Should depicted/simulated child porn be illegal?

Should depicted/simulated child porn be illegal?

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

Photo shopped,cut and pasted/collage

Cartoons(western, anime and etc)

Drawings

CGI/poser

other

I do not know.

None of those things should be banned

None of them should be banned. Child Pornography is only illegal because you have to harm a child to make it. Drawings and CGI hurt no one. Free speech doesn't go away simply because its really horrible and disturbing.

rathi said:

None of them should be banned.

Click to expand...

Regardless of how realistic looking a image is?


I know this is not a depiction of a child, but some sicko with some skills could make something similar depicting a child engaged in a sexual act.

Regardless of how realistic looking a image is?

I know this is not a depiction of a child, but some sicko with some skills could make something similar depicting a child engaged in a sexual act.

Click to expand...

As long as a child in real life isn't being forced to perform such an act on camera, the first amendment applies. The law is interested in protecting children, not preventing pedophiles from getting off.

rathi said:

As long as a child in real life isn't being forced to perform such an act on camera, the first amendment applies. The law is interested in protecting children, not preventing pedophiles from getting off.

Click to expand...

I agree with that.

The Supreme Court already ruled on this; I'll try to find the link. Possession of child pornography is illegal only because it is, in essence, contributing to the child's harm.

Should depicted/simulated child porn be illegal?

Click to expand...

There's a grey area in this... I think it would be best to deal with individual cases rather then sweeping laws on this one.

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

Click to expand...

I would say that the ones that are explicitly depicting already illegal situations... so, those pictures your mom took of you in the bathtub are embarrasing but not illegal.

Photo shopped,cut and pasted/collage

Cartoons(western, anime and etc)

Drawings

Click to expand...

This would probably be best on a case by case basis... don't want to end up accidentally turning parents into 'pedophiles'.

[quote[CGI/poser[/quote]

I would say that it would depend on the nature of the CGI and how explicit of an image / scene is created. Generally I would say no for artistic purposes, but if it's artwork, there is a better effect to engage in shunning of the artist rather then legal action.

other

I do not know.

None of those things should be banned

Click to expand...

No, banning photos / artwork is not a good idea... however, free speech DOES have limits... so, you can't have child porn and call it first ammendment because it involves engaging in otherwise illegal activities. Also, you don't want to illegalize normal behavior either.

There are a number of cases where parents would be accused of child porn when they took pictures of their children half-naked, so, reallly this can be taken too far.

So long as minors are neither hurt mentally or physically. Anything under 15 should be considered rape. Above MUST be consentual. If there is a 10 year difference ... their balls should be cut off ( 15-18 )

Groucho said:

The Supreme Court already ruled on this; I'll try to find the link. Possession of child pornography is illegal only because it is, in essence, contributing to the child's harm.

Click to expand...

That is correct. And disgusting!

So you said this:

The Giant Noodle said:

If there is a 10 year difference ... their balls should be cut off ( 15-18 )

Click to expand...

... then you said this ...

The Giant Noodle said:

That is correct. And disgusting!

Click to expand...

I found that hilarious. :rofl

"Oh god you're so disgusting, I'm gonna do something disgusting to you, not because it achieves anything, but because it makes me feel better!"

I mean yeah what these people do is horrible, but an eye for an eye makes the world blind.

Cilogy said:

So you said this:



... then you said this ...



I found that hilarious. :rofl

"Oh god you're so disgusting, I'm gonna do something disgusting to you, not because it achieves anything, but because it makes me feel better!"

I mean yeah what these people do is horrible, but an eye for an eye makes the world blind.

Click to expand...

ok party balloons for everyone.

I'm hesitant to advocate banning simulated images, even of something that we find distasteful, because I have a strong aversion to censoring something that cannot be directly linked to a causal relationship with something that harms someone else.

Simulated child pornography is just that, simulated. No children are actually involved in it's production so the production has not harmed any children an no children are harmed in it's viewing so you cant say children were harmed by someone watching it.

The obvious go-to response for this is "Well, it could encourage people who sexually fantasize about children to act on those fantasies." That is VERY dangerous ground that I do not feel comfortable treading for the purposes of censorship. That argument can easily be applied to a host of entirely innocent things and I think it's wrong to start blaming a medium for the reactions of it's recipients.

By that same argument, you could charge clothing companies for having photographs of children in bathing suits because it could encourage people who already fantasize about children. You could also fault clothing stores that allow anyone to physically see or even buy children's underwear for the same reason. This is an argument that can be, completely on it's own merits, quite easily ridden to ridiculous lengths and thus should be discarded.

Free speech (and production of pornography (real or simulated) is considered a form of free speech and protected as long as no harm comes to it's participants and they are of age) is a very tricky ground and I would feel more comfortable being too lenient about allowing things to go that maybe I have my reservations about. I feel that if I am to say I truly support free speech, then I must support it even for things I strongly dislike and disagree with. I dont like the idea of child pornography, real or simulated, but if it can be produced in such a way where no child is subjected to something they are not ready for and are not harmed by it, then I find the idea of censoring it very uncomfortable.

As long as no actual child is involved in any of the depicted sex acts, none of it should be illegal.

I accidentally picked "I don't know" along with my original choice of "other."

I don't know why that happened ...

The Giant Noodle said:

ok party balloons for everyone.

Click to expand...

Where?

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.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Also, IMO, photoshopped images should also be illegal, as they involve a child, indirectly.

Click to expand...

Can you legitimately claim the child was harmed by the making of the image?

Hoplite said:

Can you legitimately claim the child was harmed by the making of the image?

Click to expand...

Sure. Emotional distress/humiliation of having their face photoshopped to a nude body.

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.

jamesrage said:

Should depicted/simulated child porn be illegal?

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

Click to expand...

Anything that is "suppose" to depict a "child" - but that cannot really be based on appearance. There has to be evidence that "this is a child" by means other than "lack pubic hair" or "small breasts" - these things are not defined or restricted by age.

No child involved = no harm

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...

Child porn is a little more serious than violation of intellectual property law.

If anyone/anything is to be banned, its those who delight in child porn, those sick minds which MAY need to be cleansed. The purveyors of porn are only filling a need.
Banned? no, this is an artificial thing.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Child porn is a little more serious than violation of intellectual property law.

Click to expand...

I agree. But you still need some logical basis on which to base a law.

Child porn is only child porn when there is an actual child involved. Anything else is not child porn. Real child porn can be illegal as it has infringed upon the rights of an actual person.

jamesrage said:

Regardless of how realistic looking a image is?

Click to expand...

The crime of child pornography isn't how realistic an image is, it's that an actual child was harmed in it's creation. If no child was harmed or even involved, how is it a crime?