"If you take a photo of your 16-year-old self naked, who are the police supposed to arrest?"
In Ohio, a 15 year old was recently arrested for taking nude photographs of herself. They're also debating whether she should be forced to register as a sex offender if convicted.
"Tell us what sort of child pornography has been introduced in a successful felony prosecution in your home town, city or county."
The media, which is often the only source of information in individual cases, does not produce objective reports on child pornography cases. It reports that pictures showed children "as young as [the youngest age]" and that a person possessed "pictures showing [the most offensive type of image which he possesses]".
Some of your questions are extreme to the point of irrelevancy. There is no evidence of children ever being killed in order to produce pornography.
I cannot "provide a link to a local registry of sex offenders", as I am not American.
If you wish to research the nature of child pornography, try analysing academic journals rather than the mainstream/local media. The majority of academic research suggests that violence is rarely a feature of child pornography.
"How many of those convicted for possession or distribution of child pornography also show convictions for sexual assaults and misdemeanors? Other violent crimes?"
The only study which found a significant correlation between the use of child pornography and the commission of contact offences was withdrawn from publication or peer review, due to concerns over its applicability to the general population of child pornography offenders.
In short, claims that child pornography is mostly abusive and dangerous are not supported by the majority of academic sources investigating the nature of the material. The media's claims are motivated by potential newspaper sales (or adverts, in the case of broadcast media), the NCMEC and other organisations are motivated by a desire for repeat funding, while governments know that they can restrict the freedoms of the population (especially on the internet) by playing the child porn card.
I encourage you to read the list of quotes which I posted above, as they answer many of your questions.
"Child porn is one thing, and that is reprehensible"
It is disturbing that someone can make such a bold statement about something which they have never seen. How can anyone form a conclusive opinion about child pornography when their only source of information is the mainstream media and government-sponsored advocacy organisations such as the NCMEC?
I and three other people have compiled a list of quotes about the nature of child pornography, here.
"Has it not occurred to you that by creating a highly lucrative market for the consumption of such images, they create an enormous commercial pressure for the abuse of children by those who wish to profit by it?
You would not make the same argument with regard to a hitman - the person who paid them is not without responsibility and was in fact the real instigator of the crime. How can you possibly argue that someone who will knowingly pay others to abuse children is doing no harm??"
That is why purchasing abusive child pornography should be illegal, but possessing child pornography without purchasing it should not be illegal. Viewing freely available child pornography is as helpful to a child porn producer as downloading a free music track from a P2P network is to a music producer.
"So you have to get inside their heads and make them restrain themselves.
How? You do horrible, horrible things to the people you're certain of being pedophiles."
Umm, no. If that were the case, there would be no reason for paedophiles to abide by laws which we disagree with. Your argument sounds more like an excuse to attack a vulnerable minority than an attempt to protect children.
If you're using "paedophile" as a synonym for "child molester", please extend your vocabulary. It's difficult to know who people are talking about when they use the term paedophile, a term which refers to a sexual preference for pre-pubescent children, not a behaviour.
"Viewers of adult porn don't usually go out and become rapists do they?", then "your implication that blocking child porn would increase child abuse doesn't seem credible, in fact it is more likely to reduce it. The current situation probably tends to lead pedophiles to believe that their mindset is relatively normal which is far more dangerous to children."
In reality, most paedophiles don't molest children for the same reasons that most men don't rape women. Even those who think that sex with children is inherently harmless avoid sexual contact because of the effects of a socio-legal response for both themselves and children. From Freel (2003):
"[..] an expressed sexual interest in children does not infer actual perpretation. Indeed, the empirical evidence suggests that a much smaller number of men actually abuse children. There are significantly more men who express a sexual interest in children than there are actual perpetrators. This suggests the presence of inhibitors that stop men acting on their sexual interest."
