What should be done with people who view child pornography?

[XemaSab]

Last night I went out with three intelligent, liberal friends.

The discussion turned to child porn, and I was sort of stunned and amazed that there were four TOTALLY different opinions around the table, ranging from treating people who view child porn as pedophiles to saying they didn't really hurt or exploit anyone so they should get a slap on the wrist. The discussion also touched on issues of age of consent and complicity in committing a crime or exploiting others (including adults who are coerced into porn).

What do y'all think?

(We're not talking about pedophiles or people who MAKE child porn, just people who VIEW child porn.)

[cliffordu]

1. I cannot repeat what I think should happen to them

the authorities would be alarmed.

It would be a bad thing for someone to defend it in front of me.

[Juche]

50. I'll do it

Do you think people who view children dying in accidents should be put in prison? If so, you better put anyone who has seen a 'faces of death' movie in jail. What about people who watch G4 and watch shows where bank robberies take place? Should people who watch shows about bank robberies be charged with theft? Then again, people don't rob banks for the purpose of marketing the films either.

A few years ago the house & senate passed a child porn bill that didn't allow exemptions for issues that have 'cultural, medical, or other legitimate reasons' (something like that). Basically there was an exemption for culture (the naked girl in the vietnam napalm photo for example). But they took that out. So if you've seen the movie 'american beauty', seen the napalm photo of a naked girl crying and running from bombs, or have read the works of shakespeare you are now a pedophile.

I think viewing child porn should be illegal because it perpetually victimizes the victim, however I don't really feel that child porn that may be 100 years old (as an example) is a problem. By then the victim is dead. And child porn that is drawn by hand or on computer, I don't really have a problem with.

Considering that about 10 million children are going to die from malnutrtion, lack of sanitation and disease all over the world this year (I have donated thousands of dollars to fighting these causes, even when I was broke), and the fact that millions of children are being abused and are too afraid to tell anyone, a person looking at digital child porn which involved no real life children doesn't strike me as the biggest threat.

I can understand not wanting to perpetually victimize the child and why it should be illegal, but is watching a video of a murder or a faces of death video any worse? I don't know where the line is drawn. It seems arbitrary.

But come on. If people are going to ignore the 10+ million children who will die this year, and they become willfully ignorant about true threats to their kids by pretending 'weird strangers' pose the biggest threat to their kids rather than family members because the truth is too painful I can take them seriously when they say they want to 'protect kids'.

You can't tell me vetoing SCHIP victimizes children less than a drawing of a made up child that some guy has in his drawer somewhere.

I personally think we address pedophilia all wrong. There is a crisis of child abuse in the world leading to cycles of abuse, mental illness and destroyed innocence. And everyone is either too terrified or too Rambofied on the other to address it properly. Our response individually and collectively consists of either 'ignore it' or 'kill everyone'. But we have tried both, and neither has worked yet to protect children.

Here is the 'child molestation prevention plan' from a well respected research group on the subject.

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/prevention_plan.html

I'd recommend every parent who is worried about their kids read it.

[cliffordu]

58. Perhaps I should have been clearer...

I was just talking about kiddie porn, The rest of that stuff is important but this thread is about child porn

I think it's more about the individual adult.

Here is the criteria I would use:

Do you get aroused looking at naked children?

If you do, you need to be mainstreamed into the general population of any maximum security prison that happens to be handy. For rehabilitation.

Splitting hairs about when it was made, drawn or it's original purpose doesn't matter in the slightest.

If you pop a chubby over naked children, you are a fucking pedophile, and need to be dealt with in the most egregious manner possible.

[Jed Dilligan]

61. I'm willing to accept a standard of not acting on one's impulses

If we locked up everyone who had deviant or violent impulses but didn't act on them, the million or so people left would all have to work as prison guards.

[cliffordu]

63. You are clearly a better human being than I am.

But I can live with that.


:patriot:

[Bill McBlueState]

118. are you gonna test that criterion?

Seriously, whose job will it be to go around determining who gets aroused looking at naked children? Someone would have to do that to implement the scheme you're advocating.

I'd prefer not to have the government going around investigating who gets aroused by what. Illegal actions are a lot easier to prosecute than illegal thoughts.

[booley]

122. So will you be the first to have your penis metered?

I mean, I get chubbies just because of bio rythms. I would hate to have a spike of hormones just as a semi clad child comes into view.

Unless we want our government to monitor us 24/7 down to our most private moments, I have no idea how we could do what you suggest.

Of course, it's not that law enforcement has a problem doing just that. It's just that they can't. even Big Brother at it's worst has limits.

So instead they feed hysteria over child porn by making the net so wide that almost anyone can fall into it, pedophile or not.

Oh I should point out that there is actually such a thing as a machine to measure sexual arrousel. However, while it can detect a stiffie, it can't necessarily say what was going on in the person's head at the time.

When you invent telepathy, let me know. Then maybe we can try your idea.

[still_one]

2. arrested and thrown in jail. We are talking about minors and whether

it is people who view it or make it they are all the same

They are contributing to the abuse of children

[MichiganVote]

3. Prosecution. And for your friends who pay to partake...child prostitution charges.

[Maddy McCall]

4. People who view it are responsible for the demand for it...

so they are just as guilty as the one holding the camera...or worse.

[trof]

98. I guess that's where I come down.

No demand, no supply.
But that's prolly a pipe dream.

[rwheeler31]

5. Why wouldn't a person be repulsed by this?

[ColbertWatcher]

Slippery Slope...

Your disclaimer

We're not talking about pedophiles or people who MAKE child porn, just people who VIEW child porn.

does not excuse people who view the child porn.

They are the customers.

If it wasn't for them, there would be no need for it to be made.

Also, as I understand it, the ones who make it are also the ones who participate in it.

They are all pedophiles.

[CoffeeCat]

32. I find it odd that the OP's roundtable...

...would distinguish between pedophiles and those just viewing child porn.

It is near certain, that a person viewing child pornography has pedophile tendencies. They
may not be acting out on their impulses, but pedophiles definitely view child porn.

If someone dismisses the act of viewing child pornography--I would seriously question their
own proclivities.

Anyone who feels that, the viewing of child pornography--is no big thing, has some serious issues, and
may be trying to rationalize their own behavior.

Pedophiles spend a great deal of time trying to rationalize their crimes. A great deal of mental
gymnastics is necessary to live with yourself--when you do these things.

As a society, we are obligated to verbally put the smack down on anyone who tries to rationalize
or condone the viewing of child pornography.

The children in those pictures are victims of sex crimes. When you view those images, you view
the victimization of children. That's never right.

Please--if you sense that one of your friends is trying to justify this---strongly press upon them
that these children are sexual-abuse victims who endure untold suffering and mental illness due to
these behaviors.

