Virtual Child Porn: Is It Illegal?

pcosta writes "Today's LA Times has an article about a Supreme Court hearing on wheteher or not 'virtual' child porn created with computer generated images is illegal. In a previous ruling, the federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed 2-1 that the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from making it a crime to generate "images of fictitious children engaged in imaginary but explicit sexual conduct". But prosecutors said this kind of pornography can whet the appetite of pedophiles, and therefore is dangerous even if no real children are involved." This will be one of the major free speech cases of the year, and I think there's no telling how the Supreme Court will decide.

Comments

Re:I don't get it . . .

[kaphka]

I would guess that even the Libertarians (though I am not entirely familiar with their platforms), for the most part, agree with Justice Holmes, who stated: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Every time somebody mentions that quote on Slashdot, I feel compelled to post this link.

What about simulated pictures of other crimes

[tedd]

Would someone familiar with the case draw a distinction between simulated child porn and simulated murder on TV or in the movies or on the internet? Simulated rape or any other crime?

.:.
:tedd

Re:What about simulated pictures of other crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

Because rape and murder in movies is done by rich Hollywood producrs who have the legislators in their back pockets. Banning ficticious murder and rape in movies would destroy in industry. Ban something not many are profiting from, and who cares, right?

Contentious, but...

[str8-and-sober]

Whilst I think I'll be in line with the majority of people here by saying that child porn is wrong, sick and best left out of any society, there is a point here that needs raising.

In any society, there will be one section of people who appear as "unacceptable" or "twisted" to another section. Whether these sections are the minority or majority, who has the right to say what images (or sounds, experiences, smells etc) we are not allowed to generate electronically?

If it is possible for the powers that be to dictate what is acceptable to generate using technology, then where will this dictatorial power end?

The question is: is it right to decide what is and is not "acceptable use of technology", thereby setting a precedent for the future? Or should we say "there must be a morally defined limit for the application of technology" ? Who would decide on such morals? Who could veto such morals?


----------------------------------------

Welcome to Canada

[Nezumi-chan]

We've had this sort of thing on the books for a long while. I did an article on the subject a couple of years ago, and the situation has changed little.

The upshot here is that in Canada it is illegal to create art of two people having underaged sex, or even who look underaged. And it doesn't matter if it is made clear that the characters are not underage, the only test is that they look underage. So disclaimers mean nothing.

How do you prove the age of a nonexistant person?

[JesseL]

If this "virtual kiddie porn" is a purley fictional representation of nonexistant children how the hell do you determine wether or not they are underage? The creator could simply claim that he was drawing people who looked young or something - right? No one has a bith certificate for Lara Croft do they?

This is not silly.

[laetus]

Simulated murder in video games, movies, et. al. are not done with the intent of arousing murderous feelings in the viewer.

Simulated child pornography is done with the intent of arousing pedophilic feelings in the viewer.

The former does not seem dangerous to me. The latter is sick.
----------------------------------

Re:This is not silly.

[maraist]

Several of my Jewish friends are almost induced into a traumatic state when considering certain Nazi material. I think "making me sick" is an order of magnitude less severe... Yet, Nazi advocates in America are not Jailed (provided they do not act).

Therein lies the entire point of freedom of speech. Mob rule is based around popular self riteousness. You present an idiological danger to us, so we will stamp you out. We believe it's common sence that you committed this appauling crime so damn waiting for the trial where you have a chance at being acquited, we're going to kill you tonight!!

Music can induce us into a frenzied, less safe state for driving. Alcohol can lead us into abuse. Cocain can destroy our brain. Depictions of immoral sexuality can "whet" our desire and bring us to action.. These are all truths. (If you have value in the teachings of Christianity, (even from a non-christian point of view) the response was to pluck our your eye if it causes you to consider bad deeds). The responsibility is in the individual, and not for the society to simply remove every possible temptation.

An over-weight person that removes all food-temptation will explode and splurge when given the opportunity. Those people that allow temptations to be at hand at least have the opportunity to moderate their discipline, and make life bearable.

