It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Legal Child Porn?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I have a question for everyone out there but Especially for my Libertarian friends.

Should Victimless child porn be allowed?

I am talking about drawings, art, books, computer generated images, etc? NOTHING THAT INVOLVES REAL CHILDREN.

As much as it disgusts me, and everyone here knows how I feel about pedophiles, I think the answer would have to be......

Yes.

Before I am flamed by one and all let me say if no child was involved than who was harmed? An argument could even be made that some pedophiles would be satisfied with the porn and leave it at that.

And for us Libertarians how could we say otherwise? Who is harmed by a drawing?

I am interested in hearing from everyone on this

Just remember I would be the first in line to strangle anyone who touched a child or harmed them in any way. This is just a philosophical discussion.




posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
No...but my views are biased here. I am the survivor of childhood sexual abuse which involved pictures and such.....anything what so ever to do with the depiction of children being used for sex...should not be legal. My not so humble opinion here.

EDIT: Nothing is going to make them leave children alone. It's a sickness and a compulsion that will unfortunately, find it's way to release no matter what!


[edit on 2/9/2005 by LadyV]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
No...but my views are biased here. I am the survivor of childhood sexual abuse


So was my wife and I would cheerfully shoot them myself.

I am in no way supporting it, just wondering how, mainly among us Libertarians, we can condemn it if no one was involved. Most of us are against victimless crimes, drugs, prostitution, gambling,etc. After hearing about a bookstore being shut down over images, I was just trying to figure where this fit in.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
No, because it would be a gateway. Unlike pot being a gateway drug (relatively harmless, but still illegal, causing distrust in what the government has said about other illegals, thereby inspiring more illegal experimentation), this would be society saying this is an acceptable practice, as long as no one is hurt. Have you heard of NAMBLA? Their whole premise is that if an 8 year old boy wants to sleep with you, they should be allowed since there were no victims, only a willing child and adult. People recognise that this is false, kids are too impressionable to be able to make their own dicisions at that age. However, by allowing this kind of kiddy porn, it would open the floodgates for other legalizations. With all the legislative judges out there making law, it's very possible more and more could be chipped away from the child porn laws simply through the court system.

EDIT: Amuk, brave thread, way to go. Many things need to be addressed as ethical questions but people immediately assume you condone the worst elements of it. I think it's a bad idea, but I'm glad you started the thread.


[edit on 2-9-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Well, I really wish I could be open minded on this subject but I find I just cannot in my heart. I understand free speech and all that and I know it cannot be stopped but I just do not understand it. To depict children in sexual drawings, even if not real children, seems very abnormal to me. Of course, how do we define abnormal. I guess my feel on this is similar to hate stuff where I know the KKK and Neo Nazi's have a right to their stuff but it just promotes such bad things and bad feelings. I think anything involving child porn is similar as it may promote or condone people thinking about children in a way that is just not natural in my mind. Just my two cents.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Have you heard of NAMBLA? Their whole premise is that if an 8 year old boy wants to sleep with you, they should be allowed since there were no victims, only a willing child and adult.


I am not saying a child can be willing of course anything with a real child should be punished preferably with death. I am talking about DRAWINGS, PAINTINGS, BOOKS, etc?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   
As I was saying, the drawings etc. would be a wedge in the door. That door has been locked, and to allow this would be to unlock the door and stick a wedge in there to keep it from being locked again. The draings would be sexually explicit, depicting acts of child abuse for people to get off on. CGI can look extremely realistic. No one would be harmed, but it would look real. I just see it as something that would give groups a lot of effective ammo in a victimless child love case, and I see many courst possibly permitting it, saying it's somehow unconstitutional to not allow Uncle Fred to have sex with little Johnny if Johnny asked.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk


. I am talking about DRAWINGS, PAINTINGS, BOOKS, etc?




I have to ask...why one would anyone want to depict children in this way, if there was not a problem. I certainly would consider anyone that did this to have serious issue that need help themselves, and it shouldn't in my opinion, be legal...it is depicting illegal, harmful, activity involving those that we are supposed to protect!



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
So long as an image is created or drawn - there is no crime. We can speculate that eventually a pedophile will become bored with such creations and eventually seek out the real thing or worse an actual child. But until that happens no crime has been perpetrated. At least that's what my logical side says.

As for my heart - I say neuter anyone possessing images of a child and kill 'em if they are ever caught with an actual child.

It's just too difficult to take the emotional aspect out of this - I have two young girls and I would have no mercy on a pedophile. even if all he had were created images.

B.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I think this is a complicated question, because there is no way of knowing how it will turn out until you implement the plan. There are positive things, and negative things that could result. Right off the bat I can think of a few of each.

Perhaps making that sort of porn available would reduce the number of real children being harmed on a daily basis by those with an 'uncontrolable urge' to involve children in their sex lives. Conversely it might stoke the flames of perversion and lead to even greater depravity and sickness.

There is a thin line between fantasy and reality, but perhaps if we talked more openly about our desires, and got community support for those whos desires deviate from the norm, the risk of injury to real children in our society would be reduced. There is an excellent book on the subject of the fantasy/reality border titled "Bad men do what good men dream."

Japan has quietly condoned graphic cartoon images of seemingly underage sex for years and years, and their incidence of child rape and molestation is lower by far than ours. They don't talk too openly about their fetishes, but there is something available for every manner of pervert on the streets of japanese cities. Perhaps this provides needed relief from the internal tension unsatisfied desire can create.

