Now, I think most of us will agree that the production of child pornography is something that shouldn’t be socially tolerated, since it does innumerable harm to the child who is first subjected to abuse, and then subjected to having to know that these images are available to people they don’t know for purposes they probably would not even like to think about. Not to mention the effects on the child’s family.
However, I recall hearing on the news that it is possible to create extremely lifelike child porn via computer graphics programs without any actual children involved, and tha this “virtual” child porn is already making rounds on the internet.
This begs the question: Should computer generated child pornography be illegal?
Of course, most of us have an immediate knee-jerk reaction of disjust at the thought of any kind of child porn, but these sudden reactions aren’t really a good basis on which to make legal decisions.
After all, no children are damaged in any way in the production of this material, so that eliminates the most obvious reason for banning child porn.
There is the issue of whether or not viewing this kind of material would lead to later abuse of children. But how much evidence is there? And is it enough to limit an individuals freedom of expression?
I don’t hold the answers to any of these questions, but this seems like a nice controversial topic for you guys to throw around, so have at it.
The reason ‘actual’ child porn is illegal is 'cause an actual child is sexually molested in order to capture the image. Computer-generated porn only effects the mind of the person who creates/views the image… all harm to self (that does not harm others) besides suicide is legal, as far as I know. If the fantasies become of the nature they ‘must’ be acted upon, there are laws penalizing their actualization.
I heard on the news there’s a ban against the media covering the caskets of ‘war dead’. That’s the first thing that comes to mind when reading this thread. War morale apparently rates higher than children in this world…
As repugnant as the idea of child porn is to me personally, I disagree heavilly with any form of ‘thought police’. If no actual child has been harmed, no harm has been done.
The late Ronald Reagan once said, “We can not afford the government it would take to protect us from ourselves.” I don’t think most people desire a paternal government. As Mill noted, people should be allowed to conduct their own experiments in living provided that they don’t interfere with anyone else.
I think this is a fascinating question, since without thinking about it I might have said it should be illegal, but the more I think about it I’d be inclined to say it might be better being legal.
I like that it is non-aggressive, and in my opinion it could play a part in healing those paedophiles that need healing (like using a nicotine patch when trying to give up smoking).
I think there are numerous arguments for it being illegal, such as it being the slippery slope towards more aggressive acts, but for me the benefits may outweigh the risks. I am open to persuasion otherwise, if anyone can come up with a good argument.
I agree doctor, but the spread could lead to more people watching “computer-animated” child porn, and find out thats what they like, and then going out and trying to convince little girls to fuck them. I don’t know the details about child-fuckers and how they act, but if the above statement is true whatsoever, then the stuff should be banned.
And also this could also be a form of “thought-police” as it tells you that child porn isn’t bad. And the idiots of this world just might buy that and go rape little girls.
But as I said, I don’t know the details on how child-fuckers think, so I withhold my jugdment til I do know the details.
I don’t think that computerized feux-kiddy porn should be illegal, it is a form of art, so to speak. The real problem is: will it put the child porn stars out of work? And think about all the Psychiatrists that will be put out of work 20 years from now because their aren’t enough wackos who were molested when they were young. Computer Feux-kiddy porn might be free speech, but it’s just plain bad for the economy.
Pope Lanky Wanky KSC says, “The real problem is: will it put the child porn stars out of work? And think about all the Psychiatrists that will be put out of work 20 years from now because their aren’t enough wackos who were molested when they were young.”</> And this is a bad thing? Please.
Having such child art porn available could encourage more child molesters since it could be more readily available. I wouldn’t worry about the “Psychiatrists that will be put out of work” because of this.
I do feel that it should be legal and agree with the statements that have been said backing that up.
the big problem i see is how are we going to determine what is “virtual” versus what is “authentic”??? and who will determine it??? that’s why i wouldn’t allow “virtual” material… it’s not unlike how we treat those with fake weapons when they commit a crime or people selling fake drugs to unwitting customers… we treat them the same as those with legit stuff. and i don’t believe making pedophilia vicariously legal is healthy for society at all.
Althouhg the thought of it is sick. I don’t think the government has a right to tell people that they can’t be wierdos as long as they don’t harm others. illocutionary does have a point about a the fake drugs though. I dont see how that could be a crime. Mabey it has somthing to do with intent.
I think this falls more under the Racist free speech type argument. We’re free to speak publicly so long as we don’t make Raciest remarks. Once we become racist we loss our right to express that feeling through free speech, as we start to damage society as a whole. This is how I would see such images, unhealthy to society. They would do more to undermine our society then build it up. Free speech is there to help keep a society open for the good of society not the individual (I’m sure some will disagree with that sentiment). Yet some abuse this freedom for personal reasons. While we are all individuals we need to be able to trust and feel safe in our environment, if it were legal to view such computer generated images I’m sure this would send shivers down the backs of 99.999% of parents.
Society needs to protect the weak and by weak I mean those that are vulnerable and unable to help themselves, in this case those viewing such images. There must be an underlying psychology issue that should be addressed in these people. Long-term exposure to violent images makes people apathetic to the point where it’s not uncommon to see dead mutilated people on the TV, without even batting an eyelid in concern. If such a thing where to happen with these images it would have a massive effect on society as a whole, but would this be for the good of society or would it just benefit a couple of troubled people?
Like many of those who have previously posted, I have been forced to take a step back and reconsider my original reaction. At first, I too was predisposed to say that the whole mess should be illegal. But a rather important point was made when you recognize that no child would actually be harmed… However, I support the statement that even though it’s not the “real deal,” it’s the intention behind the pornography that is questionable. The example about drug-dealers selling real or fake drugs is well used. No matter weather it’s authentic or not, it’s still a questionable product. Basically, if it’s wrong when it’s real, it should be wrong when it’s an immitation… after all, it’s still promoting a rather morally perverted act…
Banning computer generated child pornography when it actually harms no-one is something what a very paternal govt would do. Then there is the ancient argument of “shared morality” of a given society. According to this argument, if a practice is aginst the “shared morality” of a society, that practice ought to be baned. This might sound ancient to any of us, but it holds a lot of water especially in the UK, India etc.
Perhaps we should ban racing video games because they promote reckless acts of traffic violation, thus endangering all of those pedestrians and good drivers.
Don’t even get me started on Doom III…
Or maybe we should illegalize THINKING about anything that the majority of people find ‘wrong’ because thinking about thinigs leads to more crime than anything else put together!
Seriously, anything short of true, in the flesh, hurting people should be legal.
Ok, are you guys really thinking clearly about this topic??? I just can’t understand. So you think it’s ok to take pornographic pictures as long as the child is not harmed? I guess that the child’s wishes are out of the question here as long as he/she is not harmed.
How did you guys become so impersonal and subjective about this? You are looking at what is beneficial for yourselves rather than the person who is actually affected by this. It’s all about the “government,” “big brother,” etc. Forget about the government, think of the child who will be affected psychologically of this when he/she is older.
Virtually generated child porn…This is an example of how issues become “justified” since they are reasonable and thus, ok. Well, not everything is based on reason… If you had/have a kid, how would you feel if the computer generated children look like your children? Would you be thinking “this is alright since it is only computer generated”?
I am very tired of how this society is encouraging that we just become brains…
I also disagree with any form of ‘thought police’, but wouldnt virtually generated childporn be the same thing as a voyeur child porn photographer taking picture of naked children without them knowing but keeps the pictures to himself? he isnt harming any child or his family. the child will be ignorant to fact that the photograph took place. would you agree with that too?
Wouldn’t allowing fake child porn reduce the demand for real child porn?
And if you illegalize “virtual” child porn, where do you draw the line between what is “porn” and what is “art”. Alot of backwater, redneck Judges in the U.S. wouldn’t know the difference between pornography and art. Hell, the Attorney General covered up the breasts of a statue of Justice.
What “most people” find “disturbing” has nothing to do with the law.
And to Pax Vitae, I don’t know about the laws where you are, but here in the States I can spout all the racist bullshit I want and the law can’t do anything about it, hell if I target it at the right race it’s patriotic.
Huge no against legalization. If a person wants to view ‘fake’ child porn its probably just a stepping stone to the real thing. Wouldnt doing this just feed into their sickeness? Seems like exploitation of all children to me.
As for their rights, in all honesty I couldnt care a less. In my opinion if you feel the need to view child porn, fake or otherwise, for enjoyment…do me and the world a favor and just jump off a bridge.
