Slashdot Mirror
UK Wants To Ban Computer-Generated Child Porn
An anonymous reader writes "UK Home Secretary John Reid has urged a ban on computer-generated images of child abuse, including cartoons. The Register asks if this would criminalize role-playing gamers, and what about Hentai? Currently, such images may be illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act, but they do not come under child pornography laws. The attempt to criminalize possession of virtual images mirrors the attempt to criminalize possession of 'extreme porn' which would also include fake images, as well as photos of simulated acts involving consenting adults (as discussed on Slashdot). A petition on the Government's new website urges an end to such plans."
It's not like we're talking about images of Mohammed or something!
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Sounds like a long overdue idea at the forefront but where does the line get drawn? Do they stop at the internet "fantasy" sites that have started popping up or will they suddenly include Anime? What about some Mod for The Sims that some kid cooks up that makes all the characters naked? Would hate to think some poor bastard out there gets 10 years in prison for mixing together the perfect nudist colony on his sims block. Any chance they will just limit this to the internet pr0n sites that have cropped up?
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -Fight Club
What would constitute a child in a drawing? Would one of the figures have to be small? What if the creator said it was a midget? Would it have to say it was a child in a caption? Would it have to have pigtails or some streotypical childish feature? Would they ban people from play acting as kids during sex?
How about realizing that you can't legislate away all the bad things in the world.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
In real child porn a child is being abused.
In 'virtual' child porn no children are being abused.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
At what point is it a good idea to attempt to regulate thoughts, feeling and their expression? At what point does it become bad? I find myself asking that question at every turn when I see laws regulating "morality."
Some easy cases for regulation is in the constant sexually oriented marketing and the results it has on children. We like to turn a blind eye to the fact that "adult targetted advertisment" affects the way young developing minds perceive the world. (Yet at the same time, we recognize the fact when we are talking about tobacco and alcohol advertising?)
I don't feel up to making cases against regulation -- I think they don't need to be stated -- I think they are pretty obvious. It's just bad to attempt to control thought.
But perhaps what needs more control is the attempts at controlling thought themselves!!! Better controls on advertising. Better controls on laws on morality. Those kinds of controls might actually have a better chance at addressing the causes of the problems and not just the symptoms. The way I see things, frustrated and confused children growing up to be frustrated and confused adults are the problems and these crimes against children are the symptoms.
That /is/ next. See, they will never be able to accurately define which drawn cartoons can be seen as child porn and which can't. That, in turn, will allow them to effectively ban a much wider range of them; in the end, all cartoon pornography is vulnerable.
I don't particularly care for cartoon pornography, especially when it depicts children, but I really wonder if it is the right way to ban it. Does anyone know of studies that prove this kind of stuff to be benevolent or malevolent? I don't ever recall hearing facts being stated when someone argues for this kind of stuff to be banned.
I expect they'll be arresting Quentin Blake for his illustrations of child abuse in Roald Dahl'sMatilda then.
I hate to tell people what they can and can't create on their computer, but if there were a situation that warranted it this might be it. I guess the real question is whether this starts down the slippery slope.
As soon as start restricting anything people do *without hurting other people* on a moral basis, you're already slipping on the slope. I understand banning real child porn because children are hurt making it, and I can understand banning photoshopping greenbacks because the fiduciary system, and society in general is hurt, but whatever people do that hurts no-one should be nobody's business to regulate or ban, including peddling or collecting Nazi-ware, which is banned in Europe for some stupid reason I might add.
Any state trying to prevent you from making or watching Hentai smells of police state. Plain and simple. And given the UK's recent track record in this domain, I can't say I'm surprised.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I disagree. I thought that the reason those photo's are forbidden was becauce you'd need to abuse children to make such photo's. If you just draw something on your computer, you're not harming anyone. Sure it's sick, but is that a crime?
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/280586.html#Sec
"My fellow Americans, these are not the droids the nation is looking for."
We must ask for the facts sometimes, because perhaps it has lost its original meaning in the emotional charge the masses have given to it.
I remember watching the debates on the flag burning amendment. One Representative burnt a napkin with a flag on it at the podium saying that if we ban flag burning, that action would be illegal.
Regardless of the issue of flag burning, he had a point. Even those who are for the amendment don't intend it to go that so far as destroying any image resembling a flag, so perhaps they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of patriotism.