Children do have sex, about as much as adults actually. When I was a kid, 15 was the average age you lost your virginity, for my parents it was mid twenties, I imagine now it's around 12/13.

There is a natural tendency in the human animal to desire the fittest mate, with the most years left to breed. Once a woman starts ovulating, and in many cases even before, she is considered a viable mate (biologically) in the eyes of every man around. Whether he admits that desire, even consciously feels that desire, denies that desire, or indulges it, is entirely up to him. In the end we can't change people, so we have to change society. I'm not advising parents marry off their daughters at 13, I'm simply pointing out a fundamental break between what we feel and what we are told to feel (under threat of imprisonment or death).

Young girls are in many cases attracted to older men. Biologically this can be explained as a desire for protection and resources. Similarly older women are often attracted to young men. There are many, many exceptions, but those are the general behaviors we've evolved. Competition for mates is fierce in this country, despite the abundance of both sexes. Read the book "The moral animal" for more information about our system of 'serial monogamy' and how it injures our society in a multitude of ways. Perhaps the way around this is structured dating in the early-teen years, followed by marriage and then sex. In order for this to work, our society would have to completely change its media focus.

Victimless child porn is really the only kind acceptable. So if we must have some form of child porn, it has got to be that. In mexico and many other places, American tourists take advantage of local children without fear of prosecution in their home country. Thailand is famous for its child prostitues, as is Canada in some places. To change our system and allow other countries to continue to exploit their children in the sex trade will only insure one thing, a continuation of American tourism 'round the world. It appears as though we have a serious sickness, though not a wholly unnatural one, and that is the problem that must be solved or mitigated. I think animation does much to mitigate the problem, and I'm unsure if it can ever be solved. It took us millions of years to evolve into what we are -- sex crazed murdering sociopaths bent on breeding and destroying all opposition to our bloodlines eventual domination of the globe. Is it unreasonable to assume we can change that overnight? I think so.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
What, Amuk! You couldn't think of anything harder to ask!

Crap...well....err...techically you can not condem someone on a thought that they have yet to breathe reality too so I would have to say it is legal at that point.

Morally my emotions are in conflict with my rational side, but that is like the thought police exicuting someone for bank robery simply because the thought was experienced.

Perhaps the real question is at what point does one intervene? When they suspect a problem or when they have proof of a problem.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I can see where you're coming from Amuk, but I belive that there are some things that are just so taboo/disturbing that they have no place in our society. I guess it would also depend in what context the images were displayed. If it's a book outlining the horrors of child pornography then I'm all for it. If it's simply for pleasure or some sort of guide, though, I think it has no place.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The only positive thing I can see with it being legal is it might stop some of them from commiting the act. But then again it will bring new people into do the act. I guess the truth is legal or not people will still continue to do this heartless and cruel act.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I don't think that depictions of child porn should ever be legalised. Even though nobody is getting hurt, it will portray the wrong image to people and might in fact encourage abusive/illegal acts by people.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
No.

It would probably only increase alot of pedophile's desires
to "experience the real thing".

Would you recommend an alcoholic watch beer and liquor
commercials all the time?

In my opinion, children should be off limits from this kind of
thing.
Even if it is just art, computer generated or not.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
To make depictions of child pornography legal would send out the wrong message I think. I also agree with junglejake's gateway comment.

But to play devil's advocate I guess I will say this.
Murder is depicted in all media. Could this not be the same? Should 'play' murder not be illegal as well?
Also many areas in the world are starting to tread drug addiction differently now by making safe zones and even providing free drugs to addicts. These tactics are to reduce one side of the crime where addicts will rob or even kill for their fix.

Like Amuk I have a wife and kids and would be the first in line to strangle anyone who touched a child or harmed them in any way.
Child abuse happens all the time in all classes and countries. Maybe if we think out side of the box we might be able to stop these atrocities.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
just for the record, depictions of child porn (i.e. drawings, sketches, computer art, writings, etc.) are currently legal, if my memory serves me right.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaranGani
I don't think that depictions of child porn should ever be legalised. Even though nobody is getting hurt, it will portray the wrong image to people and might in fact encourage abusive/illegal acts by people.


You mean like all the glorified violence in movies and television these days? You need to realize that if you take one right away all the rest that are connected will soon follow. The right to create art (whatever you believe art to be), the right of free speach, then the right of free though. People don't see it untill it affects them personally, but that is when it is too late.

What you or I do not care for, may be exactly what someone else does. So as long as we or any other outside party are not negatively affected by it, what is the problem? Everyone wants freedom of expression, but no one wants to allow it when it wanders outside of their moral spectrum. Accept it, deny it or be a hypocrite, but don't whine that it is not fair.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I have to agree with the Supreme Court on this one. If children aren't involved, it can't be child porn. Personally, I haven't seen any legal child porn anywhere since the ruling. One would think that if there were a market for such, it would be easy to find. My feeling is that pedophiles are interested in the real thing and bogus porn wouldn't ring their bell. So, I guess that normal folks are disgusted by it, if it exists, at all, and pedophiles are just not interested.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
No,i dont think you could enforce it.
I think that it would open doors that we dont want open,mainly....the misuse of said law for some group or persons religious or personal agenda.
and it asks a few sticky questions.................wouldnt it be the same as drawing a picture of a murder?or having a picture of any crime,would that be the same as commiting or aiding crime or criminals?
or....would showing a simulated murder or molestation on TV be a crime?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join