Sexual offenders (as far as I understand it) are tainted for life. It's their responsibility to seek help / restraint, or our responsibilty to distance them when they're caught actually doing wrong. But slowly taking away stimulous, such as moderate-level drugs, or hard-core pr0n only attacks the symptom, not the problem.

-Michael

This is a first...

[gavinhall]

Posted by polar_bear:

I've never had cause to regret the First Amendment or the advances that computers have made in my lifetime...now I do.

It's possible that the Supreme Court could rule that this material appeals to "prurient interests" and has no artistic value and therefore allow it to be banned. However, this is unlikely because it opens up the possibility of banning books like "Lolita" which are considered classic works. (I think the book sucks, but many people think it's a brilliant work.)

However, if that is the case, special laws do not need be put on the books - existant laws concerning child porn and obscenity should do. This is similar to the acts that try to make porn on the Internet illegal - if something is truly obscene it does not matter what medium it is distributed in, special circumstances don't apply to something stored in electronic format rather than on paper.

Frankly, I think we've become too civilized if this sort of thing is allowed to exist. Another poster made the comment that people who sell such things should be shot and I have a hard time arguing. There are some things that a society should have no tolerance for, and this is one of them.

It's an odd dichotomy, though. Our societal advancements have had both positive and negative effects -- things that once weren't acceptable, homosexuality for example, have become accepted in our society and that's (at least in my opinion) a Good Thing. The same laws and movements that have made homosexuality acceptable have inadvertantly opened the doors to loopholes for child porn and the KKK. (Although I believe the KKK should be allowed to voice their opinion, repugnant though it is. If it's voiced then people know it's out there and can react...) Also, we've only developed our modern concept of childhood in the last couple of hundred years. 200 years ago it was not uncommon for 10 year olds to work more than 40 hours a week and sleep in the same common room (possibly the same bed) that their parents had sex in. 14-year-old girls were married to 30-year-old men all of the time and no one blinked an eye. Today a 30-year-old who tried to date a 14-year-old would be strung up. (Which is also a Good Thing in my opinion.)

Frankly, I don't think legal means are the answer. I the only answer is to ostracize - or outright execute - people who perpetuate child porn. I know it sounds extreme, but any society that isn't capable of enforcing its values will not keep them. If the punishment is severe enough it will prevent people from doing it and to seek counciling.

Yeah, I have strong opinions about this...oh well.

Re:"whet the appetite"?

[QuantumG]

err.. doesnt the prohibition of the (real) image make it harder to find the perpetrator of the sexual abuse of the child depicted? If possession of these pictures was free and unpersecuted (by the state) wouldn't it be easier to track down victim if not the actual perpetrator? Correct me if I'm wrong here but if the pictures are illegal to possess then wouldn't it be suicidal to take these pictures to the police? And if the police dont have the pictures, how can they find out who the victim is and who the perpetrator is? So once again, I call for the actual criminal act to be illegal and the posession of the images to be legal.

I don't get it . . .

[Pfhreakaz0id]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is, probably the clearest item in the Bill of Rights. There's nothing wishy-washy, no qualifications. It says, plain as day, "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ... abriding the freedom of speech or of the press." And of course, Congress has proceeded to make tons of them and the Supremes have held them up. Why?
---

Re:I don't get it . . .

[startled]

Part of it, of course, is wishful thinking-- they really WANT to pass a particular law, and uphold it, and so they make up a rationale.

There are two other issues, however. First, Congress is given the power and responsibility to pass laws for particular purposes, such as "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", and "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". This entirely contradicts the First Amendment, which would make much of that (especially the second quotation, about copyright) impossible. In fact, many amendments, taken to their logical extremes, would totally void much of the constitution, inclusing many of the other amendments.

Because of these contradictions, they have to make interpretations-- this is not under debate, because there are many well-recognized contradictions. But where you side on the interpretations is a large part of what political affiliation you might have. Your interpretation, of course, is Libertarian. I would guess that even the Libertarians (though I am not entirely familiar with their platforms), for the most part, agree with Justice Holmes, who stated: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

If you are interested in the history of the Constitution, from its creation to many of the interpretations of it, I highly recommend this FindLaw resource, which has an astonishing amount of content, decently organized.

