Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Religious war: fighting over who has the real imaginary friend.
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.
----------------------------------
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
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.
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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?
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
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)."
--
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
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
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.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
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.
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?
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
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!
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...
-Space for rent
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
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
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?
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.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
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.
The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool. -Crowe
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.]
I didn't pay for my operating system either