5 ms·

No. Absolutely no. It can not ever be legal to own or distribute this kind of material. Imagine this kind of material exists of a child that you know. And it wa

No. Absolutely no. It can not ever be legal to own or distribute this kind of material. Imagine this kind of material exists of a child that you know. And it was legal for people to send this image to others, and to post it online unhindered. When the child gets older they can find this stuff of themselves and be revictimised over again. Fuck that. You think not as much would be created if access was easier? I highly doubt that. I personally don't know anyone that keeps one or two regular porn links bookmarked - it's always onto the next thing. > Sure, law makers and most sexually normal people are going to have a gut reaction of disgust to child pornography. This quote here bothers me greatly. Sexually normal? EVeryone but pedophiles should be disgusted by this kind of child abuse.

ikeboy 10y ago
I've suggested elsewhere that child porn should be legal to distribute in the limited case where the child has now reached the age of majority and consents to the distribution. That is, if the person being victimized is the child or their future self, once they are legally capable of waiving rights they should be allowed to retroactively do so, as they're effectively saying they don't consider it as victimizing them. This also trivially means people can't get prosecuted for having pictures of themselves. (I've also suggested more generally that all crimes against "victims" should be waivable by the so-called "victim", but some people have pointed out some issues with that.)
- zepto 10y ago
  Wouldn't paedophiles then be able to pay victims to waive their rights, effectively turning them into child prostitutes?
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    Only if they continue to agree after they're 18. But in that case you have an adult deciding that it was worth the money, which makes it more akin to an adult porn star.
    - zepto 10y ago
      What are you talking about? How is a child participating in porn without their consent turned into anything like an adult porn star just because they were paid off when they were older?
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        Just like some people propose retroactive withdrawal of consent (e.g. https://archive.is/jV3gs https://archive.is/jV3gs), I propose retroactive granting of consent. If the so-called "victim" does not consider themself victimized, then it's a victimless crime and should not be prosecuted or made illegal.
        zepto 10y ago
        Do you actually agree with that retroactive withdrawing? In any case, retroactive granting is generally legal already, except in the case of children. And that's because it's a social more that is being enforced.
        ikeboy 10y ago
        >Do you actually agree with that retroactive withdrawing? No, but introducing an extreme idea makes my idea sound moderate in comparison. >And that's because it's a social more that is being enforced. I did hint at this in my comment.
        zepto 10y ago
        Your idea is no less extreme than the one you referenced. Referencing it just makes you look like you're trying an underhanded debating tactic. So is your point that we shouldn't enforce social more's? If so, why not just say that more directly. I don't think anyone is pretending this isn't one, so why do you need to resort to such indirection to object to that?
        10y ago
halomru 10y ago
>And it was legal for people to send this image to others, and to post it online unhindered Even if child pornography were legal, that doesn't remove all laws about personality rights. You can't make and freely distribute any pictures of me without my consent (or the guardians consent in the case of minors).
- mabcat 10y ago
  I think you will find, depending on where you live, that personality rights are often much narrower than that. In general the rights stem from protections against passing off or unauthorised use in an advertising context. In Australia and in most US states personality rights wouldn't have much to say about pornography, far as I know.
RHSeeger 10y ago
My problem with our laws has more to do with the crimes that don't have victims. - Individual in high school takes provocative picture of themselves and sends it to their significant other... pedophile. - Person writes story involving underage sex... pedophile - Person draws picture involving underage sex... pedophile - Take a picture of sexual situations with someone that looks underage, but isn't... pedophile These things (arguably?) don't have real victims, yet people have their lives ruined over them. There's also the argument that being a pedophile is a mental condition. The fact that a person with such a condition can use fictional (stories, drawings, etc) material to mitigate their desire for actual damaging materials can be considered (once again, not with argument) a good thing; they are aware they have a problem and are looking to handle it in a way that does not cause harm to others. Note: I'm a father of a young daughter, the very concept of young children being harmed by pedophilia sickens me. But the fact that a teenage boy can have their life ruined because their girlfriend (voluntarily) texted them a provocative picture is almost as horrible.
- jsmeaton 10y ago
  I agree with you but that's not the kind of material discussed in the article or by original commenter. Exploitation of children is evil. A 16 year old sending a dick/boob pic to their same age boyfriend/girlfriend and being arrested seems like unintended consequences.
  - drunken-serval 10y ago
    However, it's currently being treated the same by some law enforcement entities.
    - surge 10y ago
      Mostly by prosecutors looking to make a name for themselves by putting another sex crime conviction on their record and not giving a damn about the long-term consequences of the young life they ruined.