Re:This is more important than you think

[Shadowlion]

Fantasy in troubled individuals often leads to acts.

Then how about punishing those people that commit those acts? If I drive over somebody in a car, then I am tried, convicted, and sent to prison. Yet the other, responsible drivers on the road aren't required to hand in their licenses and freedoms because one person did something stupid.

Why should this be any different? Rather than punish people for something they might do, and in the process take away some essential liberties, how about punishing people for the crimes they actually commit?

What you're saying is the equivalent of, "It's OK to punish as many innocent people as possible, so long as one of them might commit a crime in the future (possibly)."


--

Re:"whet the appetite"?

[Cederic]

I am 28; I sometimes see girls in school uniform (in the UK that tends to mean 16 or less) that are sexually attractive. I also tend to look away and not admire in the same way I would a 28 year old woman.

Girls that have gone through puberty are physically old enough to carry children; it is therefore only logical that my reproductive organs recognise this fact and express their desire in the time-honoured manner.

The fact that I do nothing about this desire is indicative of my acceptance of the artificial rules of the society that I live in - I accept that society has deemed sex with girls under the age of 16 illegal, and so I steer clear. If I'm going to be honest, I've never had sex with a girl under the age of 25..

I believe the age of consent in Holland is 12 (feel free to correct me) - so pretty much any girl I'm attracted to in Holland is legally old enough for me to have my evil way with. But I still wouldn't - I want more from a girlfriend that raw wanton sex (although I want that as well).

~Cederic

From a parent's point of view

[LauraLolly]

First a caveat - I have two children, and my sister-in-law has been approached in shopping malls by people who want to use my niece in legitimate modeling jobs - these kids qualify as cute.

Second warning - a dear friend is on medication partly because pictures that were taken of her twenty-five years ago are now circulating forever on the Internet, some in altered condition. The photographer died in jail over ten years ago, but this crime goes on and on and on.

There are three questions here:

1. Does virtual porn harm any actual living children?
2. Does virtual porn either encourage or discourage the genuine sexual abuse of actual children?
3. Where do the first-amendment rights of free speech end? In other words, where does the fist (no pun intended) of pornography bump up against my child's nose?

The answers are:

1. Yes, if the virtual models are based on photographs of real children. Often, in photorealistic virtual creations, an original model was used. When I mentioned the friend who was in therapy, part of it was learning that her image is now the basis of some very sick virtual scenarios. Unless this child was not based on any living model in any way, there is provable harm. Even if the model is an archetype, such as "Harry Potter" or "Cindy Lou Who", there are many small black-haired boys with glasses or blue-eyed blondes who bear such a close resemblance to those archetypes that they could be harmed as well. The harm is not just in the creation of the pornography, but also in the dissemination of the images.
2. The research isn't out yet. Some say it encourages child molestation. Others say that it acts as a substitute. I am not capable of judging. Any genuine studies would be unethical; it could only be either after-the-fact questionaires or blood-pressure/arousal studies.
3. I can't do thought control. If some sicko wants to imagine sex with my child, I can't stop it. If some sicko wants to publish a fantasy of sex with my child, I won't try to stop it, as long as all possible identifying charicteristics are left out. The moment some sicko to publishes fantasies, either written or in images, of sex with my child, or of another child, or of a virtual child that can be easily confused with my child, my child has been harmed.

I'd much rather use tort law to get at this than the hammer of censorship. Take a look around you, though. Ask yourself how you would feel if that were your smiling face on top of the most disgusting act you can think of. (Not the most sexual - the most disgusting.) Now, ask yourself about the disemination of that image for the next fifty years.

There is no good solution. There should be no thought control. Eat rage and weep for our children

Fun with numbers

[Wreck]

Consider. A picture, on a computer, is a file. A file is string of ones and zeros. It is a number. So, to "ban kiddie porn", is the equivalent of banning a certain set of numbers. Nobody can have these numbers; they are too dangerous. I.e., consider the number X = 2^15359991. Perhaps that is really "Raping Little Susie", as encoded in some format. Since we don't like pedophiles, we ban X. That's OK, though, right? After all X is huge -- it is very, very unlikely that X is actually a number anyone would really want to use.