[Juche]

54. Everyone is a communist

If someone dismisses the act of viewing child pornography--I would seriously question their
own proclivities.

Anyone who feels that, the viewing of child pornography--is no big thing, has some serious issues, and
may be trying to rationalize their own behavior.

So anyone who doesn't have the same opinion is a closet pedophile? That sounds like something McCarthy would say, anyone who disagrees with his purges is a communist, or anyone who opposes torture is a secret terrorist. What about those of us who are seriously worried about the tens of millions of children with permanent emotional scars who aren't being helped a damn bit by these Rambo attitudes?

Maybe 10% of child molestation issues are ever brought to light. How are we protecting that 90% of young kids with developing brains who are being victimized? Their brains are going to be wired for life that way, and when you are victimized as a child and your brain is maturing, the pathways of stress, fear and pain become more well connected. I have heard from reading on neurology that child abuse 'wires the brain for pain, stress and fear'. Long term depression in child abuse victims is partially tied to their brains being wired differently, the pain and stress pathways are different than in non abused children.

Are we helping those children? Are we protecting them?

We need to protect children from abuse, the effects last forever. What we have tried to date has been a miserable failure.

[CoffeeCat]

62. On one hand you, seem to have a very...

...deep understanding of the horrors of child abuse and what it does to victims. On the other
hand, you suggest that my opinion about those who rationalize child pornography---"is something
McCarthy would say."

I think we agree far more than we disagree. However, I'm not getting what you are saying about
my comments, especially since you understand the devastating effects of child sexual abuse.

I'm not saying that everyone should think like me. However, you have to admit, that making
light of child pornography or rationalizing it's harm to society--is not normal. That's
what pedophiles do.

You understand child sex abuse very well---so you probably understand how insidious these
pedophiles are. They are very skilled at fooling themselves into thinking that what they
are doing to children--is ok. They contort reality. Their denial systems are incredibly
strong. One of the primary building blocks in their web of self lies---is that sexually
exploiting children is no big deal--that the child likes it or it is only an expression
of love, that should be legal.

Given that----if I see or hear someone making light of sexual images of children in which these
kids are exploited and traumatized---I see a major red flag.

That's certainly not a witch hunt. You'd have to be dead (or a pedophile) not to be repulsed
by these pictures and what this abuse does to children.

You are correct, by the way---our legal and justice system has completely failed these children. So
has society. Society is in denial about the epidemic of child abuse in this country, and that
keeps victims ashamed and silent.

When I see red flags---or what I sense is rationalizing these brutal, traumatic crimes on these kids--I
call it out. That's not McCarthyism. The malaise of pedophilia isn't just in the perpetrator's behavior
toward children---it's in all of the lies and bizarre, twisted belief systems running through their minds.

[Juche]

65. Not always

A person can disagree with the harshness people direct as child pornography without being a pedophile. For me it is bothersome because it just reminds me that as a society we don't have te courage to do what we really need to do to fight pedophilia, which is be open about it, to get offenders to seek help before they offend, and to give kids ways to ask for help. It seems everyone wants to talk a tough game but nobody wants to embarass themselves and build an open line of communication with their family about it.

I am repulsed by what sexual abuse of children does to people mentally and emotionally. And if I sincerely believed that throwing the book at people who look at child pornograpy actually protected children I'd be for it. But to me it just seems like the easier of 2 paths. We can take the hard, embarassing, painful path of facing pedophila, researching it and being open about it or we can get enraged that 'those people' want to hurt 'our' kids. And as a society we'd rather do that than protect our families. I say 'those people' because 80-90% of pedophiles are family members or friends of the family. But even that we don't have the courage to face, so we tell ourselves it is strangers who do it. We just don't have what it takes to really face facts and protect ourselves or our families.

As an example, have you ever seen a PSA for pedophilia, telling victims where to go for help or just someone to talk to while telling would be offenders where to go to get anonymous treatment? I haven't. We don't as a society have the courage to do what it really takes to protect children.

[CoffeeCat]

76. We agree on the important issues...

You have a very astute understanding of childhood sexual abuse, unlike many people.

I think you will agree, that society does not want to face the epidemic of child sex
abuse, because the reality speaks volumes about our society. The monsters, as you said,
are most likely inside the house.

As you mentioned these stranger-abduction incidents are very are. Pedophiles groom their
victims and are usually an immediate family member--or a person the child knows well and
trusts (coach, neighbor, etc).

Society doesn't want to deal with the fact that child predators are everyday, average people--the
accountant down the street or the business owner who sells us our morning coffee. We'd
rather be fearful of someone outside of our comfort zone.

I agree with you on all of this stuff, and it's refreshing to hear that someone else 'gets it.'

I do understand what you are saying---that harsh treatment of those who view child pornography will
not alone solve the problem. Additionally, it's hard not to be ticked off when we law-enforcemnt focusing
on those who view child pornography while our entire society denies the epidemic of childhood sexual abuse.

I wish we could put the smack down on ALL facets of this issue. Education, protecting children, convicting
these crimes, helping victims and providing more public assistance for victims who are often shattered---and
campaigns that bring out the reality of what our society is doing to children.

I agree, and I think we all can agree, that the issue of childhood sexual abuse needs to be dealt with honestly, openly
in our society--because failing to do so--only aids and abets the perpetrators.

[Dorian Gray]

73. Anyone

who doesn't see the problem in viewing child porn has some disconnect about the dangers of it. If they don't actually watch it themselves, they may have a serious lack of understanding about the degrading nature of it. If they do watch it themselves, they are pedophiles.

[ColbertWatcher]

72. I agree.

I believe it would be very difficult to accidentally view child pornography more than once. All the legal pornographers know to stay away from it and everyone who isn't a pedophile or in law enforcement or a psychiatrist treating someone effected by it knows to stay away from it too.

One has to be really looking for it to find it. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that the pedophiles meet online and speak in code to each other to exchange files. Sometimes they even place orders for specific things, which is why the viewer is not so innocent.

Certainly, the molester was most likely abused as a child as well, but that doesn't justify perpetuating it.

[DireStrike]

75. They pay for it?

How does a viewer of child porn become a "customer"? What exactly does he or she do to perpetuate the acts? Would you excuse, for example, download "leeches" who get the content from a p2p network without contributing anything in return? In fact, I'm not sure where else you would get it. It's not exactly going to generate ad revenue on a website.

[Jed Dilligan]

6. If it's actual kids having actual sex, they should go to jail.

If it's written, drawn, or non-sexual nude photography the 1st amendment protects it. Did you and your friends disagree on the definition of child porn?

[XemaSab]

8. We did NOT agree on the definition

Hence the "age of consent" component.