I suspect that blocking internet access to child pornography would increase rates of child sexual abuse, but not necessarily in the way many would imagine. Digital storage and distribution means that any scannable or digital material can survive forever and be distributed on a much wider scale than would be possible without the internet. This means that there will be less interest in new material being produced, which is obviously a good thing if the material in question is child pornography.
There will clearly be some paedophiles who would abuse children regardless, but they are in a tiny minority of what is a large but hidden demographic of paedophiles.
"The current situation probably tends to lead pedophiles to believe that their mindset is relatively normal which is far more dangerous to children."
What "current situation" are you referring to? I am a paedophile, I know that paedophilia is normal, but I don't molest children. Believing that a fantasy is normal doesn't mean that one considers acting on the fantasy to be acceptable. Freel's research also shows that:
"If someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children."
Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20 % of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 % exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.
[..]
Eighty subjects completed the study. [..] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.
[..]
a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990).
"citation needed"
If you're referring to the argument that most child porn viewers don't molest children, see a collection of quotes here
"I'm not trying to defend child molesters here; that is probably one of the worst crimes imaginable. I'm just saying that just because you're a registered sex offender, it does not always mean you're a kiddy porn hungry pervert."
It is also ridiculous to assume that people who view child pornography always molest children. The only study which found a significant correlation was withdrawn from peer review; the researchers admitted that a sample bias prevented the study from being applicable to the general population of child pornography viewers.
Most people who view child pornography are likely to have a sexual preference for children, whereas most child molesters do not have a sexual preference for children*. Suggesting that someone is automatically a danger to children for using child pornography, especially if they have not encouraged further production by paying or trading, is absurd.
"Maybe you should leave your kiddie porn at the beach instead of trying to save it to your hard-drive you freakin' loser."
How do you know what the guy is going to do? He may want to take harmless pictures of kids on the beach without invoking the wrath of the thought police. He may want to take photographs of women (or men) on the beach without looking like a pervert.
Would you be happy for an agent to search your laptop?
"Treating pedophilia with images and fantasies of children is probably about as effective as treating anger management issues by punching your pillow"
Have you even viewed my website? It is an academic blog, not a picture or fantasy website.
"Maybe people should not act on every urge they get, else society would be full of corpulent murdering rapists."
Most people don't act on their urges when doing such would cause harm. Paedophiles (people attracted to pre-pubescent children) are no different in that respect. The only reason that people think otherwise is because studies typically use child molesters, who are obviously unable to control their behaviour.
How can you not have a shoolow view of a paedophile?? It's one thing to say your attracted to children but a complete other to act on it.
I agree with the latter sentence. Paedophilia is a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, not an action.
By someone downloading kiddie-porn that is keeping these assholes in the buisness of exploting kids.
The majority of child pornography is produced for sale or trade. That makes it wrong to purchase or trade child pornography, but downloading it for free is probably as (un)helpful to a child porn producer as downloading free music is to a music artist. Laws against child pornography should criminalise producing, purchasing, trading, selling or requesting images which depict abuse, not possessing or downloading images.
Also, note that the definition of "child pornography" varies per jurisdiction. In the UK and Ireland, a lot of people have their lives destroyed for possessing images of children which do not depict any sexual activity whatsoever. A study by Garda (Irish police) found that, in a sample of 106 cases between 2000-2004, 44% of attempted prosecutions were for possession of such "Level 1" images.
I think if you asked those 25-33% of men if they were attracted to children under lets say 15 then that number would drop
The slides used in the Hall study which I referred to depicted pre-pubescent children.
Then also ask those that still say yes if they would act on those feelings the number would drop even more.
Yes. The Hall study also states:
[..] a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990).
You're very welcome to support the anti-paedophile crusade, but shallow perceptions of paedophiles lead to hysterical responses like this.
It won't be long before the UK and US has taken away all of its citizens' freedoms under the guise of "protecting children from paedophiles".
You seem to believe that people should be imprisoned for being attracted to children. Around 25-33% of men are aroused by children*; who is going to pay for that level of imprisonment?