I find the same point to be applicable here. Whether stopping child porn will help protect the children or not is irrelevant, those who promote child porn bans by saying it will help, probably don't intend for it to ban all images resembling it, and they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of thinkofthechildren.
There is another, at first helpful but then noticeably nefarious, movement here. Some find pedophilia in-and-of-itself to be so loathesome they want to strip all pedophiles of everything, regardless of whether it helps the children or not. This then would become an issue of freedom. If there is no victim, and they keep to themselves, why should anyone else care. If it is because it may in the future hurt a child, again, perhaps they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of thinkofthechildren.
Have you read my journal today?
There are plenty of websites out there that feature "barely legal" young women who are 18 and over. They usually have them dressed in schoolgirl outfits or acting like a "girly high school girl." Would that be considered illegal because it "simulates" an underage girl?
As for cartoons, how the hell does a court determine whether or not the drawn picture is of an underage girl, or a "barely legal" 18 year old? And why is this such a big deal? I thought the whole point in stopping child porn is because it exploits and abuses the children. Who is abused when an artist draws pictures? For there to be a crime, there has to be a victim. Where's the victim?
Reminds me of a post once where someone asked why China's Ministry of Truth was so effective at censorship.
By not saying "You're prohibited from discussing topics X, Y, and Z" and instead just hauling people off to prison when they decide the line has been crossed, people censor themselves far more effectively.
Is it just me, or does it seem like every time there are real issues that need addressing, but require a lot of effort and a change in government policy, said government comes up with some diversionary issue?
"We need to reevaluate our Iraq policy." "Right, here's a measure we need to fight child pornography!" "We've got an immigration issue." "BTW, did we mention this epidemic of child porn?" "We have to look at healthcare costs" "Look! Kid porn! Child molesters!" It's a quick hot-button issue that allows them to spend immense amounts of time pontificating, while diverting public attention from any lack of work on real issues.
That's not even asking the question of "Why didn't the last 10 laws you passed on this subject work, or why didn't you enforce them?" Which is the question I'm asking of them. Until they have a good answer, I letting them know that I expect them to stop trying to divert me, and get to work on real issues.
O
/|\
|_
/ \
So... is that ascii drawing child porn? What if I say it's a drawing of a child?
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
And why is this such a big deal? I thought the whole point in stopping child porn is because it exploits and abuses the children.
So there are at least two issues here. One is legislating morality. Lots of people in power like to do that. It's not justified.
Second is preventing crime. The theory is if you take a mentally unstable person and bathe him in child porn, virtual or not, he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.
I don't know how much data there is on that, but the hypothesis at least has merit for study.
Further, there's the issue of whether preventing said crime is worth the infringement of the rights of those without the tendency to act out their crimes. There's no acceptable regime that can limit the ban to those actually likely to be affected.
Our society is all over the place on this issue. On one hand, someone can't smoke next to me in a restaurant because their smoke probably causes me harm. On the other hand, we haven't banned motor vehicles from roads, where people do walk on foot and a very real number of people are killed by the fact that there are cars on those roads.
In the end it's all a careful balancing of trade-offs.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's hard to say, "Yea, people should be able to create animated child porn and collect Nazi memorabilia" because most people feel that that crosses an ethical line. No "decent" person should want that stuff, so who are we hurting when we ban it? Bunch of sickos? Who cares?
But that's a bad precident to set, where the majority arbitrarily decides what is and is not acceptable for society. As long as no one is hurt/exploited/etc, society should be able to tolerate oddball fringes.
The Nazi stuff is a good example. Europe is working hard to remove any hint that Nazism ever existed, but is that good for society? I've got a copy of the Krampf on my bookshelf at home...It's an excellent reminder of how some pointed hate rhetoric tailored for the masses can screw up the whole goddamn world. It's especially nice because there is a lot of that rhetoric still in play in the world, and it's good to be able to put it in it's proper category.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
(2) It encourages its users to view children in general as objects of sex gratification.
Just like topless men are going to turn me into a Gay.
More to the point, I've looked at porn, I've looked at some fairly gratuitous porn but I'm not going to go out and rape someone.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
This was Ashcroft's pathetic argument. I've worked with the application that's used to generate 99.9% of all CGI porn out there (Poser), and its models are instantly recognizable. The lighting and rendering options are prosumer level at best, but more importantly the artists who create Poser porn have NO INTEREST in making their work indistinguishable from photography.