Which was also vehemently disagreed on. :P

[RoadRage]

7. I think they should be severly punished...

Actually - for a person who it can be proven that he/she has viewed child porn (porn of a person or persons who are obviously under the age of 18), I think 1 year in prison for each picture viewed up to a maximum of 25 years would be sufficient.

I'm not talking about someone who is looking at "XXX.com" and doesn't realize that they're looking at 17 year old instead of an 18 year old. I'm talking about the person who is looking at various imagages of 10 year olds, 5 year olds or worse.

Further more - someone who is responsible for making or distributing it should get 2 years for every picture or video he/she is involved with - up to a max of 50 years.

If they agree to serioius rehabilitation & counsuling while in prision, they can work off up to 1/2 of the sentance with the approval of the counsolers & doctors involved if they really think the person has been rehabilitated.

And, it should not matter if the child/children involved are US or NON-US born citizens. If the perp. is a US citizen, that's all that matters.

Just my .02. And, sadly - I don't think that this would in any way stop this horrific trade. I think that people who are interested in this sort of thing will do it no matter what. It's just a different kind of drug to them, and many don't "think" they can control themselves.

[High Plains]

87. You bleeding heart liberal!!

There's a guy in Arizona doing 130 years for having 13 child porn images on his computer. Ten years per image. Consecutively.

[RoadRage]

89. Well that's a bit harsher then my recommondation..

Sorry - I have a 2 year old - perhaps that makes me a bit over the top.

I will also add that I don't like "tracking" sex offenders once they're out of prison. If we don't track murderers, why track sex offenders? Why is one worse then the other?

That's a whole different post though!

[MaryBear]

9. Definitely part of the problem, but

they need treatment, long term treatment.

[XemaSab]

11. That was another facet to the discussion

One party was arguing for treatment, and another party was arguing that these people can't be treated.

[varkam]

18. Well, if you look at recidivism rates from the DoJ...

it would appear that re-offense is already quite low, and that treatment can make a difference (though that is somewhat open to debate, as getting statistically significant drops can be kind of difficult when you already have a low re-offense rate).

Also, though, I'm not sure if re-offense for this particular brand of crime has been studied extensively. I'm sure that there are probably differences between child molesters who view child porn, people who view all kinds of pornography and show little preference, people who exclusively view child porn, and so on and so forth. Being that it is such a big problem in the area of computer crimes, though, I'm sure we'll probably be seeing more data in the future.

[XemaSab]

24. I think the rates of people who get caught for child abuse are already WAY too low

and so that queers the recidivism rates. I mean, if your chances of being caught are only 1 in 5, that means that there's a LOT more crime happening out there than people are ever arrested for.

[CoffeeCat]

42. Recidivism rates are extremely unreliable.

I know a child-sexual abuse expert who is also a nationally renowned PTSD expert. We've
discussed recidivism rates, and he tells me that the data is very unreliable.

How are pedophile recidivism rates collected? You ask a convicted pedophile whether
or not he has victimized additional children.

Their answers, are--at best--suspect. Recidivism rates rely on the self reporting of convicted
pedophiles.

Recidivism rates are also based on conviction for additional pedophile-sex crimes. Just
because someone isn't caught and convicted---certainly doesn't mean that they didn't re-offend.

The nature of child sex crimes is one of secrecy and terrorizing victims into silence. That's
one of the hallmarks of child sexual abuse. Naturally, a perp may have hundreds of victims who
never tell.

Recidivism rates are very unreliable. Because we don't catch these perpetrators again, doesn't
necessarily mean that they aren't sexually abusing children.

[varkam]

71. Incorrect.

How are pedophile recidivism rates collected? You ask a convicted pedophile whether
or not he has victimized additional children.

That is wrong. Recidivism rates are based on re-arrest and conviction rates.

Recidivism rates are also based on conviction for additional pedophile-sex crimes. Just
because someone isn't caught and convicted---certainly doesn't mean that they didn't re-offend.

Doesn't mean that they are, either.

[CoffeeCat]

74. You're wrong...on two accounts.

First:
Recidivism rates are collected two ways:

Convicted pedophiles, who are assigned treatment---are monitored to determine
if their treatment is effective. These convicted pedophiles in many treatment
programs are evaluated. They are asked about their thoughts, their actions
and their behaviors.

To assert that recidivism rates are not determined by the self-reports of convicted
pedophiles---is to fail to be aware of what routinely happens in treatment programs.

Monitoring recidivism rates via perpetrator self reports in the norm in the psych
community.

Secondly. My assertion was that recidivism rates are UNRELIABLE --not that they
are offending again. We truly don't know if they are. You don't know. I don't know.
We know when they are caught. Using basic logic--and anyone in law enforcement will tell
you--that just because someone isn't caught--surely doesn't mean the aren't offending.
Some convicted pedophiles re-offend and are caught. Some convicted pedophiles re-offend
and aren't caught. Some convicted pedophiles don't re offend.

The data is unreliable--because it is based on perps being caught again.

As you said---we don't know if are are offending, but we don't know that they aren't either.
One in ten sexual abuse report the crimes. Ninety percent of these crimes go undetected.
That is the nature of childhood sexual abuse.

You have very strong opinions--but you are often incorrect in some of your assertions. I'm
involved with the issue of child sex abuse--and I work with nationally known experts in the
field.

I get concerned with the disinformation you seem to spread on this issue.

It is common professional knowledge--that currently, the law-enforcement community and the psych community
have no reliable way to measure pedophile recidivism. Data exists, and recidivism is
measured, but these data are never used to assert whether a convicted pedophile is re-offending. The data
measures additional convictions not their day-to-day behaviors.

The data---pure and simple--tallies those who are caught . That's it.

[varkam]

86. DoJ recidivism rates differ from those collected during treatment.

The DoJ doesn't base the recidivism rates off of self-reports - it's all about re-conviction.

Further, I wouldn't say that the rates are unreliable, only underreported. Most studies that are conducted on the issue finds similiar reoffense rates, though it is likely that the true number is higher. How much higher is anyone's guess, but when you look at 3-5 year recidivism rates it's also important to keep in mind that most of those people are under intense supervision from the department of probation and parole which (in many states) includes things like lie detector tests.

It is further true that many of these crimes go unreported, and that is likely because the majority of these crimes occur within the home. Given that the punishments can be so strict, people are often reluctant to turn in their family members. AFAIK, offenders on release aren't going to be allowed to be around their own children (if they have them).

But it's also important to keep in mind, especially with people who are viewing child pornography, that a lot of this data is based on people who have committed some sort of contact offense. With a hands-off offense, a lot of this is speculation.

[Greyhound]

21. The recidivism rate for pedophilia is disturbing.

http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C24.htm">I found this article interesting, the fact that it is Canadian might reduce the number of "sex offenses" due to their more focused definitions of them.