"A Canberra court has heard an O'Connor man who has been charged with downloading child pornography from the internet finds young children sexually attractive."
So he must have done it! Police never try to set up unpopular members of society.
Presumably he'll get a longer sentence as a result of admitting that he's attracted to children.
"So, continuing your analogy, "pedophile" = "person who will probably have sex with one or more children during the course of his lifetime"."
Adult-attracted people should understand that the way in which they act upon their sexual orientation does not necessarily correlate with the way in which "minority sexualities" act. This is because the behaviours of sexual minorities are not governed simply by human sexual desire, they are governed by a myriad of deep-rooted ethical, social and legal issues which undeniably affect one's actions.
Most paedophiles refrain from having sex with children for the same reasons that you refrain from raping women. That should not be difficult to comprehend.
"And of course our brave AC "doesn't kidnap, rape or molest children". After all, children have sex with adults perfectly voluntarily. NAMBLA says so, so it must be true."
NAMBLA is an extreme organisation. They do not represent the majority of paedophiles.
"God damnit, this makes me sick to my stomach. I know too many victims of scumbags like this personally."
What makes you think that most child molesters are paedophiles? A friend has collected a list of relevant studies, most of which suggest that non-paedophilic men comprise the vast majority of child molesters.
Your stereotyping of the AC paedophile is disgraceful; you have no right to judge an individual based on the behaviour of others, and you have no right to judge a whole demographic based on the behaviour of its worst members.
"The idea is that most child pornography is produced overseas where US authorities have no jurisdiction, and by locking up child pornography "patrons" the demand for CP will do down and therefore less children will be abused overseas."
"Supply and demand" refers to a buyer-seller relationship, not a producer-consumer relationship. If every child pornography user downloaded child pornography for free, the producers - who are rarely paedophiles but are organised criminals - would move to other areas of crime, because the child porn industry wouldn't be economically viable. Usenet actually protects children in this regard, because such material is (allegedly) freely available, but try explaining that to the masses....
As for stopping the creation...it's worth remembering that some countries have different views of sexuality. I think some countries, the age of consent(sp?) is as low as 16?
I understand your argument, but the age of consent rarely affects laws on child pornography. For example, the AoC in the UK is 16, but one can be arrested for accessing naturist images of 17 year olds. The AoC in Germany is 16 for girls, but the definition of a "child" in relation to child pornography is 14, and it is illegal to give pornographic writings to people under the age of 18.
Every lawmaker has their own individual attitudes and morals, which they try to push into the minds of others in their society. This creates some crazy, contradictory attitudes, such as those seen in the current war on child porn.
Would it be too much to ask for these organisations to actually focus their resources on catching the paedophiles for once? [..] I'm not even sure which is worse in society - a paedophile with child porn, or a paedophile who can't get hold of child porn but wants to see naked children...
Yes, one day we may even be able to arrest people purely on the basis of their thoughts! I'm sure you'd be fine though, because only those evil paedophiles have offensive thoughts.
Have you even stopped to think about the concepts which you are supporting?
"And I think you need to be incarcerated too, since I'm not sure the law will always keep you from practicing what you preach with actual children?"
I have never claimed that having sex with children is acceptable; I would not molest a child even if were legal to do so. Even if I did think that doing such was acceptable, your suggestion that someone should be imprisoned "just in case" they commit an offence is ridiculous. I suggest that you find somewhere other than Slashdot to post, because the people here won't support such shallow views.
If being attracted to children and expressing controversial views were criminal offences which resulted in imprisonment for life, I would have no reason to conform to the law in any way. That would be a major problem for anyone who said anything offensive about paedophiles in my presence.
"in some legislations it's legal to have computer generated images."
So nobody is going to use real, illegal images of children to make images which are to be turned into computer generated images. Who would do something illegal to make something which can be made legally?
"That creates the incentive to hide real images as what might appear to have been generated."
Computer forensics would be able to figure out if an image had been converted from a photograph, so that point is bunk. Also, the police have a huge database of illegal images, so they can check CGIs against real images using hash values.
