Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
I also think it's kind of bs and disrespectful of you to argue that people aren't harmed enough by pedophiles trading photos of them or harmed enough by anything for that matter. It's like.. who the hell are you to tell them, they are not being harmed or harmed enough?
You just argued no on one, so it seems you do care on one....I am arguing no on #2, and "I don't care" on #1 because it's irrelevant if the answer to #2 is no.
The courts don't care who produced it. Under current law, figuring out if a minor or an adult produced it does not matter. The courts base charges on whom has possession of it. Child porn is illegal, possessing it and creating it are separate offensives.That's mainly because the courts don't want to deal with the hassle of trying to determine who produced it
Every time you say that, its like you're saying there is nothing wrong with child porn. It's just jacking off... that's all. Nothing is wrong with jacking it. I am tired of this argument. It has no point. Jacking off to child porn is not illegal. Possessing it is illegal. It doesn't matter if you never jacked off to it or not.not because videos that the minors posted themselves are inherently exploitative. I don't buy the argument that someone can be harmed merely by someone else jacking off to them.
The other fact is, people don't like having zero control over photos of them than are being exploited by pedophiles... uploaded and traded. You don't think they are being harmed enough, but that doesn't change the fact. Who, in their right mind, would be 100% comfortable with pedophiles trading images of them? Who, in their right mind, would 100% comfortable with pedophiles trading pictures of their children?
It doesn't matter if they jacking off to it or not... it doesn't matter if they have been castrated and can't jack off. Nobody is comfortable with either situation.
You simply can't tell people that their feelings are invalid. You simply can't determine that they aren't being harmed or harmed enough for society to care. You're just being arrogant, and it's not even an argument worth putting on the table, and neither is your jacking off argument.
Our legal code is based on common law and precedent. If you think it's not common sense, then maybe you should argue that the legal age of majority should be changed to 17. Then 17 year olds could vote, pose nude, etc. It's considered illegal pornography because it's a minor... that's simply the law. I think using common sense would tell that it's child porn, even if a minor produces it.If I was a district attorney and someone was arrested for having nude pictures of a 17-year-old that the minor uploaded themselves, I doubt I'd give a ****. I certainly wouldn't regard them as a monster who wanted to rape little kids. I'd probably just tell them that they were playing with fire and they should knock it off. The law does NOT need to be consistent; that argument is exactly why common sense is routinely abandoned in our criminal justice system.
Calling something child porn, when the US legal code considers it child porn, is not being emotional. It's absolutely relevant to this discussion.
I like this one...it well...leaves me uncertain. Its a child's image that makes it child pornography, however being a minor makes the child in question shall we say legally immune to post the image. But What I would really like to point out and get to thinking about about is the purpose of laws. When I was a child (and I am sure many of you reading as well) naked photographs of infants bathing was part of life. But there were those people out there who would kidnap, force or coerce children into taking sexual photographs. So a law was made saying that's bad...since then mothers have been brought up on charges of child porn from the same naked infant photos hat exist of so many of us. You see, we as Americans...or other "civilized persons" have come to believe that these laws are there to protect us from our own stupidity....oh if only that was possible. Is it morally wrong, I'm sure some think so, but our job isn't to legislate morals...is this child a criminal? NO! Our histories are full of women married at the age of 12, or art galleries are littered classic paintings and sculptures of just about every age and gender in the complete buff, and the walls and windows of our churches lit up with the little naked baby cherubs. Now if its my child? I don't need the law to come into my house to for me to teach my child right from wrong.
I wasn't talking about forcible rape, I was talking about teenagers engaging in consensual sex. Lotta that going on these days... calling it "rape" doesn't make a lot of sense, anymore than putting a 15yo in prison for having consensual sex with his 14yo GF, or putting a 14yo girl in prison for posting her own nude pic on a cellphone. These are misguided youths who need some help getting their life squared away, not child-abusing criminals.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."