[otherlander]

93. You can't really treat it, though.

That would mean changing what they're sexually attracted to, which is impossible. The only thing that can be done is to severley punish them.

[varkam]

99. I'd think that there are different levels.

Sexuality is a continuum. I would think it is entirely possible for someone who views child pornography to not have a sexual preference per se, but lack of an aversion perhaps.

And if it can't be changed, then isn't punishing it severely a little...well...barbaric? I mean the purpose of punishment is supposed to get people to change, right?

[otherlander]

104. Not punish them for being attracted,

just for viewing/buying it, which enables child abuse. They'd still be attracted or whatever, still want to look at it, but they might be deterred from committing the actual act.

[varkam]

117. Agreed eom

[varkam]

10. Well, there is obviously a difference between...

someone who views child pornography and someone who actually molests a child. View child pornography, though, is wrong as it creates a sort of market demand for material that necessitates that children be abused and so in my mind it should obviously be a crime.

Even with that concept of market demand, you can get into some deeper issues - such as the differences between distribution, trading, purchasing, or simply downloading.

That issue aside, though, there is some evidence to suggest that it can be a precursor to actual, physical child abuse which presents another compelling reason for the state to step in. But even that issue is muddled as well, as there is also evidence to suggest that the availability of pornography in general decreases the rate of sex crimes - though even if that is the case with child pornography I still think that the first issue presents enough of a compelling interest for the state to become involved.

As far as what the appropriate punishments should be: I personally think that prison should be reserved for people who are habitual or violent offenders so I'd think that a first-time offender in this area should probably be afforded some sort of treatment and supervision as opposed to a lengthy prison term. Then again, the facts of each individual case differ.

[MaryBear]

16. The problem with prison

is that most of these offenders have been victims, and not uncommonly are compulsed to watch the stuff. Tormented. I would support treatment, supervision. I am not sure what -- but punishment is not the answer imo. -mb

[varkam]

20. It's a tough call.

I agree that for many non-violent offenders, the first stop shouldn't be prison. Treatment is probably the better alternative, but then what do you do with someone who does it again and again and again?

I do think, though, that the feds have been going a bit overboard with this stuff. Not to say that it shouldn't be a crime or that there shouldn't be appropriate punishments in place, but it seems that they have been focusing more on child porn related offenses as opposed to sexual abuse cases in recent years.

Although a case in Arizona takes the cake. A school teacher was given a 200 year sentence for simple possession.

[CreekDog]

52. that's way more than for a murderer

i see lots of inconsistencies.

[XemaSab]

26. I'm going to step in with my opinion here

and say that yes, abuse is a cycle, but only by BREAKING that cycle will we end child sexual abuse.

The conversation went in the direction of the stupidity of prison, and the fact that prison treats all criminals the same.

But that being said, people who get off on looking at kids have something WRONG with them that can't be fixed, any more than being gay can be fixed.

(And before I get jumped on, yes, I did use that analogy last night and I got jumped on for it. The fact remains that some people like men, some people like women, and some people like little kids, and I don't think any of that can be changed.)

[TreasonousBastard]

51. So far, I like this answer best, but,,,

I am not entirely convinced that all pedophiles or cradle robbers are sick. Many are, of course, but some are simply nihilistic and very bad people looking for the next thrill.

In either case, and in any other possible cases, we have to understand what is driving these people and find some way to act accordingly. Only then can we really break the cycle. So far, we have usually taken the easy way out through criminal prosecution. Bringing the law down on them may be appropriate in some cases, but not all. And it does not seem to have had all that much of an effect any more than drug laws have.

And yes, we have to define terms precisely before even beginning to discuss this. Sex with a slightly underage person is NOT pedophilia.

The question of consent is an interesting one, and not easily answered. The ages the various states have set up are arbitrary and not uniform. Other countries and cultures have other standards. And should there be some standard other than simply calendar age? Traci Lords was underage when she got herself into the porn business and how many underage girls were knocked up by underage boys last year? While we all pretty much agree that the twenties are fine for consent and preteen is not, how're we doin' in the middle there? Do that sexually sophisticated seventeen year old with the phony license the day before her birthday in one state and you spend a few years in the slam and have sex offender license plates following you around for the rest of your life. Cross the state line and you're home free.

There's gotta be a better way.

[papau]

47. pedophile death penalty works for me - but "view" involves tomented victims of past abuse that need

treatment, supervision. And given what is out there as spam a view might be simply opening an email (I agree and know that all pictures can be remove from email automatically - and that is what I do - but not everyone has set their filters).

[Fridays Child]

12. Four liberals have four different opinions and that stuns you?

That sounds perfectly normal to me. ;)

[XemaSab]

13. .

:rofl:

[The Straight Story]

44. I've hear tale that happens in GDP at times

:)

[LostInAnomie]

14. I'm of split mind on this.

My gut reaction is disgust at those that view it. Their deviant lust causes a demand for the product and ultimately they are responsible. That being said, if they do not actually take part in the production of the porn, then what they are doing is a thought crime. I hate the idea of anyone being punished for what essentially amounts to thought, albeit disgusting thought.

Anyone involved in the production of child porn should face incredibly severe punishment though.

[Irreverend IX]

15. I would recommend long periods of involuntary psychiatric commitment...

However, one issue with strict punishments for viewing child porn is that sometimes people will end up finding it unintentionally. I know that if you end up getting child porn emailed to you or finding it online, the best thing to do is to delete it, wipe it from your browser cache and tell no one. If you go to the cops and say "Look, someone sent me child porn!" they're likely to bust you and slap you with sex offender status because the laws are so draconian.

[XemaSab]

28. That's another factor that we agreed on a definition for:

we're talking not about people who happen to view a couple pictures, but people who seek out and make a habit of looking at child porn.

[elocs]

17. I am sure that pedophiles did not just jump straightway into sexually abusing children.

I am sure that child pornography was a preliminary step, much in the same way that killing and torturing animals is a step in the path and predictor of a sociopath. If nobody bought child porn, very little of it would ever exist. The trouble with pedophiles is that they are like rabid animals. It may not be their fault, but their "bite" creates other potential pedophiles. Pedophiles may go to prison, but if released they most often recommit their crimes against children. Rabid animals are put to death, but pedophiles need to be permanently separated from society for the safety and well being of society and its children.

I realize that the question is about those who just view child pornography, but I do believe that is a step on the path to pedophilia. These people need to be dealt with severely in the hope of knocking them off that path, but I am doubtful about that.

[XemaSab]

29. I agree totally.

The cycle needs to be broken.

These people are sick individuals, and I don't think prison (as it exists now) is the perfect place for them, but they need to be locked up.