"People can't just say prove that it happens for it to be logically and reasonably assumed that any event doesn't ever happen. That's like saying "Prove that banks are robbed with empty guns or we shouldn't make THAT illegal.""
If they're going to create an overarching law to criminalise something, they better prove that it actually happens. This proposed law claims to wish to criminalise something which is already criminalised (and not apparently existant), then criminalises every other kind of visual depiction of a child which shows:
(a) An excessive focus on a child's genitalia; or
(b) A person of any age performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with a child; or
(c) An act of masturbation by, of or involving a child; or
(d) Penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of a child with a part of the person's body or with anything else; or
(e) Bestiality involving a child
"The fact that you're an admitted pedophile and you continually refuse to accept that children are being exploited and victimized even when they're NOT performing a sex act in an erotic picture proves that your brand of critical thinking is criminally retarded, delusional and self-serving."
The terms "exploitation" and "victimization" are used to excuse moral crusades against anything which cannot be defined as abuse. If children don't understand why people want to take nude photographs of them - but they're happy to have such photographs taken - they clearly have not been harmed.
"You want to attack the legislatures motives?"
When their justification for a far-reaching law is to criminalise something which is already illegal, one doesn't need to be a genius to figure out that they're bullshitting.
Yes. I've also read the consultation for this proposal, replied to it, read the summary of replies and next steps, and read the announcement on the MoJ's website.
"The reason they want to ban it is because it's made by converting REAL CHILD PORN into computer generated images."
Shotacon - cartoon material featuring boys in sexual situations - is certainly not derived from images of real children; humans couldn't physically do many of the things which are depicted in shotacon, because such cartoons are so absurd.
Furthermore, there would be no logical reason to use real children to produce material for conversion into what can be generated by a computer. Child sex cartoons are mass produced in Japan and are widely available in shops; such industries are not a kind of underground child abuse industry. The Japanese cartoons which I'm referring to are posted to the internet and are therefore widely available on the internet. And no child has been used to produce them.
As has already been discussed, converting real child pornography to cartoon images (and possessing converted images) is already illegal under the Protection of Children Act, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. I suggest that you try to apply some degree of critical analysis to what the nice people in the government say, because they'll do or say anything to get your vote.
The BBC is no more trustworthy; in their article they state that possessing child pornography is illegal under the Obscene Publications Act, despite the fact that the Obscene Publications Act says nothing about child pornography nor the possession of any material without intent.
"So demand for this sort of thing drives up demand for child porn and therefore child abuse."
We've already established that this proposal will do nothing to combat real child ponography, but what makes you think that all real child pornography is abusive? A recent study found that, in 44% of successful prosecutions, the most severe material didn't actually depict sexual activity.
What is the real reason for your support of this proposed law?
Slashdot Mirror
"If you take a photo of your 16-year-old self naked, who are the police supposed to arrest?"
In Ohio, a 15 year old was recently arrested for taking nude photographs of herself. They're also debating whether she should be forced to register as a sex offender if convicted.
"Tell us what sort of child pornography has been introduced in a successful felony prosecution in your home town, city or county."
The media, which is often the only source of information in individual cases, does not produce objective reports on child pornography cases. It reports that pictures showed children "as young as [the youngest age]" and that a person possessed "pictures showing [the most offensive type of image which he possesses]".
Some of your questions are extreme to the point of irrelevancy. There is no evidence of children ever being killed in order to produce pornography.
I cannot "provide a link to a local registry of sex offenders", as I am not American.
If you wish to research the nature of child pornography, try analysing academic journals rather than the mainstream/local media. The majority of academic research suggests that violence is rarely a feature of child pornography.
"How many of those convicted for possession or distribution of child pornography also show convictions for sexual assaults and misdemeanors? Other violent crimes?"
The only study which found a significant correlation between the use of child pornography and the commission of contact offences was withdrawn from publication or peer review, due to concerns over its applicability to the general population of child pornography offenders.
