• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should depicted/simulated child porn be illegal?

What types of simulated/depicted child porn should be illegal?

  • Total voters
    30
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sure. Emotional distress/humiliation of having their face photoshopped to a nude body.
Click to expand...

What if it's an adult whose body has been manipulated to appear younger? Also, what if the child was never aware that their face had been used? You can't be humiliated over things you never know.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Anything that does not involve a child should be legal. However, porn sites that claim that they are depicting children, even if they are not, unless they have a disclaimer, should also be taken down. Also, IMO, photoshopped images should also be illegal, as they involve a child, indirectly.
Click to expand...

Couldn't CGI fall into that category if that image happens to like a certian child?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sure. Emotional distress/humiliation of having their face photoshopped to a nude body.
Click to expand...

stekim said:
It should be illegal to edit the picture of a child to make it look like the child is engaged in a sex act and then sell/distribute such image. That is using someone's likeness without permission.
Click to expand...

We dont prosecute people for doing that to adults.

You may be able to make a case for it being copyright infringement, especially if you take a professional photograph (say out of a magazine) and photoshop it. However if you just take a picture of someone in public, there's no expectation of privacy so you cant really make that case.
 
stekim said:
I agree. But you still need some logical basis on which to base a law.
Click to expand...

The fact that it promotes the abuse and exploitation of children is logical enough for me.
 
jamesrage said:
Couldn't CGI fall into that category if that image happens to like a certian child?
Click to expand...

I think it pertains only to depiction of actual children.
 
Hoplite said:
Does it? Can that be proved?
Click to expand...

Cephus said:
How, exactly, does it do that?
Click to expand...

I am disappointed and more than a little disgusted that I even have to answer these questions.

Pornography stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain. That's why people watch it. And like anything else that stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain, it conditions people to want more of it-- and in the case of child pornography, regardless of whether it is stimulated or not, it conditions viewers to be sexually attracted to children. It encourages these urges and helps viewers convince themselves that the urge to sexually abuse children is normal and natural.
 
Pornography stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain. That's why people watch it. And like anything else that stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain, it conditions people to want more of it-- and in the case of child pornography, regardless of whether it is stimulated or not, it conditions viewers to be sexually attracted to children. It encourages these urges and helps viewers convince themselves that the urge to sexually abuse children is normal and natural.
Click to expand...

Most people watch movies filled with all kinds of murder and violence without ever acting them out in real life. There is no hard evidence that looking at drawings of child porn causes real life molestations. It could even be the opposite. There have been cases of men who became so addicted to porn they stopped having real life sex with their wives.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I am disappointed and more than a little disgusted that I even have to answer these questions.

Pornography stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain. That's why people watch it. And like anything else that stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain, it conditions people to want more of it-- and in the case of child pornography, regardless of whether it is stimulated or not, it conditions viewers to be sexually attracted to children. It encourages these urges and helps viewers convince themselves that the urge to sexually abuse children is normal and natural.
Click to expand...

I almost agree with you here. Except for the fact that there was a law against simulated child sexual acts and it ended up outlawing the Academy Award Winning film THE TIN DRUM and actually would have made performances of ROMEO & JULIET illegal because there is an implied sexual act between them and they're both minors.

I think that's important to be addressed.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I am disappointed and more than a little disgusted that I even have to answer these questions.

Pornography stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain. That's why people watch it. And like anything else that stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain, it conditions people to want more of it-- and in the case of child pornography, regardless of whether it is stimulated or not, it conditions viewers to be sexually attracted to children. It encourages these urges and helps viewers convince themselves that the urge to sexually abuse children is normal and natural.
Click to expand...
I must firmly disagree.

Watching pornography does stimulate the pleasure centers of the brain, but I hardly think you could put it up there as ADDICTIVE. We generally dont accept the idea that regular porn is addictive, why should child porn be any different?

And in the case of pornography that involves some seriously kinky things, regular viewers still understand that this is a little odd to most other people and arent quick to advertise this is what they're into. Watching porn also doesnt diminish your understanding of right and wrong or your ability to understand the law.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I am disappointed and more than a little disgusted that I even have to answer these questions.

