And you're looking at the legal system ass backwards. If somebody robs a bank or kills a cop, then the government didn't take any steps to make a situation better. A person robbing a bank is bad situation that was not prevented. The government isn't in the business of preventing bad situations or making them better. The government doesn't try to actively prevent bank robbing with community outreaches to would be bank robbers, and try reasoning with them and ask them to not rob banks. The government is simply enforcing the law by punishing them.
Now you might be trying to argue that the government punishing people makes situations better, but I don't see how. If you argue that you'd also be arguing that the threat of punishment prevents other would be bank robbers, cop killers, etc. But I don't agree with that. I don't think the threat of punishment deters criminal activity. Using that logic, the more severe the punishment becomes, the less crime there should be. So if we make the punishment for rob banks more severe then eventually NOBODY would rob a bank, but that isn't necessarily true. We can easily look at an example like the USSR, and see that serve punishments for slightest crimes did not lead to no crime there. It ended up creating a lot of abuse and punishment where it was unnecessary.
You simply can't make the statement like... the government and legal system are here to make situations better... and not try to defend that statement somehow. It just sounds entirely preposterous.
the strawman appears again...And so your solution is...to overreact in exactly the same way for ANOTHER "crime" where no one was really harmed?
Yeah, you're right. We should just get over kids being in pornography as a society. We are just too uptight and lack common sense... it's just child porn afterall...Right, this is where that common sense thing that I mentioned comes into play. And how it is routinely abandoned in our criminal justice system...ESPECIALLY on this particular subject.
The legal definition of child porn says it's child porn, and child porn is illegal under US law. That isn't my fault.
1. They run the risk of those pictures being exploited.How? If they took pictures of themselves and posted them online, no one exploited them. I hardly think that some pervert jacking off to the images in the privacy of his own home qualifies as "exploiting" them.
2. Internet is public domain.
3. Weather or not you subjectively believe those photos are being exploited, it doesn't change the legal definition of child porn.
4. Operating a website with illegal porn is illegal.
I seriously don't understand why it's going over your head... yes, pedophiles like to jack off to child porn. Pointing that out doesn't make a difference.
Owning child porn and trading it is illegal. Jacking off is not illegal.
wtf... do you think child porn should be legal? Do you think it should be legal for pedophiles to own and trade child porn so they can jack of to it?