This is not a trivial point. CGI porn is created by artists who don't have the skills or talent to draw it themselves, not Hollywood-level techs looking to circumvent the law. And their paysite customers are comfortable in the knowledge that possession of images of recognizably non-real events means no exploitation of real-world models. No victim, no crime.
The unspoken presumption here is that what pervs want more than anything is photorealistic images which defy distinction. The number of people who subscribe to sites with hand-drawn furry porn says otherwise.
Maya is the gold standard for images indistinguishable from photos. People take college-level courses to learn it, never mind master it, and the investment of time and money is inconsistent with the ROI they could get using it to make loli porn.
When the police's argument devolves to "this means the burden of proof is still on us," I honestly don't give a fuck.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child. This in turn makes it easier for themselves to justify or at least in some form allows them to rationalize that what they are doing is ok. Who knows how many more innocent victims there have been because of the availability of this type of material on the internet. We have all seen "To Catch a Predator" on TV.....this exact type of material is creating an epidemic in this country. Whether it is real or computer generated material, it is wrong, it is disgusting and anyone who would defend it in the name of freedom of speech or expression needs to seriously question their own moral judgment. I would even be curious to see if since the internet becoming main stream if cases of child molestation have increased due to it making this type of material more readily available.
Fine , ban these virtual images of child porn. Presumably all the carved cherubs and statues in fountains of pissing children will have to go too , not to mention numerous works of art. No? Oh and why's that then Mr Reid? Oh , of course , its called double standards, something politicians are past masters at.
Pedophilia just like any other form of rape is about control more than just sex
Pedophilia is a state of being, rape is an act.
I don't think any hardcore pedophile will be satisfied with virtual playthings for very long so in the end virtual child porn will not achieve anything more than just postpone the inevitable a little while longer.
You claim willful ignorance of what makes pedos tick and then you try to speak authoritatively about how they think. Which is it?
Oh, come on. Loli characters in hentai often look like their 8-10 years of age and are purposely designed to look that young.
That doesn't mean I support this type of legislation. Like you, I think that stopping real child pornography is a worthwhile activity because I oppose the abuse of real children. Nevertheless I think it's pure obfuscation to suggest someone can't tell how old a loli character is supposed to be by looking at the pictures.
I also don't think, as some have suggested here, that hentai artists need to look at real-life children to figure out how to draw animated child porn. Somehow they've managed to figure out how to draw large tentacled monsters raping women without any real-world referents. Human imagination is (thankfully) a very powerful thing.
Wow, the only thing missing is
"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"
Your post is a series of "yes, but" and "what if".
What if child porn incites pedophiles? Is there any evidence at all of this? No, there isn't. People claim it's "common sense" and site statistics that show 70% of molestors have viewed child porn.
Know what? I'd bet 90% of married men have viewed straight porn. Can I conclude that porn incites marraige?
There is no provable connection, nor is there even anicdotal evidence that shows a causal link.
I, personally, believe that porn is a great outlet for people who would otherwise do freaky things... like that guy in college who had the bestiality porn.... (not joking).
Stew
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
IANAL but I thought CG depictions of child sexuality are already illegal in the United States.
You would be wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that banning CG depictions of child sexuality is a violation of First Amendment rights. See for example http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO. html
Let's suppose that you're chosen for a jury in a kiddie porn case. In order to render a verdict against the accused, you'll have to look at the porn. Will this make you go out and rape kids? No, it won't. That's because porn doesn't make normal people commit physical acts against others.
But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. Making pictures that 'encurage' activities is the expression of an idea, which isn't the same thing as the activities themselves. If someone abuses a child, they have committed an act against an actual person, which is justly punished. If all they're doing is looking at pictures and thinking about it, no one has been harmed, so there is no justification for sending Men With Badges And Guns to stop it.
Got that, pervs? Look, but don't touch, m'kay?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
We're talking about child porn that tries to play games with legal loopholes about whether a child is actually harmed. It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal". It's the same problem that is caused by allowing pre-teen and teen models to be dressed up as if they were adults by clothing advertisers.
How is this different from trying to ban violent video games?