But wait. How about X/2? Should that number be allowed? Given the fact that one can easily convert it to X (just multiply by two), if X is banned, it must also be banned or the ban is worked around trivially.

In fact, given any encoding scheme as complex as gzip or as simple as "divide by two", to really "get rid of" a number, we need to ban all possible encodings of that number.

But the possible encodings of X change, based on the possible encoders. That means that some numbers might OK today, but kiddie porn just as soon as bzip3 comes out.

Now consider that an encoder can use lookup tables. It is therefore possible to encode any number as any other number; which one encodes which is simply an implementation detail. So, for example, I might then write a gzip variant which encodes X as 17. I have the code right here; I could do that. So that would mean banning 17, in order to ban X.

I think it is pretty clear that the world needs 17.

So how you gonna ban kiddie porn? Unencrypted only? What good is *that*? Rot13 anyone?

This is just silly...

[moonsammy]

While I don't necessarily think virtual child porn should exist, I don't see why it would be illegal. Actual murder is illegal, but look at all the virtual forms of that we accept - video games, movies, television, etc etc. Why should the argument about virtual child porn be any different?

-MoonSammy

Sick as it is, this makes sense...

[ConceptJunkie]

I would consider this to be equivalent to writing a piece of fiction that depicts these acts. It's a pretty sick puppy that would do this, or want to read it, but you could theoretically do this in a locked room by yourself and for yourself starting with no one else's work, which as far as I'm concerned pretty much makes legal issues moot.

It's a scary idea, because the obvious extrapolation on this idea is virtual reality, but from a legal point of view, no children are being harmed in its production, so I don't see how it could be illegal.

Which isn't to say I don't find the idea morally offensive, but there you go.

Re:Sick as it is, this makes sense...

[prizog]

A sick puppy like Gunter Grass?

Or did you mean like Vladimir Nabokov?

Mystere?

Nicola Griffith?

Diane Duane?

Who?

Re:This isn't about the children anymore...

[ConceptJunkie]

To be fair, Christianity is based on the fact that morality is absolute (at least those sects that still have any philosophical integrity left) and that laws should reflect this absolute morality.

The fact of the matter is, laws do reflect a morality, or at least a subset of morality that 50.1% of the legislatures agree with or that 50.1% of the courts uphold. There is nothing wrong with calling for these kinds of laws, but the legislators who listen to these calls must obey his or her own rules as stated by the Constitution. Nevertheless, an unconstitutional law is not necessarily a bad one, except for its unconstitutionality.

Unfortunately, the subset of behaviors that have no positive value to society and the subset of bahaviors that are not protected by the Constitution do not completely overlap. However, this is a reasonable price to pay for a system of government that attempts to minimze the restrictions of any behaviors unless they adversely affect other people. Just remember, that those Christians you so love to bash are speaking from a different, but no less legitimate, point of view. I happen to agree that pornography should be flat-out illegal, but I understand that under our system of government, as devised by men far wiser than I, this is impossible.

Re:Illegal

[kenf]

The ONLY reason for banning child porn is the harmful effect of creating the porn on the real children involved.

Any other porn, which represents itself as child porn but does not depict actual children, should be left alone.

Only adults, who should know what they are doing, are involved.

Re:what about anime porn?

[atrowe]

What about live action movies that depict actors over the age of 18 portraying minors in sexually explicit scenes. American Pie comes to mind. There are several nude scenes involving characters who are in high school. How would this be affected?

Slippery, slippery slope

[Phaid]

One big problem with all of the posts on this subject so far: everyone is assuming that the material prohibited by this law will in fact be child porn. That it will involve what are unmistakeably intended to be children, performing obscene acts.

The real problem is that such a law leaves interpretation of what constitutes a "crime" up to law enforcement. What if someone likes drawing Anime-style characters engaging in sex? What about the "furry" fans, who like anthropomorphised animals? Anime characters, with their big eyes etc, and typical cartoon characters, are not always easy to tell from children, especially to the uninitiated.