Pornography stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain. That's why people watch it. And like anything else that stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain, it conditions people to want more of it-- and in the case of child pornography, regardless of whether it is stimulated or not, it conditions viewers to be sexually attracted to children. It encourages these urges and helps viewers convince themselves that the urge to sexually abuse children is normal and natural.
Click to expand...

That's like saying that watching porn will make one more apt to commit rape.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The fact that it promotes the abuse and exploitation of children is logical enough for me.
Click to expand...

I have some sympathy for people who have in the UK been arrested for downloading child porn when they themselves were the victims of this as children. They themselves did not harm the child and they say and it may very well be true that they downloaded it because they were trying to work through what happened to them.

Given that people can be charged certainly in the UK for having possession of child porn material, my own belief is very near yours.

I think if it is made to appear that it is a child, then even if it is not a child, the sanctity of the innocence and protection of children has been breached.

Regardless of whether in this incident an actual child has been harmed, children en mass have as it is suggesting such activity is appropriate and acceptable with children.
 
It is illegal, so shouldn't the question be why it shouldn't be?
 
rathi said:
None of them should be banned. Child Pornography is only illegal because you have to harm a child to make it.
Click to expand...
I'm thankful our existing law isn't so shortsighted (and that our country isn't run by Libertarians). Child porn is illegal regardless of whether it does harm to the child.
 
Taylor said:
I'm thankful our existing law isn't so shortsighted (and that our country isn't run by Libertarians). Child porn is illegal regardless of whether it does harm to the child.
Click to expand...

Er...I think he was referring to the fact that drawing a fictional character does not harm anyone. If the production of the pornography doesn't involve an actual child, then should it be illegal?
 
CriticalThought said:
Er...I think he was referring to the fact that drawing a fictional character does not harm anyone. If the production of the pornography doesn't involve an actual child, then should it be illegal?
Click to expand...
Right, and I'm saying that's a stupid, overly simplistic criteria. One we certainly don't use in dealing with "nonfictional" sources.
 
CriticalThought said:
Er...I think he was referring to the fact that drawing a fictional character does not harm anyone.
Click to expand...
And no, he also claimed that:
"Child Pornography is only illegal because you have to harm a child to make it."
 
Taylor said:
And no, he also claimed that:
"Child Pornography is only illegal because you have to harm a child to make it."
Click to expand...

There is some truth to that argument. I don't think he was saying that child pornography that doesn't lead to a child being harmed should be legal. I think he simply assumed that all child pornography that deals with actual children is harmful and should be illegal. It is simply the pornography that does not involve actual children in the process of its production or distribution that should not be illegal because no children could have been harmed.
 
CriticalThought said:
I think he simply assumed that all child pornography that deals with actual children is harmful and should be illegal. It is simply the pornography that does not involve actual children in the process of its production or distribution that should not be illegal because no children could have been harmed.
Click to expand...
So what's the logical argument for why we would want to allow "pornography that does not involve actual children" but not pornography that doesn't harm children?
 
Taylor said:
So what's the logical argument for why we would want to allow "pornography that does not involve actual children" but not pornography that doesn't harm children?
Click to expand...

The same reasoning that snuff films are illegal.
 
I'm thankful our existing law isn't so shortsighted (and that our country isn't run by Libertarians). Child porn is illegal regardless of whether it does harm to the child.
Click to expand...

Not true. The opinions written in Ferber or Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition by the Supreme Court made it very clear why Child Pornography is illegal and that visual depictions are protected. While the current Court may change that in an upcoming case, previous rulings are still the law of the land.
 
Taylor said:
So what's the logical argument for why we would want to allow "pornography that does not involve actual children" but not pornography that doesn't harm children?
Click to expand...

Freedom of Speech. Pornography that harms children would not be protected by it.
 
rathi said:
Not true. The opinions written in Ferber or Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition by the Supreme Court made it very clear why Child Pornography is illegal and that visual depictions are protected. While the current Court may change that in an upcoming case, previous rulings are still the law of the land.
Click to expand...
I was referring to your earlier statement:
"Child Pornography is only illegal because you have to harm a child to make it."

This is false and not supported by the cases you cite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom