for its intended use - profit from pleasure. Or if you limit the creation, it only creates a black market for those things that are not allowed, like we have currently. Really I see no way to allow for the viewing while banning or limiting its creation.

There's already an illicit market, and it's not related to profit.  The people who create it are doing it because they get off on it.  Regardless of it's legal state, that won't change.  The question here is whether or not you go after the people who actually commit these acts, or the people who download it after the fact.  Part of my concern is that the latter is much easier than the prior, but nowhere near as harmful.  Rounding up a "massive underground kiddy porn ring" gets you on the national news.  Busting Mr. Peterson down the block for feeling up little Jenny barely gets you in the newspaper. 

I guess I just view it is if you can catch the users of the material, you can trace back to who actually created the material. There in catching the person taking pictures of children, that I think you and I both agree shouldn't be legal because they aren't really able to consent as an adult would.

[El Barto]

Well I'm glad you found some part of my questioning interesting lol I guess my thoughts behind it are like this: you can grow some marijuana, but you cant use it or sell it. How does that make sense at all? What would be the purpose of creating child pornography, if not for its intended use - profit from pleasure. Or if you limit the creation, it only creates a black market for those things that are not allowed, like we have currently. Really I see no way to allow for the viewing while banning or limiting its creation.

There's already an illicit market, and it's not related to profit.  The people who create it are doing it because they get off on it.  Regardless of it's legal state, that won't change.  The question here is whether or not you go after the people who actually commit these acts, or the people who download it after the fact.  Part of my concern is that the latter is much easier than the prior, but nowhere near as harmful.  Rounding up a "massive underground kiddy porn ring" gets you on the national news.  Busting Mr. Peterson down the block for feeling up little Jenny barely gets you in the newspaper. 

I guess I just view it is if you can catch the users of the material, you can trace back to who actually created the material. There in catching the person taking pictures of children, that I think you and I both agree shouldn't be legal because they aren't really able to consent as an adult would.

I don't think there's any correlation between the downloaders and the actors.  Like I said, the cops are already downloading every single bit of CP they can to find such occurrences of abuse, and more power to them.  Finding unrelated people who download it is a waste of resources, IMO.

[7StringedBeast]

Well they go after people who download it because those people are often involved in trading with others.  Since it's illegal there are circles of people who pass this stuff around.  Unfortunately someone I know's uncle was caught doing this sort of thing.  They found him through other people.  So going after the downloaders does eventually lead to someone who makes it. 

[rumborak]

I feel like the overall mentality of this board is, oh CP is ok if you just look at it. 

I have no idea how you get this notion. That, I'm pretty sure, is a minority view here.

rumborak

[7StringedBeast]

I feel like the overall mentality of this board is, oh CP is ok if you just look at it. 

I have no idea how you get this notion. That, I'm pretty sure, is a minority view here.

rumborak

I just feel like people tend to defend the people who just look at it like its not a big deal.  I'm not saying people like to do it personally, they just don't see other people doing it as that big of an offense.  I just feel like there is a lot of leniency.

[rumborak]

I think it's more of an attempt to keep the discussion about the topic rational, and especially not let raw emotions dictate what is an actually reasonable stance on it. Public media is so intent on creating gut feelings on the issue, it's hard for many people to rationally look at the issue.

rumborak

[7StringedBeast]

I think the guy reactions are usually pretty rational when it comes to this sort of thing.

[El Barto]

I think the guy reactions are usually pretty rational when it comes to this sort of thing.

But you yourself had misinterpreted what happened based on those gut reactions caused by their reporting.

[7StringedBeast]

I think the guy reactions are usually pretty rational when it comes to this sort of thing.

But you yourself had misinterpreted what happened based on those gut reactions caused by their reporting.

No I just misread the article.