Will we have a rash of arrests -- even if they don't lead to prosecutions -- of perfectly lawful artists creating perfecly legal works, simply because someone thinks their characters look too young? Will we drive all sorts of artists underground, or keep them from publishing anything at all, out of fear that they might get hauled into court and labeled as a CHILD PORNOGRAPHER and publicly humiliated?

This is another case of creating an extreme law to prohibit an extreme act, which has a chilling effect on freedoms far out of proportion to the small (and debatable) amount of good that it does.

Keep the government out of my bedroom, out of my doctor's office, and off of my drawing board!

Virtual vs Real

[.sig]

Well, it kinda sounds familiar to me, what with all the arguments about virtual violence in video games/movies/music whatever. If it's legal to go on a shooting spree and kill hunderends of unuarmed innocents in a video game, or root for the bad guy in a particularry gruesome movie, why should this be any different?
I'll be the first to argue that it's morraly wrong, and basically sick, but it's not my place to decide what people should do with their time. As long as it's purely virtual, then no one gets hurt and it's basically a private matter up to the individual.
Now it could lead to inspiring such acts agains real children, which is a totally different matter, but it could also give the crazies what they want in a harmless matter. The question, I guess, is would the virtual be better than the real thing?
Makes me glad I'm not a parent yet, but afraid of what times will be like when that changes...

"Can whet the appetite"

[LMariachi]

The argument that it should be illegal because it might "cause" someone else to do something is thoroughly unconvincing, especially lacking any serious studies implying a strong causal relationship between fake child porn and actual child molestation. Hell, a sixpack could "whet the appetite," and they're not outlawing beer.

blurring the line

[Ralph Wiggam]

I think this kind of "virtual" porn should be illegal, but not for the reasons that I've seen written about. With computer graphics getting better and better every day, how long will it be before CG stuff becomes imperceptable from the real stuff? If a guy gets busted with kid porn on him computer, he can just say that he created it. We need to remove any reasonable boundries that prevent the prosecution of child pornographers. Outlawing crypo? No. Outlawing niche market virtual child porn? Yeah.

-B

"whet the appetite"?

[OlympicSponsor]

What about porn that depicts a (fictional) rape? Should that be illegal because it'll "whet the appetite" of a rapist?

What about a movie that depicts graphic dismemberment of a corpse? It might "whet the appetite" of a serial killer. Silence of the Lambs

What about a movie that depicts a not at all graphic simple domestic homicide? It might "whet the appetite" of a spouse abuser.Almost any TV show

What about a BOOK, for crying out loud, that depicts any of these things (including fictional sex acts involving fictional children)? Lolita

These are all perfectly legal. I just don't see that the "simulated child porn is wrong" case has a leg to stand on. Therefore it'll probably pass unanimously...
--
MailOne

Not always sick

[Hairy_Potter]

For instance, in an erotica writing club I belong too, a woman's story was removed becuase it talked about her sexual experiences as a teen.

I realize it's mostly a moot point with the Slashdot crowd (hell, I was a 20 year old virgin), but if you had a sexual experience at 13, would you want the right to talk about it?

Since when is it illegal to be sick?

[Gorimek]

We're all more or less sick from time to time, mentally and physically. That is no reason to throw us all in jail. Only acts which harm others should be punishable, sick or not.

A very similar case has already been tried...

[digidave]

I can't remember all the details, so sombody please correct any mistakes...

A Vancouver court heard a case like this a few years ago. The defendent claimed that his drawings of nude children engaging in sexual activities were both works of art and products of his imagination. While simply being "works of art" isn't a defense (photos can be art, but not if they're of nude children having sex), his argument about being products of his imagination stood up in court.

The court said that while they found the drawings disgusting and that they should be banned, it would be impossible for them to rule that they're illegal because that's one step away from declaring that a person's thoughts are under the control of the law.

freedom of speech in the spotlight

[mcarbone]

This issue is interesting as it addresses some potential "exceptions" to freedom of speech.