Either you know the difference between fantasy and reality, in which case CGI child porn should not be banned... or you don't, and violent video games should be banned also, by the same reasoning you use above.
Be very careful with your thinking, lest it be applied in ways you won't like. Decisions are not made in isolation, and consistency of thought is important.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
The potential benefit of a law has to always be weighted against its potential drawbacks. In this case, benefits are imaginary, while the drawbacks will happen immediately. Or are you planning on relying on all artists labeling their art with "child porn here", so that law-enforcement doesn't have to rely on completely arbitrary yardsticks?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
When's the last time some sicko dressed up as a Japanese sex demon and tried to molest a horde of young women?
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.
Uh, wouldn't it be the same people trying to ban joe the camel are the same people trying to stop things like this, and not the exact opposite?
For example, although I don't smoke I see no problem with cigarette ads. I see no problem with people smoking openly in public. In a building I can understand a restriction because the smoke doesn't leave, it stays there and becomes a problem. Eyes burn, and I'm even alergic to cigarette smoke. It's unfortunate but it's not the reason for my wanting to get rid of it indoors.
As for the computer generated child porn, how are you going to "prove" the age of a virtual actor? Once they can blur that line, they're free to interpret it as they wish.
It's not about perversions, IMO... this is a rights issue. Real child pornography images has real mental (and physical) harm behind it, and that's reason enough for it to be illegal IMO.
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
Joe Camel really has nothing at all to do with this. The violent video games and porn cartoons are directed at adults, and meant to be restricted from viewing or use by children. If you show a child hentai, you're guilty of child abuse.
The Joe Camel cigarette ads, on the other hand, were directed toward the general public and viewable everywhere, including places children would see them.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
You are confusing things.
MOST CHILD ABUSE is perpetrated by non-pedophiles. These are "situational molestors" to scientists who study this and they are triggered by power and violence. These people are highly unlikely to look at child porn. These people are highly likely to have mental illness.
The rest of child abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles. These are "preferential molestors" to researchers and they are highly likely to be interested in child porn, however, are very unlikely to be seeking the violence/power/domination relationship and often see themselves on the same level as the child, as a peer (of sorts). Within this group, there are actually very low rates of mental illness and according to studies, most in this group are regarded as "highly normal" by psychologists except that they are attacted to children.
Fred Berlin and Johns Hopkins University, probably the world's most prominent researcher on this topic, says that with these people, their attraction is most effectively studied in a similar contest to other, more normative "sexual orientations", and not studied as a mental illness, because it, clinically, has more in common that direction.
The trick is that differentiating these two groups is critical to understanding the issue.
Stew
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Then let's ban depictions that glorify rape. They might be encouraging it.
Then let's ban depictions that glorify murder. They might be encouraging it.
Then let's ban depictions that glorify fighting. They might be encouraging it.
Then let's ban depictions that glorify violence. They might be encouraging it.
Then let's ban depictions that glorify nonconformity. They might be encouraging it.
Then let's ban depictions that glorify revolution. They might be encouraging it.
Then let's ban depictions that glorify rebellion. They might be encouraging it.
Then let's ban depictions that glorify (enter anything you are against here). They might be encouraging it.
Meanwhile, as people are off looking for pedophiles under every bed, trying to find someone, anyone, else that can be blamed for the ills of their society, their children are keeping busy watching television. They watch commercials for Bratz girls with jeans halfway down their buttocks. They see that the penultimate expression of being a woman is to have jiggly breasts and to have guys slathering like brainless drug-addled fools after them. They see that their parents are liars and hypocrites who treat relationships and marriage like a game to grow bored with and other people's hearts like things to be toyed with. They learn that sex and lust are all that their adults seem to care about.
At least there won't be any nasty pictures of fictional children having fictional sex. That at least is a consolation when Mrs. Clarkson calls up about her daughter Cindy being pregnant and naming your son as the father. And when your daughter is found taking off her clothes in front of that webcam you bought her, for some guy named Chuck in South Dakota, you can comfort yourself knowing that you were dead set against cartoon child porn.
Yup. You can sleep a lot better knowing that you had nothing to do with furthering the problems...