[elocs]

49. Pedophiles do need to be separated from society for its safety, but how?

One of the problems is that even if a pedophile sincerely did want to change he (overwhelming it is "he") is branded by society and is set up for failure by society. If he has been through the system he is now a registered sex offender and where he lives will be publicized and he will find it difficult to find employment and he will be hounded and mistrusted and will be at risk of being attacked or killed because he is a sex offender.

If pedophiles are viewed as being beyond redemption by society, then what is the point of releasing them? There are no easy answers, but certainly what we have been doing concerning pedophiles is not working. But above all, innocent children do need to be protected.

[Juche]

56. Reading books is a step too

Reading books leads to ideas that cause you to question authority. Hence book burnings and bannings.

Peaceful assembly can lead to riots, hence laws against it in places like Myanmar, where no more than 4 people can assemble at once.

If we are going to treat the first step as a guarantee of the final step, we need to eliminate the first amendment right now.

[elocs]

64. Nice try. Please tell me in which state is child pornography legal?

Your analogy makes no sense since the first step, viewing child pornography is not legal in of itself.

[Juche]

66. I'm not talking about America

I'm talking about earth. The idea that if people are allowed to think what they want eventually they will act inappropriately is the mentality of totalitarianism.

The media & internet are censored all over the world because people might eventually read and see things that make them think thoughts that will eventually make them more likely to act a certain way.

And why draw the line at looking at pictures of kids? I'm sure there are other traits that make one predisposed to pedophilia. Maybe having low self esteem predisposes someone. Can we ban books and TV shows that might lower self esteem? Who draws the line?

[elocs]

68. This is the United States of America and since there is not a world government

we are bound by the laws here. The point is clearly that if somebody here in the U.S. is viewing child pornography, that action, that first step is illegal. Your analogies still do not make any rational sense in regard to viewing child pornography and its link with pedophilia.

[Danger Mouse]

19. well, i think that although technically you're not 'hurting anyone' by viewing it...

someone is definitely hurt in its creation. anyone who is viewing it, at the very least, is in need of serious therapy, and should be in jail as well...like, a stiff sentence which could be reduced significantly if they're making good progress in therapy...y'know, rehabilitation rather than simply retribution...i feel that way about most nonviolent crimes...as long as it can be proved to a reasonable degree that the person in question isn't a threat of molestation or something like that.
that being said, i think that the people who make and distribute that shit need to see some VERY harsh prison time.

[XemaSab]

30. How do you prove that they're not a threat?

I don't think you can prove that.

[Danger Mouse]

34. hmm...that's a good point.

leave it to the therapists to decide. maybe involuntary civil commitment rather than prison. keep them out of society and focus on getting them help...

[XemaSab]

38. I think there's an inherent bias of therapists

to advocate for their patients.

I don't think they can judge any better than a lot of other people, especially if the patient knows he can tell them what they want to hear.

[Danger Mouse]

40. i work with therapists...and i can pretty much guarantee that that's not necessarily true.

and anyway, then who judges? whose decision is it?
how the hell can anyone be impartial?
i guess involuntary civil commitment, and a hell of a lot of therapy, but i don't think life imprisonment for viewing child porn is just by any means, which seems to be what you are advocating.

[XemaSab]

41. My mom used to be a therapist

and there's a lot of batshit insane shrinks out there. :P

[Danger Mouse]

45. yeah, that's true.

lots of therapists who don't have their own shit in order.

[Bigmack]

22. I've argued with people....

about digitally created child porn. No real people... child or adult. Appeals to the same interest, but since there is no actual person being violated, is there a crime... by anybody involved?

That's the problem with being Liberal. Too damn many shades of grey.

Oh, to be a Fundie and have my mind all made up for me. None of that annoying thinking.

[XemaSab]

31. The post below you asks about manga

It's a good question.

[Hugabear]

23. Is manga or anime considered child porn?

I've heard several people say that it should be.

[TimeChaser]

109. Well, seeing as the majority of anime/manga is not sexually explicit,

it'd be kind of silly to group it all together.

However, even when it is sexually explicit, the issue is it's so damned hard to tell ages, aside from what the creator tells us.

For instance, this character (from a totally appropriate shounen (aimed toward boys) manga)is 15


This character (from an all ages high school comedy) is high school-aged

[mntleo2]

25. I have a question ...

...I am assuming you are talking about filmed children, not cartoons or computer animation, right? should we also arrest people who view drawn pictures or animation? If it does not involve a human being, then I think arresting men who view non-human animation are not hurting anything. IMO it is going too far and becomes "thought police" stuff otherwise. It should be no different than all the blood and gore on games such as Half Life or Grand Theft Auto where killing is indiscriminate and from my knowledge, no one has proved yet that it causes mass murderers. They have arrested men for drawing their own pictures who are not even convicted child sex abusers and that was going too far, imo. What if someone created a virtual girlfriend on computer or maybe even one of those life sized dolls someone is building for men (and women I hear as well) with all the right anatomy? Should they be arrested too?

I agree with others however viewing actually filmed children is encouraging it to continue as an industry and harmed the children who were filmed and this is wrong.

Now sit back and use THAT for a conversation starter next time :D !

Cat In Seattle

[XemaSab]

33. Wednesday night at Drinking Liberally

It's ON! :D

[CoffeeCat]

27. Every child in those images--is a victim of sexual abuse...

Viewing these images, gives power, money and validation to the soul stealers
who stand behind those cameras and photograph these innocent, helpless, traumatized
children who are being raped, dehumanized and psychologically damaged.

This is not just viewing images. This is participating in the business of
sexually traumatizing children.

Any child who has sexually-explicit photographs taken of them---has people in
their lives (usually a father, stepfather, grandfather or other family member)
who regards them as an object to be exploited and objectified.

These children are at the mercy of people who have no regard for their humanity,
or their suffering.

When a person views these images, they empower and send a signal to pedophiles,
child predators and sociopaths--that sexually exploiting and psychologically
decimating an innocent child--is just fine.

Viewing those images is participating in the victimization of this children.

The punishment for participating in these crimes should be severe.

[XemaSab]

36. .

:thumbsup:

[Extend a Hand]

35. definitions matter a lot

I would have thought that a person who derived sexual gratification from possessing and viewing child pronography where child pornography is defined as material depicting sexual acts involving pre-pubescent children is a pedophile.

I think pedophilia should be considered a criminal mental illness and that pedophiles should be segregated from society in some manner until such time as a cure or 100% effective treatment is found. I recently read an article about a study that said researches had found distinct abnormalities in the brain scans of known pedophiles.

Anyone involved in the making, marketing and distribution of child-pornography(as defined above) for personal profit should face draconian sentences-- life in prison with out parole.

