4 ms·

But children were abused to create these photos.

gonmf 9y ago
I agree that child pornography should not be illegal to possess, only to make or profit from the distribution. My theory goes: if you're not a pedophile, I don't think stumbling upon child porn will make you one, just like watching violent movies won't make you a violent person. If you are a pedophile already then seeing child porn may be a way out of actually harming children, just like watching gore movies be a way out for some sexual fetish with corpses. We should be going after abusers (obviously) and people who actually profit from distribution, which add an incentive for child abuse even for people who are not pedophiles, just desperate for money. Having pictures on your computer without an intent that could cause harm should not be illegal.
dTal 9y ago
A 9 year old girl was napalmed to create this photo. Should it be illegal to possess? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg
- Tech-Noir 9y ago
  Really? The reason she was napalmed was to create that photo? You're sticking with that?
  - dTal 9y ago
    I'll allow that I exploited an ambiguity in the wording to make a point. The girl was not napalmed in order to create the photo, but existence of the photo did depend on her being napalmed. Either is a valid interpretation of the wording. I don't think it invalidates the point, though. I'm pretty sure that provenance is irrelevant to child pornography possession - underage selfies and telephoto nude beach shots count even though no abuse took place. Conversely, photos of terrible things being done to children are legal provided they are not of a sexual nature. It seems to me that the true crime being punished is a thought crime: the crime of sexual arousal from inappropriate things. Thought experiment: consider if you found a Polaroid of a child being abused in the street. What would the state response be, assuming it found out, if you: a) left it there b) picked it up and put it in the bin c) took it home, intending to report it to the police, but forgetting about it d) took it home, intending to masturbate over it, but forgetting about it e) as d, but following through
  - JohnBooty 9y ago
    Unrelated to this discussion, but my favorite piece of unexpected good news was discovering that the girl in the picture healed and has gone on to live what appears to be a happily normal life! I'd always seen that photo and figured that she was yet another person lost to war... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc
JCharante 9y ago
Just like airplanes, the first few planes costs the most due to R&D and then the rest are just for materials + labor. The harm has already been done, and I doubt the guy has the originals. If he's financially supporting the abusers by purchasing the pictures, then they should be prosecuted if there's proof, but is there really any harm done if the number of copies of a picture goes from 10,000 to 10,001?

I agree that child pornography should not be illegal to possess, only to make or profit from the distribution. My theory goes: if you're not a pedophile, I don't think stumbling upon child porn will make you one, just like watching violent movies won't make you a violent person. If you are a pedophile already then seeing child porn may be a way out of actually harming children, just like watching gore movies be a way out for some sexual fetish with corpses. We should be going after abusers (obviously) and people who actually profit from distribution, which add an incentive for child abuse even for people who are not pedophiles, just desperate for money. Having pictures on your computer without an intent that could cause harm should not be illegal.

dTal 9y ago

A 9 year old girl was napalmed to create this photo. Should it be illegal to possess? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg

Tech-Noir 9y ago
Really? The reason she was napalmed was to create that photo? You're sticking with that?
- dTal 9y ago
  I'll allow that I exploited an ambiguity in the wording to make a point. The girl was not napalmed in order to create the photo, but existence of the photo did depend on her being napalmed. Either is a valid interpretation of the wording. I don't think it invalidates the point, though. I'm pretty sure that provenance is irrelevant to child pornography possession - underage selfies and telephoto nude beach shots count even though no abuse took place. Conversely, photos of terrible things being done to children are legal provided they are not of a sexual nature. It seems to me that the true crime being punished is a thought crime: the crime of sexual arousal from inappropriate things. Thought experiment: consider if you found a Polaroid of a child being abused in the street. What would the state response be, assuming it found out, if you: a) left it there b) picked it up and put it in the bin c) took it home, intending to report it to the police, but forgetting about it d) took it home, intending to masturbate over it, but forgetting about it e) as d, but following through
- JohnBooty 9y ago
  Unrelated to this discussion, but my favorite piece of unexpected good news was discovering that the girl in the picture healed and has gone on to live what appears to be a happily normal life! I'd always seen that photo and figured that she was yet another person lost to war... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc

JCharante 9y ago

Just like airplanes, the first few planes costs the most due to R&D and then the rest are just for materials + labor. The harm has already been done, and I doubt the guy has the originals. If he's financially supporting the abusers by purchasing the pictures, then they should be prosecuted if there's proof, but is there really any harm done if the number of copies of a picture goes from 10,000 to 10,001?