In short, claims that child pornography is mostly abusive and dangerous are not supported by the majority of academic sources investigating the nature of the material. The media's claims are motivated by potential newspaper sales (or adverts, in the case of broadcast media), the NCMEC and other organisations are motivated by a desire for repeat funding, while governments know that they can restrict the freedoms of the population (especially on the internet) by playing the child porn card.
I encourage you to read the list of quotes which I posted above, as they answer many of your questions.
"Child porn is one thing, and that is reprehensible"
It is disturbing that someone can make such a bold statement about something which they have never seen. How can anyone form a conclusive opinion about child pornography when their only source of information is the mainstream media and government-sponsored advocacy organisations such as the NCMEC?
I and three other people have compiled a list of quotes about the nature of child pornography, here.
"Has it not occurred to you that by creating a highly lucrative market for the consumption of such images, they create an enormous commercial pressure for the abuse of children by those who wish to profit by it?
You would not make the same argument with regard to a hitman - the person who paid them is not without responsibility and was in fact the real instigator of the crime. How can you possibly argue that someone who will knowingly pay others to abuse children is doing no harm??"
That is why purchasing abusive child pornography should be illegal, but possessing child pornography without purchasing it should not be illegal. Viewing freely available child pornography is as helpful to a child porn producer as downloading a free music track from a P2P network is to a music producer.
"So you have to get inside their heads and make them restrain themselves.
How? You do horrible, horrible things to the people you're certain of being pedophiles."
Umm, no. If that were the case, there would be no reason for paedophiles to abide by laws which we disagree with. Your argument sounds more like an excuse to attack a vulnerable minority than an attempt to protect children.
If you're using "paedophile" as a synonym for "child molester", please extend your vocabulary. It's difficult to know who people are talking about when they use the term paedophile, a term which refers to a sexual preference for pre-pubescent children, not a behaviour.
You contradict yourself....
"Viewers of adult porn don't usually go out and become rapists do they?", then "your implication that blocking child porn would increase child abuse doesn't seem credible, in fact it is more likely to reduce it. The current situation probably tends to lead pedophiles to believe that their mindset is relatively normal which is far more dangerous to children."
In reality, most paedophiles don't molest children for the same reasons that most men don't rape women. Even those who think that sex with children is inherently harmless avoid sexual contact because of the effects of a socio-legal response for both themselves and children. From Freel (2003):
I suspect that blocking internet access to child pornography would increase rates of child sexual abuse, but not necessarily in the way many would imagine. Digital storage and distribution means that any scannable or digital material can survive forever and be distributed on a much wider scale than would be possible without the internet. This means that there will be less interest in new material being produced, which is obviously a good thing if the material in question is child pornography.
There will clearly be some paedophiles who would abuse children regardless, but they are in a tiny minority of what is a large but hidden demographic of paedophiles.
"The current situation probably tends to lead pedophiles to believe that their mindset is relatively normal which is far more dangerous to children."
What "current situation" are you referring to? I am a paedophile, I know that paedophilia is normal, but I don't molest children. Believing that a fantasy is normal doesn't mean that one considers acting on the fantasy to be acceptable. Freel's research also shows that:
From Hall, et al (1995):
"citation needed"
If you're referring to the argument that most child porn viewers don't molest children, see a collection of quotes here
"I'm not trying to defend child molesters here; that is probably one of the worst crimes imaginable. I'm just saying that just because you're a registered sex offender, it does not always mean you're a kiddy porn hungry pervert."
It is also ridiculous to assume that people who view child pornography always molest children. The only study which found a significant correlation was withdrawn from peer review; the researchers admitted that a sample bias prevented the study from being applicable to the general population of child pornography viewers.
Most people who view child pornography are likely to have a sexual preference for children, whereas most child molesters do not have a sexual preference for children*. Suggesting that someone is automatically a danger to children for using child pornography, especially if they have not encouraged further production by paying or trading, is absurd.
