5 ms·

Probably. Child porn is illegal today because consumption incentivizes production of even more material. If you could somehow guarantee that production would on

Probably. Child porn is illegal today because consumption incentivizes production of even more material. If you could somehow guarantee that production would only come from artificial sources then there would be no reason for it to be illegal, but making that guarantee in the real world is unrealistic. Once you create demand for artificial content then someone is going to try and slip the real thing in, bringing us back to square one. Artificial depictions of child porn are already illegal in many jurisdictions for that reason.

jack1243star 9y ago
While consumption may incentivize production, reducing supply does not affect demand. Why would you assume that people slipping the "real thing" would be a problem? We watch violent movies for entertainment, and some will enjoy /r/WatchPeopleDie, but the latter will always be niche, and intentional production of such clips is still illegal. I do not see the benefit of outlawing artificial depictions.
Dylan16807 9y ago
> Child porn is illegal today because consumption incentivizes production of even more material. Does it? Does that happen with other kinds of not-paid-for porn? More importantly, shoving the entire thing underground has got to make it harder to find the abusers creating these images. Which effect has a bigger impact?
snakeanus 9y ago
> you could somehow guarantee that production would only come from artificial sources then there would be no reason for it to be illegal Yet the majority of anime porn is illegal on the countries of the commonwealth even though they are not even close to looking realistic.
betterunix2 9y ago
"Once you create demand for artificial content then someone is going to try and slip the real thing in, bringing us back to square one." That is a slippery slope fallacy. Would you apply the same logic to legal pornography and say, "Well the actors are just too young, someone is going to try and slip in underage actors?" Or to non-visual descriptions e.g. Nobakov? At what point do you think the line should not be expanded? "Artificial depictions of child porn are already illegal in many jurisdictions for that reason." I think the reason is a lot less rational. In the 80s and 90s we had a widespread moral panic about child molesters that results in thousands of innocent people being thrown in jail. We still see remnants of that panic. I think we have shifted from a rational motivation for protecting children to a moral motivation to jail pedophiles. People do not want to have pedophiles in their communities and if a pedophile is able to avoid breaking the law people demand a broadening of the law. The idea that a pedophile could avoid prosecution by satisfying himself with cartoons instead of recordings of child abuse led to the law being broadened to ensure that the pedophile is punished.

jack1243star 9y ago

While consumption may incentivize production, reducing supply does not affect demand. Why would you assume that people slipping the "real thing" would be a problem? We watch violent movies for entertainment, and some will enjoy /r/WatchPeopleDie, but the latter will always be niche, and intentional production of such clips is still illegal. I do not see the benefit of outlawing artificial depictions.

Dylan16807 9y ago

> Child porn is illegal today because consumption incentivizes production of even more material. Does it? Does that happen with other kinds of not-paid-for porn? More importantly, shoving the entire thing underground has got to make it harder to find the abusers creating these images. Which effect has a bigger impact?

snakeanus 9y ago

> you could somehow guarantee that production would only come from artificial sources then there would be no reason for it to be illegal Yet the majority of anime porn is illegal on the countries of the commonwealth even though they are not even close to looking realistic.

betterunix2 9y ago

"Once you create demand for artificial content then someone is going to try and slip the real thing in, bringing us back to square one." That is a slippery slope fallacy. Would you apply the same logic to legal pornography and say, "Well the actors are just too young, someone is going to try and slip in underage actors?" Or to non-visual descriptions e.g. Nobakov? At what point do you think the line should not be expanded? "Artificial depictions of child porn are already illegal in many jurisdictions for that reason." I think the reason is a lot less rational. In the 80s and 90s we had a widespread moral panic about child molesters that results in thousands of innocent people being thrown in jail. We still see remnants of that panic. I think we have shifted from a rational motivation for protecting children to a moral motivation to jail pedophiles. People do not want to have pedophiles in their communities and if a pedophile is able to avoid breaking the law people demand a broadening of the law. The idea that a pedophile could avoid prosecution by satisfying himself with cartoons instead of recordings of child abuse led to the law being broadened to ensure that the pedophile is punished.