[defendandprotect]

37. From what I hear, internet porn is often trying to move the viewer into child porn . . .

What I think about child porn is that it's a serious problem ---
and one that I don't think we yet understand.

Obviously, those who produce are a big problem --

And let's notice that these problems all increase with the rise of the right ---
trafficking in females for sexual purposes all over the world, for instance.
And sex tours in Asian countries where children are exploited, for another.

However. . .
I think once we come outside what we consider our normal view of crime --- i.e., someone commits a crime and serves time, thereby "paying" or redeeming themselves -- which, actually I think is
insufficient because we really make no provisions for true redemption or reform -- but, if we
begin to say, as we do with actual child molestation that we are going to hold someone responsible for the rest of their lives and turn them into lepers in our communities --- THEN I think we have to admit that we have a different kind of situation on our hands and that we have to look at it perhaps as a medical problem?

[readmoreoften]

59. I'm not sure why internet porn would direct anyone anywhere.

Those who make internet porn--by that I don't mean sexual communities online, I mean pay sites and sites that lead to pay sites--doesn't care one iota about sex. They care about money. There is no money in trying to direct people to a place they don't want to go. It is a demand-driven industry. I used to work in the field, and I must say, I have never once seen a photograph of a child in a compromising position. In fact, in the US, all porn site owners and all content distributors MUST have all their models records on file, with at least one copy of their driver's license to prove they are 18. Professional site developers often work with police to catch predators. The people who are into child pornography are not in it for the money as far as I know. But my information is over 8 years old, so... I can't imagine that the field has gotten anything but stricter.

[defendandprotect]

67. I'm just telling you what I read ....

Probably about a year ago there was an article on internet porn --

and, yes, I understand what you're saying about the detachment which is probably a requirement
where serious exploitation of human beings exists ---

However, the article --- and I don't remember where it popped up -- but it was a rather serious
approach at trying to inform people about how addictive internet porn can be and how the internet
has so increased porn use. How widespread it is.

Comcast --- my carrier --- makes $500 million a year from internet porn -- !!!

At any rate, the article also discussed how many wives are finding out that their husbands are hooked on internet porn --
often quite by surprise--!!! And, the complications of all this in marriages -- especially where there are children ---
and also in unmarried relationships.

It also discussed this effort to try to expand the viewer's interest into child porn.
It seems to be quite common.

As I'm sure you've noted from some widely and every day kind of advertising in America, often models
who are very young looking are used --- this happened with cigaratte advertising where they were
trying to attract young people ---
and there was a recent GAP ad which I think I tried to draw attention to here at DU with a thread.
Basically, in one of the shots the model looked about 12 years old -- and the pose was suggestive.

So the opening stages of this "move" may not actually be children -- I don't really know.
They may simply be very young looking 18 year olds?
But the idea evidently is to draw interest in child porn, eventually.

And, then, too, porn is often simply body parts being flashed . . .
who's going to catch up with a body part or two thrown in now and then belonging to a 7 year old?

Whatever their reasons, obviously the longer the viewer hangs around, the more $$$$ they make.


MEANWHILE . . . you might have seen my thread in the last day or so about Lewis Black back at the Comedy Channel doing a bit on internet porn --- The Root of All Evil. I never got to see the program as yet -- but someone gave me a link . . .

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId...

Is that the episode (YouTube vs. Porn)? "Lewis takes us on a little tour of YouTube and porn."

You need Flash to play the video.

[NashVegas]

81. Internet Pornographers Are Trying to Make Money, and Lots Of It

It's safe to assume they think kiddie porn brings in big bucks.

[BlooInBloo]

39. Dunno - what should happen to a 15 yo girl who sends her 15yo boyfriend a sexy video?

It happens, and it's prosecuted as kiddie pron.

That's just to give you a flavor of why there are subtleties here that the shallow might not notice.

[XemaSab]

43. My opinion is that pre-pubescent and post-pubescent porn

should be treated very differently.

I think if they're looking at 5 year olds, we should throw the book at them, but if they're looking at 15 year olds, a slap on the wrist is sufficient.

[CoffeeCat]

46. I think everyone understands the glaring difference....

...between a 15-year old sending a picture of herself to her 15-year old boyfriend----and a grown
man who downloads videos and pictures of children being sexually abused by adults.

We should never use these "Romeo and Juliet" scenarios to downplay the horrors of child sex crimes, or
water down the laws for adults who are viewing sexually explicit images of children.

The penalties should be profoundly severe.

If we want to have different penalties for the 15-year old scenario--then make a separate law for those
situations. However, we should not loosen the laws just because of the 15-year old situation.

[BlooInBloo]

48. If by "everyone" you mean "everyone except the law and prosecutors", then I mostly agree.

[izquierdista]

53. What should be done with people who are irreverent?

What about people who don't measure up? What about people who don't answer fully? What should be done with people who are intentionally vague? :dilemma: :dilemma: :dilemma: :dilemma:

[readmoreoften]

55. My question is why wasn't it illegal until 1982? Why did we care so much all of a sudden?

Child pornography wasn't considered much dirtier than other forms of pornography. I own an after-school special from 1980s about a 6th grade girl who falls in love with a pedophile and poses for child porn mags. When the mother finds out (from an ad for child porn in a regular porn mag left in her boyfriend's car) she yells at the daughter, "have you been making dirty pictures!?" This scene would be so impossible to imagine today.

I'm more concerned about finding the kids and making sure they're okay than I am about revenge against pedophiles. If people are caught with pictures of children having sex, but they never had contact with these children, I think that intensive in-house therapy for the offenders (and forcing offenders to help authorities trace the photos) is an excellent start. If the perp is involved in actually taking the photographs and has had contact with the children, I think putting the guy (it's usually a guy) in a high-security home permanently is a good idea.

But I think hysteria is a terrible way to deal with this. It helps no one. For example, when people like Elton John are prosecuted for owning Nan Goldman photos and so forth. My policy is that if it has ever been in the Museum of Modern Art and is currently published in a photography book then it is absurd to prosecute people in possession of such a photo as owning 'child pornography'. It is also silly to prosecute photo collectors who happen to own a collectable daguerrotype from 1896 of a nude teen dressed in classical greek attire staring off into the distance. I also don't approve of prosecuting people for 'simulations of child pornography' as in cartoon characters or 30 year old models dressed up in cheerleader outfits. Criminalizing people's fantasies of making it with a cheerleader in high school is not relevant. The issue of child pornography is that the photo has already hurt a real child. The criminality of viewing the photo is that it perpetuates the trauma for the child.