* Occurrence of Paedophilia in Contact Child Sex Offenders
"Maybe you should leave your kiddie porn at the beach instead of trying to save it to your hard-drive you freakin' loser."
How do you know what the guy is going to do? He may want to take harmless pictures of kids on the beach without invoking the wrath of the thought police. He may want to take photographs of women (or men) on the beach without looking like a pervert.
Would you be happy for an agent to search your laptop?
"it's called castration. I hear it makes you live longer."
Castration makes it impossible to get an erection, but it does not affect sexual interests.
Aversion therapy (which is what you're referring to) has been tried on paedophilic contact child sex offenders. It doesn't work.
"Treating pedophilia with images and fantasies of children is probably about as effective as treating anger management issues by punching your pillow"
Have you even viewed my website? It is an academic blog, not a picture or fantasy website.
"Maybe people should not act on every urge they get, else society would be full of corpulent murdering rapists."
Most people don't act on their urges when doing such would cause harm. Paedophiles (people attracted to pre-pubescent children) are no different in that respect. The only reason that people think otherwise is because studies typically use child molesters, who are obviously unable to control their behaviour.
I agree with the latter sentence. Paedophilia is a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, not an action.
The majority of child pornography is produced for sale or trade. That makes it wrong to purchase or trade child pornography, but downloading it for free is probably as (un)helpful to a child porn producer as downloading free music is to a music artist. Laws against child pornography should criminalise producing, purchasing, trading, selling or requesting images which depict abuse, not possessing or downloading images.
Also, note that the definition of "child pornography" varies per jurisdiction. In the UK and Ireland, a lot of people have their lives destroyed for possessing images of children which do not depict any sexual activity whatsoever. A study by Garda (Irish police) found that, in a sample of 106 cases between 2000-2004, 44% of attempted prosecutions were for possession of such "Level 1" images.
The slides used in the Hall study which I referred to depicted pre-pubescent children.
Yes. The Hall study also states:
"Your post, and even the link you provided are missing something extremely important. A definition of "children"."
The term "pedophilic stimuli" is quoted in the article which I linked to, which indicates pre-pubescent children.
The text of the actual study* states:
So the children depicted in the slides were pre-pubescent.
*Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men
You're very welcome to support the anti-paedophile crusade, but shallow perceptions of paedophiles lead to hysterical responses like this.
It won't be long before the UK and US has taken away all of its citizens' freedoms under the guise of "protecting children from paedophiles".
You seem to believe that people should be imprisoned for being attracted to children. Around 25-33% of men are aroused by children*; who is going to pay for that level of imprisonment?
Occurrence of Paedophilia in the General Population
" Man sexually attracted to children, court told "
"A Canberra court has heard an O'Connor man who has been charged with downloading child pornography from the internet finds young children sexually attractive."
So he must have done it! Police never try to set up unpopular members of society.
Presumably he'll get a longer sentence as a result of admitting that he's attracted to children.
Also known as the 'fundamental attribution error'
Adult-attracted people should understand that the way in which they act upon their sexual orientation does not necessarily correlate with the way in which "minority sexualities" act. This is because the behaviours of sexual minorities are not governed simply by human sexual desire, they are governed by a myriad of deep-rooted ethical, social and legal issues which undeniably affect one's actions.
Most paedophiles refrain from having sex with children for the same reasons that you refrain from raping women. That should not be difficult to comprehend.
NAMBLA is an extreme organisation. They do not represent the majority of paedophiles.
What makes you think that most child molesters are paedophiles? A friend has collected a list of relevant studies, most of which suggest that non-paedophilic men comprise the vast majority of child molesters.
Your stereotyping of the AC paedophile is disgraceful; you have no right to judge an individual based on the behaviour of others, and you have no right to judge a whole demographic based on the behaviour of its worst members.
Most 12 year old boys are attracted to 12 year old girls. Is there something wrong with their sexual attraction?