Child pornography has always been rightfully illegal as an inherent part of it is sexually abusing a child. So the question then becomes: with modern technology, if child pornography can be produced artificially (that is, without the abuse of children), then what is the harm? Well, apparently, the major argument is that it whets the appetite of child porn users (or observers), and hence puts children in potentially harm's way.

But then why is this issue more important than other harmful crimes? Not to lessen the tragedy of sexual abuse of children, but realistic movies and stills of violence could also then, using the same argument, cause murders and rapes. And so why not ban those as well? Of course, then the snowball rolls and suddenly fiction about hacking is illegal.

This may be an exaggeration, but the issue isn't as one-sided as many people think. But I understand the popular hesitation - it is hard to defend freedom of speech as sometimes one is defending the child pornographer next door.

Laws must have a reason

[Private Essayist]

A law should only be passed if it has a reason for being. So let's examine what a ban on completely computer-generated porn involving images of children is supposed to accomplish:

• Protect Children: Real kiddie porn uses children, and they need to be protected from this. But computer-generated images do not involve the use of any real children. Therefore this law does not directly protect children.
• Don't Fuel Pedophile Appetites: That's the reason being given here, that such images will encourage pedophiles to abuse children. But isn't it commonly understood that pedophiles do not stop wanting to abuse children no matter what you try or do? Isn't that the whole point behind Megan Laws, that even a released pedophile is not really reformed, and can never be reformed? So a pedophile, evidently, needs no encouragement to engage in their acts.

I dunno, seems as if this law doesn't accomplish anything other than to 'get rid of the stuff' (out of sight, out of mind). Not that this would work either, since kiddie porn producers are already breaking laws. Pass this law and that will be just one more law for them to break. Won't stop them, that's for sure.

Mind you, I can't think of any valid use for kiddie porn, computer-generated or not. But free speech being only valid when you defend that which you find offensive, I worry that this law (which will accomplish zero) is wordly generally enough that the prosecution won't end with explicit kiddie-porn. Anime will be the obvious next step, and so on.

Note, I'm not defending kiddie porn. I'm pointing out that I think this is a law that will accomplish nothing good, and could be used down the road for something bad.
________________

Romeo & Juliet

[Cheshyre]

Keep in mind that Zefferelli's film "Romeo & Juliet" features a bare Romeo leaving Juliet's bed in the morning. Certainly "conveys the impression" that those two minors jad been "engaging in sexually explicit conduct?"

Re:Some people like kiddie porn

[The NT Christ]

OK, so you're a dickhead who wants to persecute people because they have a different brain chemistry to you. That's really high morality. Well done. It's people like you who persecuted witches, gays, women and blacks in the past. This is no different - wrapping it up in a neat little "oh, please think of the CHILDREN" package is just an excuse. You're a closed-minded bigot who cannot comprehend the fact that others might be different - SUBSTANTIALLY different - from himself. I merely allow the possibility, and according to you that makes me a "sick fuck"? More redneck morality here - why don't you get a posse together and string me up for daring to speak out?

Let me just say this one more time: if your actions do not affect another human being, they are nobody's business but your own. This includes looking at virtual kiddie porn. Like I say, it's not the porn per se, it's the actions that result in obtaining the porn. If the porn can exist without those actions, there is nothing wrong with it. Are you capable of swallowing your overdeveloped morality long enough to grasp this simple concept?

Pardon me for extending an olive branch of understanding to those unfortunate individuals who really have a powerful drive to look at kiddie porn. What, do you think they woke up one day and made a choice that children and not adults would get their juices going? Any more than a gay makes a choice that men and not women get their juices going? Of course not! Do you think it benefits society to persecute them? Or do you think a humane society might be able to swallow their repugnance and give these people something that helps them without harming others?

Your arguments for banning virtual porn are no different to any other argument that prevents free speech. They boil down to the same thing - we need to censor activity to help us stop crime, never mind that the same activity might actually benefit society in a larger, less obvious, way. It's bullshit. A crime hasn't been committed until a crime has been committed. I wish law enforcement officers would bear this in mind before they entrap the mentally ill and send them to jail with the *real* criminals (those of sound mind who deliberately engage in activities harmful to others).