But really, my thesis is that we became hysterical about child pornography since women's liberation. Helen of Troy syndrome. The purity of women used to be the reason to fight and die for your nation. Now we need a fetish object to remain utterly pure, a romanticized victim to rally behind. We cry over the rape victim at the age of 10, but after we weep and walk away, she still lives her life in confusion. Then when she's 18 and lost and she becomes a stripper or a hooker the same people who boo-hooed over her abuse at 10, call her a dumb bimbo, or trailer trash (poor kids are at the highest risk for abuse.) Why? Fetishization of children. Fuck 'em when they grow up. Somehow in those 8 years of absolutely no help at all (exacerbated by the fact that the family has no money for a therapist and so forth because--come on--who does?) the kid was supposed to have pulled herself up from her bootstraps! We all agree that "it's a crime that destroys a child inside out". So what are we doing for all these destroyed kids after we 'rescue' them? Or is putting the perp behind bars how we rescue them? In other words, nothin' we can do for you, kiddo. Your purity is gone. You don't reflect back to us that wholesome joy we want to see when we look at a child. You're already dead. The best we can do is protect other innocents from coming into contact with the monster. Basically, if we throw away the victim after we play hero--I think all we really wanted was a reason to play hero.

Considering that in the Victorian era parents were urged by doctors to watch their children as they slept to monitor them for signs of masturbation, that children were sent to psychiatric hospitals for masturbating, that some doctors even suggested parents perform surprise home-clitorectomies on girls caught masturbating in their beds, and that cornflakes were designed by an anti-masturbation activist who believed that regular bowel movements would stop the practice in children--considering that all this was normal 100 years ago, I have to question why we have moved from the model of child as innately sinful degenerate to child as blank slate of pure goodness. Especially as we economically rape the children of the world and train paramilitary organizations that target children for extermination through the SOA.

Sometimes I think we care more about the concept of childhood than we do real children.


:rant:

[bemildred]

77. Yah, better throw Lewis Carroll in the slammer.

I'm amazed by the way this drives otherwise sensible people bonkers. Pedophila and child porn are real problems, yet another witch hunt for thought criminals and "deviants" is not the way to solve it.

[wuushew]

57. Nothing should be done

If no one paid any money for material already in the public domain, the act of distribution may unintentionally undercut the market forces which cause child exploitation in the first place.

I don't like the idea that in the digital age, every time a crime is committed regarding information it is viewed as an offense that is separate and of equal standing.
You can't digitally dub murder or property crime. The same logic that the RIAA uses to claim that every copy is a full price lost CD sale would lead people to believe that a viewer of illicit material on the web is as guilty those who produce the original source material.

How do we stop this sickness? Expanded police state? Yearly psych exams for all citizens?
Not really worth it in my opinion.

[lonestarnot]

60. No humane cure available, transport to remoteness and deliver for a period of life w/o parole as

they are viewing victims they create with their desire to see it, which is as bad as doing it. I'm mean, I know. But be sure your are right about the crime. 100% sure, as there are innocent people in prison.

[MrSlayer]

69. If you are into kiddie porn you are a pedophile and therefore should be killed.

Yes. Killed. Too dangerous to be left alone in free society.

[Roxy66]

70. Castration, of course.....assuming most are men.

[varkam]

88. I think that would be taken as cruel and unusual punishment under the constitution. eom

[AngryAmish]

78. I have been told you get more time for possessing child porn than actually molesting kids

Proof is a lot eisier for prosecutors in the porn cases usually.

[Fumesucker]

79. I'm sure my view will anger just about everyone..

I feel sorry for them.

It is my considered opinion that none of us chooses what we find erotically stimulating. It's clear to me that those who are homosexual have no real choice in the matter, likewise those who are heterosexual.

To use the phrase another poster used above, I couldn't "pop a chubby" for pictures of naked men no matter how long I looked at them or how attractive they were, likewise pictures of naked children of either sex. I didn't choose to be this way and I honestly think that there are very few to no humans on the planet who deliberately choose what turns them on.

How horrible it must be to have a sexual appetite which you did not ask for and yet everyone finds you to be filth worthy of extermination for having.

Not to say that those sexually attracted to prepubescent children aren't dangerous to children, just that I can imagine how it would be to have such an urge and have no means of turning it off.

In my opinion a truly gentle and caring society would try to make some accommodation for those who have these urges and yet do not act on them. Allow them to tell a counselor or therapist of their desires and be treated in some manner.. Even if the treatment only consists of providing "child porn" drawn or digitally rendered by artists.

If you look at those societies in which porn is completely banned they are invariably horrific places to live, both for men and particularly for women. It is my personal opinion that porn acts as a sort of "safety valve" for many of our libidinous desires which we have no real way of completely stifling or satisfying.

Could the same be true of those sexually attracted to prepubescent children? I really have no clue but I think it would be worth looking into.

[seabeyond]

80. and those turned on by rape and gang rape, we will give them that, simulated of course

and that will take care of, not feed into frenzy, the males wanting to rape and gang rape. yup, that has worked

[Fumesucker]

83. Would you like to live in one of the societies where porn is illegal?

Seriously..

[seabeyond]

84. i would like to live in a society where the truth about the harm porn causes male/female/children

the participants/families/and society as a whole causes. then people play in it at least in honesty instead of an illusionary lie cause they cant be honest with self

i feel the same about drugs. i am not about disallowing them. individual choice. but know the truth about it an not lie about it

same with smoking
drinking
and any other life choice.

dont tell me what a wonderfully good thing and healthy thing it is as i watch destruction in so many ways

i am not into dictating anyones choice.

i am not into lying either, .... even in protecting self.

now

you say, would you rather live in a place without porn, so not to have to address how porn and film using rape and gang rape to entertain male does not deter, .... (nor would feeding pedophiles kidde porn) but feeds.... whips into frenzy.

[Fumesucker]

85. I gather then that you would not like to live in any existing society

In which porn is illegal?

As I said, I think porn to an extent acts as a form of social "safety valve".

We have to deal with humans beings as they are, not as we would wish them to be. In evolutionary terms, civilization came into existence last Tuesday at 3:14 pm. We are not adapted to civilization mentally, instead all our mental processes are geared toward living in groups of up to maybe thirty or so.

Desmond Morris called us "naked apes" and that is pretty much what we are. Morris almost certainly got some of the details wrong but on the big picture he was definitely correct.

Our entire culture is one of lies, that is probably our single biggest problem.

[seabeyond]

90. predictably, bestow the perceived virtue, ignore the pain and harm n/t

[Fumesucker]

91. I knew you would not answer my question

On whether or not you would like to live in an existing society in which pornography is illegal.

So I guess we are both pretty predictable, eh?

[seabeyond]

92. a couple posts ago i clearly said i am not about dictating anothers life choices

i thought you had already "gathered" that per your post i responded to.

so i guess you are wrong in that too....