Anyone who can communicate can consent to being photographed nude. Nudity is not sexual; the thoughts of a photographer or viewer do not change that.
So the internal thoughts of the photographer define whether or not the child is abused?
If you are not joking, please save your moral crusade for your local church.
"Supply and demand" refers to a buyer-seller relationship, not a producer-consumer relationship. If every child pornography user downloaded child pornography for free, the producers - who are rarely paedophiles but are organised criminals - would move to other areas of crime, because the child porn industry wouldn't be economically viable. Usenet actually protects children in this regard, because such material is (allegedly) freely available, but try explaining that to the masses....
I understand your argument, but the age of consent rarely affects laws on child pornography. For example, the AoC in the UK is 16, but one can be arrested for accessing naturist images of 17 year olds. The AoC in Germany is 16 for girls, but the definition of a "child" in relation to child pornography is 14, and it is illegal to give pornographic writings to people under the age of 18.
Every lawmaker has their own individual attitudes and morals, which they try to push into the minds of others in their society. This creates some crazy, contradictory attitudes, such as those seen in the current war on child porn.
Yes, one day we may even be able to arrest people purely on the basis of their thoughts! I'm sure you'd be fine though, because only those evil paedophiles have offensive thoughts.
Have you even stopped to think about the concepts which you are supporting?
I have never claimed that having sex with children is acceptable; I would not molest a child even if were legal to do so. Even if I did think that doing such was acceptable, your suggestion that someone should be imprisoned "just in case" they commit an offence is ridiculous. I suggest that you find somewhere other than Slashdot to post, because the people here won't support such shallow views.
If being attracted to children and expressing controversial views were criminal offences which resulted in imprisonment for life, I would have no reason to conform to the law in any way. That would be a major problem for anyone who said anything offensive about paedophiles in my presence.
So nobody is going to use real, illegal images of children to make images which are to be turned into computer generated images. Who would do something illegal to make something which can be made legally?
Computer forensics would be able to figure out if an image had been converted from a photograph, so that point is bunk. Also, the police have a huge database of illegal images, so they can check CGIs against real images using hash values.
If they're going to create an overarching law to criminalise something, they better prove that it actually happens. This proposed law claims to wish to criminalise something which is already criminalised (and not apparently existant), then criminalises every other kind of visual depiction of a child which shows:
The terms "exploitation" and "victimization" are used to excuse moral crusades against anything which cannot be defined as abuse. If children don't understand why people want to take nude photographs of them - but they're happy to have such photographs taken - they clearly have not been harmed.
When their justification for a far-reaching law is to criminalise something which is already illegal, one doesn't need to be a genius to figure out that they're bullshitting.
Yes. I've also read the consultation for this proposal, replied to it, read the summary of replies and next steps, and read the announcement on the MoJ's website.
Shotacon - cartoon material featuring boys in sexual situations - is certainly not derived from images of real children; humans couldn't physically do many of the things which are depicted in shotacon, because such cartoons are so absurd.
Furthermore, there would be no logical reason to use real children to produce material for conversion into what can be generated by a computer. Child sex cartoons are mass produced in Japan and are widely available in shops; such industries are not a kind of underground child abuse industry. The Japanese cartoons which I'm referring to are posted to the internet and are therefore widely available on the internet. And no child has been used to produce them.
As has already been discussed, converting real child pornography to cartoon images (and possessing converted images) is already illegal under the Protection of Children Act, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. I suggest that you try to apply some degree of critical analysis to what the nice people in the government say, because they'll do or say anything to get your vote.
The BBC is no more trustworthy; in their article they state that possessing child pornography is illegal under the Obscene Publications Act, despite the fact that the Obscene Publications Act says nothing about child pornography nor the possession of any material without intent.
We've already established that this proposal will do nothing to combat real child ponography, but what makes you think that all real child pornography is abusive? A recent study found that, in 44% of successful prosecutions, the most severe material didn't actually depict sexual activity.
What is the real reason for your support of this proposed law?