ikeboy 10y ago

I've suggested elsewhere that child porn should be legal to distribute in the limited case where the child has now reached the age of majority and consents to the distribution. That is, if the person being victimized is the child or their future self, once they are legally capable of waiving rights they should be allowed to retroactively do so, as they're effectively saying they don't consider it as victimizing them. This also trivially means people can't get prosecuted for having pictures of themselves. (I've also suggested more generally that all crimes against "victims" should be waivable by the so-called "victim", but some people have pointed out some issues with that.)

zepto 10y ago
Wouldn't paedophiles then be able to pay victims to waive their rights, effectively turning them into child prostitutes?
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Only if they continue to agree after they're 18. But in that case you have an adult deciding that it was worth the money, which makes it more akin to an adult porn star.
  - zepto 10y ago
    What are you talking about? How is a child participating in porn without their consent turned into anything like an adult porn star just because they were paid off when they were older?
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      Just like some people propose retroactive withdrawal of consent (e.g. https://archive.is/jV3gs https://archive.is/jV3gs), I propose retroactive granting of consent. If the so-called "victim" does not consider themself victimized, then it's a victimless crime and should not be prosecuted or made illegal.
      - zepto 10y ago
        Do you actually agree with that retroactive withdrawing? In any case, retroactive granting is generally legal already, except in the case of children. And that's because it's a social more that is being enforced.
        ikeboy 10y ago
        >Do you actually agree with that retroactive withdrawing? No, but introducing an extreme idea makes my idea sound moderate in comparison. >And that's because it's a social more that is being enforced. I did hint at this in my comment.
        zepto 10y ago
        Your idea is no less extreme than the one you referenced. Referencing it just makes you look like you're trying an underhanded debating tactic. So is your point that we shouldn't enforce social more's? If so, why not just say that more directly. I don't think anyone is pretending this isn't one, so why do you need to resort to such indirection to object to that?
        10y ago

halomru 10y ago

>And it was legal for people to send this image to others, and to post it online unhindered Even if child pornography were legal, that doesn't remove all laws about personality rights. You can't make and freely distribute any pictures of me without my consent (or the guardians consent in the case of minors).

mabcat 10y ago
I think you will find, depending on where you live, that personality rights are often much narrower than that. In general the rights stem from protections against passing off or unauthorised use in an advertising context. In Australia and in most US states personality rights wouldn't have much to say about pornography, far as I know.

RHSeeger 10y ago

My problem with our laws has more to do with the crimes that don't have victims. - Individual in high school takes provocative picture of themselves and sends it to their significant other... pedophile. - Person writes story involving underage sex... pedophile - Person draws picture involving underage sex... pedophile - Take a picture of sexual situations with someone that looks underage, but isn't... pedophile These things (arguably?) don't have real victims, yet people have their lives ruined over them. There's also the argument that being a pedophile is a mental condition. The fact that a person with such a condition can use fictional (stories, drawings, etc) material to mitigate their desire for actual damaging materials can be considered (once again, not with argument) a good thing; they are aware they have a problem and are looking to handle it in a way that does not cause harm to others. Note: I'm a father of a young daughter, the very concept of young children being harmed by pedophilia sickens me. But the fact that a teenage boy can have their life ruined because their girlfriend (voluntarily) texted them a provocative picture is almost as horrible.

jsmeaton 10y ago
I agree with you but that's not the kind of material discussed in the article or by original commenter. Exploitation of children is evil. A 16 year old sending a dick/boob pic to their same age boyfriend/girlfriend and being arrested seems like unintended consequences.
- drunken-serval 10y ago
  However, it's currently being treated the same by some law enforcement entities.
  - surge 10y ago
    Mostly by prosecutors looking to make a name for themselves by putting another sex crime conviction on their record and not giving a damn about the long-term consequences of the young life they ruined.