4 ms·

Possession promotes exploitation of children. It's very different to possessing content of dubious (to some) but consensual participants. Relevant case law is l

Possession promotes exploitation of children. It's very different to possessing content of dubious (to some) but consensual participants. Relevant case law is linked elsewhere in this thread which discusses why child pornography (and possession and transfer) is outside protection of free speech.

gambiting 10y ago
I am just thinking of a case where a guy was in court for possession of child pornography, and the porn star flew to the court to show her ID and prove that yes, she was older than 18, despite her small figure. If simple possession wasn't illegal then the case wouldn't even happen. People have also been arrested and lost careers because they had pictures of their own children taking a bath or playing in the pool. As for consent - it's perfectly legal for anyone to have videos and pictures of murder, despite murder being just as illegal. You can go on google and find videos of beheadings within 5 seconds. Why is that any different? Because some people get off pictures of children? I am sure there are people who get off pictures of murder. My point is - just having pictures of anything(and I mean anything) should not be illegal on its own. Producing them - absolutely. Distributing them - sure. But going to prison for having one? That's just wrong in my opinion.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > Why is that any different? Murder is uncommon. Sexual abuse of children is very much more common. Most murderers only kill one person; it's not premeditated; they will never kill anyone ever again. Child abusers don't commit a single act of child abuse. They commit many offences against the child, sometimes over years of that person's life, and sometimes moving on to other children. The crimes and the criminals are very very different.
  - gambiting 10y ago
    Can you explain why rarity of a crime would have anything to do with legality of pictures/videos of it happening?

gambiting 10y ago

I am just thinking of a case where a guy was in court for possession of child pornography, and the porn star flew to the court to show her ID and prove that yes, she was older than 18, despite her small figure. If simple possession wasn't illegal then the case wouldn't even happen. People have also been arrested and lost careers because they had pictures of their own children taking a bath or playing in the pool. As for consent - it's perfectly legal for anyone to have videos and pictures of murder, despite murder being just as illegal. You can go on google and find videos of beheadings within 5 seconds. Why is that any different? Because some people get off pictures of children? I am sure there are people who get off pictures of murder. My point is - just having pictures of anything(and I mean anything) should not be illegal on its own. Producing them - absolutely. Distributing them - sure. But going to prison for having one? That's just wrong in my opinion.

DanBC 10y ago
> Why is that any different? Murder is uncommon. Sexual abuse of children is very much more common. Most murderers only kill one person; it's not premeditated; they will never kill anyone ever again. Child abusers don't commit a single act of child abuse. They commit many offences against the child, sometimes over years of that person's life, and sometimes moving on to other children. The crimes and the criminals are very very different.
- gambiting 10y ago
  Can you explain why rarity of a crime would have anything to do with legality of pictures/videos of it happening?