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I understand that you don't defend the attitude you posted about, but I have problems with the attitude, and the biggest problem I have with that attitude is how on earth are you supposed to judge the "age" of a cartoon character by just looking at the picture? (let's just pretend the artist who drew the cartoon left out any references to the age of the character). Sometime's it's hard enough with real people. I posted earlier (in another thread) would it be a crime for my wife to dress up in a schoolgirl outfit to make hserself appear to be a teenager and we have sex? With the pervasive attitued I suppose it would, and that's just wrong. (Flipside of the coin is why if the cartoon character is know to be 17, but looked 35 would it still be illegal). This whole set of laws is just screwed to no end, a tangled mess of shit and now we can't get out of it without looking like pedophiles ourselves.
I got nuthin
The difference is that if you don't want to see porno cartoons, no one is making you (except perhaps spammers and goatse-style "pranksters"). But if Camel is using Joe's iamge all over the place, I can't avoid it. More to the point, children can't avoid it.
saying that sex and violence has no effect on forming minds is ignorance.
No more so than saying they have an effect and yet not being able to back it up with any reliable measure of said effect.
We're talking about child porn that tries to play games with legal loopholes about whether a child is actually harmed.
...because of fake kiddie porn? Good question, you tell me. But since you think that pretty much everything else encourages pedos, may I first suggest you introduce the "No mimicing MTV vids by anyone under 18" law. I imagine girls trying to shake their ass like the latest pop idol is more dangerous than anything you've come up with so far.
Wait, so whether a girl actually was "dragged off by a paedophile to be raped in darkness and terror" or not is just nitpicking at semantics? I think you lack some perspective on what the crime was - doing it or documenting it.
It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal". It's the same problem that is caused by allowing pre-teen and teen models to be dressed up as if they were adults by clothing advertisers.
So the fashion industry is pedos too? Also, all girls that dress slutty deserve to be raped, they shouldn't be allowed to dress up like that. The hyperbole is getting a little thick.
Comparing South Park's creative and repetitive killing of the self-repairing Kenny to someone trying to portray a realistic scene of rape and torture is disingenuous at best. No one would ever confuse Kenny with being real, but when you consider the stellar work done by SquareSoft, Pixar, or the team behind Ghost in the Shell 2, it's pretty clear that we can do the synthetic actors that Lucas fantasized about years ago.
Get back to us when Pixar and ILM start doing kiddie porn vids. The cartoons you could make up today are almost as far from reality as you.
When's the last time a child got dragged off by a paedophile to be raped in darkness and terror?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I can't speak for mrchaotica, but I would say yes. If I want to make counterfeit money in my basement, it's really not the business of anyone else. Until I actually do, or attempt to do, something illegal with it, why should I be punished? As a hypothetical example, what if I had some sort of bizarre fetish involving paper bills? I should be punished for using a reasonable substitute rather than damaging real currency? A silly example, sure, but I hope it illustrates the larger problem. We simply cannot (or at least, should not) force intent on people, at least not without substantial corroborating evidence.
It's just one of those slippery slope problems. It's just stupid and wrong to ban something just because you find it immoral or because it could be used for something illegal, especially if it still has a legal use.
As a side note, yes, it is the Secret Service that deals with counterfeiting. In fact, that was the agency's original purpose and was under the Department of the Treasury before the lolwtf?!!-fest that is the DHS.
There are an awful lot of "things" that a free society allows simply because some people enjoy them.
That's the nature of free society.
I'm glad you don't want to live in a free society.
Take your desire elsewhere, because I want to live in a free society.
A victim has to file a complaint. Your grasp of "victim" is deluded so much by your moral indignation at the topic being discussed that you simple shrug and decide to throw methodology and logic out the window in favor of your personal moral interpretation becoming codified in law.
I see only moderate social benefit to religion, for example, where I see a great deal of damage and strife caused by religions which procliam a "one, true" anything that is worth fighting for (islam, christianity, flying spaghetti monsterism)
That said, do I have a right, as a politician (if i were one), to ban religion outright because I believe it can be used in nefarious ways and does, in fact, hurt many people?
Legislate your morality elsewhere. I want to have 3 wives if i damn well please. And i want the government not to recognize marraige as a binding legal contract so they can't each steal half of my assets..... or so my sleazy neighbor can get his part-time-hooker benefits based on a Las Vegas priest's proclimation "I now pronounce you..."