Looking at adult porn does not make one a rapist, so why does looking at kiddie porn make one a child molester? Answer me that one. And get a fucking clue about cause and effect before you start saying that DOOM contributed to Columbine, or that 100% of child abusers look at kiddie porn. Just because salad is green, doesn't mean all green things are salad. The will to go out and abuse children, shoot people, whatever is fundamentally different to the will to look at pictures of children, or violent movies or video games. Of course, because all the actual criminals are found to engage in the non-criminal activity it gives those with weak analytical powers the idea that the two are intrinsically bound. They are NOT. Get this through your head, for Christ's sake.

But for all your outrage you do make one interesting point - about how digital imaging technology might mask real kiddie porn. What makes this different from any other legal case in which evidence has been digitally tampered with? There is a science called forensics which deals with issues like this - and yeah, digital technology forces forensics to advance. This is nothing new, and nothing unique to kiddie porn. [Anyway, all you need do is prove that ONE of those 50,000 images is genuine.] What, should we ban all new technology because it makes the police's job harder?

So why don't you try using your head? All you've done so far is spout utterly standard moral outrage (you could have cribbed it from any Fox 11 News report), and you've made one weak argument that says "forensics is more difficult if we allow freedom of speech". Think with your head, not your gut.

Fuck you, and your fake morality. In your rush to be fashionably protective towards children, you've completely forgotten to be compassionate towards misguided adults. They deserve our sympathy too, especially those who have done nothing to harm anyone. The internal fight for such people must be monstrous - can you even begin to imagine how a decent person might feel when he realizes he is sexually attracted to young children? It makes most people's life struggles seem completely trivial.

Having said all this, of course we should lock up anyone who does harm to children, or who has a provable intent to do harm to children. Or adults, for that matter. That's what jails are for; they're not there to enforce your idea of morality by locking up people who have done no harm to anyone other than offend their sensitivities. Remember, this is about virtual kiddie porn, not about the "right" to molest children. Keep that in mind. Stay focused.

[Incidentally, are you really in law enforcement? If so, it reaffirms my views on the sort of people who get into that job.]

A similar court case in Canada

[WillSeattle]

There's a similar case being heard by the Canadian Supreme Court about whether a B.C. man can be convicted for possessing such pictures. Without such possession being evidence, it would be very hard to get any convictions.

Re:Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Violence of any type should be illegal. Not only does it invoke sick and wrong ideas in people's mind, but it can wet the appetite for individuals to go in search for real violence.

Sex of any type should be illegal. Not only does it invoke sick and wrong ideas in people's mind, but it can wet the appetite for individuals to go in search for real sex.

Cheese of any type should be illegal. Not only does it invoke sick and wrong ideas in people's mind, but it can wet the appetite for individuals to go in search for real cheese.

Free will vs utilitarianism.

[Michael Woodhams]

I have contemplated exactly this scenario several times in the past - I just hadn't expected it in reality so soon.

If such works do not lead people to commit child abuse, there is no reason to make them illegal. (OK, I can think of one - see below.) I will therefore assume such abuse is increased by simulated pornography, as it is the interesting case.

Argument 1: The benefit to society of allowing this is the pleasure/entertainment of some people. The benefit of banning is the prevention of child abuse cases. Child abuse is so horrendous and crippling that the benefit of banning greatly outweighs the benefit of allowing it, so it should be banned. This is the utilitarian argument.

Argument 2: While it is (hypothetically) true that a person exposed to simulated pornography is more likely to commit child abuse, it is still a free decision by them to do so. The blame lies in the person, not the pornography, and it is they who should be banned/punished, not the pornographer. Many view the pornography and don't abuse - why should they be denied this because a few do abuse? This is the free will argument.

Personally, I tend towards utilitarianism. I am surprised at the near unanimity to allowing such pornography shown in these posts (at least, in those moderated high enought that I read them.) I would have expected this to be much more controversial.

(P.S. The promised extra reason for banning simulated porn: If it were allowed, it would make it harder to control real child pornography and prosecute pornographers, because there would be an extra requirement to determine that the images were 'natural' rather than computer generated.)