I think the institution of marraige being codified into a legal contract system with a licence to practice..... that's a travisty of justice and immoral in my opinion.
We do not legislate morality. Legislating morality is not how our society was built and not how free thinking people would want to excercise their will. That is dictatorship or theocracy... or worse.
Society should do the minimum necessary to ensure basic freedoms. The more laws, the more corrupted they become.
Stew
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
The same could be said about any sort of "art". No, I don't think artificial kiddy porn has particular artistic significance, but I feel pretty much the same way about death metal. At least I'm smart enough to realize that my taste shouldn't decide what other people can see.
Any sort of creative work can (and will, quite frankly) be considered obscene by at least one group of people. The valid argument against kiddy porn, of course, is that you have to exploit real kids to make it. If you can remove the actual kids from the equation, I can't see how you can outlaw it and still turn a blind eye to, say, Grand Theft Auto -- which also simulates the most criminal acts in our society and really doesn't have much artistic value -- unless there is some kind of concrete evidence that looking at the simulated/fake stuff causes people to go after the real thing (and AFAIK there isn't, though I'm certainly no expert).
This is the shit side of the argument, of course, because you're instantly labeled a pedophile, or at the very least against the kids. That's certainly not the case. I just think anytime you ask the government to decide what's "obscene" you're asking for trouble. Let's focus on catching actual child molesters and avoid that mess altogether.
Game... blouses.
Our legal system cares; it is the basis of our free society that a person is innocent until proven guilty. To me, this is analogous to saying "the constitution is just a piece of paper", and breakdowns in reasoning such as these are what has led to the Patriot Act.
Fair enough; why don't we ban rap music, action movies, and violent video games while we're at it? According to your reasoning, since they have some small, unprovable possibility of inciting violence in a miniscule amount of people, and since it won't cause global warming or dead kitties, it's alright. We should also ban speech against the government as it might incite riots. See how easy this goes?
Or a potential victimizer. One thing that is always true is that people always want what they can't have. Actual pedophiles probably don't care about this one way or the other; they're going to be pedophiles anyway, and they need medical help. Banning this sort of synthesized pedophilic porn won't do a lick of good for them. For others, I would rather that people out to "satisfy their curiosity" would be able to use this instead of actual child pornography. I personally find it detestable, and would rather it didn't exist, but part of having a free society is the tolerance of others and their rights. I'd rather the KKK didn't exist as well, but as long as they operate within legal limits, they are entitled to their beliefs as well.
That's the really hard part about a discussion of a truly free society; it means you have to be tolerant of others thoughts and opinions, even when they drastically conflict with your own. I don't know about other countries, but I believe America has a long ways to go if it wants to become an actual free society.
Or we can succumb to fear and hatred rather than reasoning and tolerance; it's certainly a lot easier, isn't it?
Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes[sic] its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child.
Unless you care to provide a source for this "fact" other than your ass, I'm curious why I should "face it". I could argue the opposite, allowing someone who feels such tendencies to view totally computer generated images could reduce the likelihood that they will engage in such behavior in a manner that actually harms a kid. But the honest truth is, I can't pull up any solid, peer-reviewed data to support my point, so I'm not going to insist that you acquiesce to it. And I'd appreciate the same.
Whether it is real or computer generated material, it is wrong, it is disgusting...
Well, "wrong" is a particularly nebulous term, and disgusting is a matter of personal preference. I'd be willing to bet, if I sorted through your material possessions, I'd find something that I would consider "wrong and disgusting". Hell, half of my friend's refrigerators in college contained things I would deem "wrong and disgusting". Ought those things be illegal solely because of my feelings towards them? Of course not. Now, if in the process of creating this supposed wrong and disgusting thing, a person victimizes another, that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
I would even be curious to see if since the internet becoming main stream if cases of child molestation have increased due to it making this type of material more readily available.
Historically speaking? Almost certainly not. I refer you to the works of Socrates & friends. Or South America, where the age of consent runs from 15 in Uruguay down to 13 in Argentina. What we, today, would term child molestation was mainstream at times in history & in other parts of the world.
I'd be very careful about advocating laws against thought crimes-- I'd bet good money there's something in your head that somebody else out there thinks is "wrong and disgusting". And hopefully for your sake, they don't manage to get you incarcerated & turned into a pariah for life for thinking it.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.