[Fumesucker]

94. I didn't ask you whether you wanted to make pornography illegal

I asked if you would want to live in one of the societies in which pornography is already illegal.

Since I know what those societies are like I knew that you would not answer the question.

[seabeyond]

95. you mean do i want to live somewhere where women have NO rights?

that is a stupid question.

but you are dragging this thread out with strawman arguments to take it further and further from my initial post.

[Fumesucker]

102. Not a strawman argument at all..

I'm just pointing out that in the real world, those societies that ban pornography are not at all friendly to women and aren't really all that great to live in if you are a man either.

In fact it is the most liberal and enlightened societies in which women's rights are the most protected that are the most permissive when it comes to pornography.

We must deal with human beings the way they really are.

In Mark Twain's tale "War Prayer" he makes the point that every prayer has both a spoken (or thought) component and an unspoken component. If you pray for rain for your crops that need rain, you may well be praying for harm on your neighbor whose crops will be harmed by more rain.

I recommend reading "War Prayer", it is a disturbing and enlightening view of human nature by a keen observer of that nature. It is only a couple of pages and can be read in a few minutes.

http://www.warprayer.org/

When you wish for something to be, you do not wish in a vacuum. If you wish for pornography to not exist then you wish as well for other consequences that are unknown and unknowable.

To wish that men would not desire pornography in any form is to wish for an absolutely fundamental change in human nature that is virtually certain to have many unintended consequences, not all of which would be sure to be positive.

[seabeyond]

103. you suggest showing kiddie porn to pedophiles so they will be appeased

i disagreed with you. i think that will just feed their need/want/desire.

that is what the initial conversation was about.

[Fumesucker]

105. Actually my intial point was

That I feel genuine pity for people that are so broken they earn the hatred of almost everyone for something over which they have no control, I count my blessings that I was not born broken the way they are.

If porn just "feeds desires" then why is it that the more enlightened societies in which porn is readily available have the lower level of violence against women?

Societies in which porn is completely illegal should have the lowest rates of violence against women if porn "feeds desires" and we know that is far from the actual situation.

Some of these poor bastards that come from cultures with no porn strap bombs to themselves in the hope of getting laid in the afterlife. It's hard to get much sicker than that.

[seabeyond]

106. because the u.s. has such a handle on violence agaisnt women and children.

i dont agree with about anything you are saying. it is not factual. it is opinion. and in my opinion, you are not correct.

[Fumesucker]

110. Where did I refer to the US?

I've never said a word about the US.. I don't consider the US to be an enlightened society, far from it in fact.

What am I wrong about?

When did you choose what was going to turn you on sexually?

If you were male would you not be glad that you were not born to be a pedophile?

[seabeyond]

111. then could it be the enlightenment and not porn that is the cure all to violence

against women?

[Fumesucker]

112. Almost certainly so.

But enlightened societies do not restrict adult pornography.

Keep in mind that there are sectors in American society that are constantly trying to restrict porn, and most of the time it is the less enlightened portions of our society..

Being anti-choice on abortion and anti-pornography pretty much go hand in hand.

Likewise, those who wish to restrict or eliminate access to birth control and sex education are almost always against pornography also.

Wishing to force your religion down everyone else's throats is almost invariably linked to a desire to do away with pornography, I cannot think of a single exception.

I don't even care for hard core porn myself, I find it off putting. But I know that there are a lot of people, both male and female who enjoy it and I have no desire at all to tell them they may not have it.

[seabeyond]

116. why are you lecturing me on this?

that has nothing to do with anything i have to say.

people that defend porn and ignore the harm that it does inevitably argue religion, right wing, prudent behavior if anyone dare to suggest there is an harmful and painful aspect to porn

do you know that a person can actually see the harm that porn does without being a prude, a sexual, religious, conservative or rw, not wanting to take it away or make it illegal or wanting to interfere in others having fun.

we simply know, that there are harmful aspects to porn.

that simple

and people refuse to acknowledge it.

enlightened is knowing that even though something may be harmful it must be an individual choices. one cannot enforce steps of enlightenment. they must be willing steps. but, one should a least have a truth about what they are participating in. instead of only getting the lies about it. if something damages selfs or others it stops enlightenment itself. enlightenment cannot be a part of harm whether to self or another. and that has to be peoples choices

[Fumesucker]

123. I have as much right as you to put forth and defend my point of view.

Why are you lecturing me?

If porn is so damaging then why is it that the more enlightened the society, the more readily legal porn is available?

Note, I'm not necessarily claiming that porn is not damaging but rather asking a logical question.

If you'll look at my first post again you'll see that I know my position will anger a lot of people, but that does not mean that I'm deliberately trying to anger anyone. I've just found that trying to rationally discuss some subjects angers people who have a strong emotional reaction to that subject.

Obviously you feel very strongly about the subject we are discussing, which in my view is all the more reason it should be discussed in a rational manner.

For what it's worth, I'm both a parent and a grandparent with three prepubescent grandchildren so I do have a dog in this particular fight. I want what is objectively best for my grandchildren, not what knee jerk position will make me feel the most righteous.

[dogday]

82. Child Pornography=Child Abuse

Some child somewhere was forced into posing for those images.. Think about that... Anyone who gets off to these images is indeed breaking the law and contributing to the abuse of that child...

[backscatter712]

96. Virtually everyone's a person who's "viewed child pornography"

Here's the problem. Most people who've been on the Internet long enough have stumbled upon child porn. Most of us, when that happens react by going "AUUUUUUUUGH!!!", surfing elsewhere in 0.00003ms, then pondering gouging out our eyeballs with a melon-baller, and contemplating various tortures to the fuckers that created such filth. Then we move on.

Then there are those who surf adult porn, which is legal, except for that one particular model who's not quite 18 yet. You think it's perfectly legal. Except it isn't - if she's 17, no matter how nice she looks, no matter how well her secondary sexual characteristics have developed, as far as the law's concerned, you're a felon, and it's the same as if you looked at a girl who's seven.

Or maybe you have a virus or worm or some other malware on your PC, and that malware is possibly downloading or uploading illegal material, and you don't even know it.

You think that once you've moved on, you're safe, except for one problem - that picture we might have stumbled on leaves bread crumbs on your PC. Maybe that picture's in your cache, the page you went to is in your browser history. There might be cookies left in your web browser. There are fragments on the hard drive.

So even though you're a decent person who'd never contemplate doing such things to a child, the police could theoretically kick down your door, seize your computer, then have your hard drive scanned with forensic software. And you know what, chances are good they'll find something. And when they do, you face criminal charges, you could go to PMITA prison, and end up with a lifelong enrollment in the sex offender registry.

Child pornography is damned destructive and disgusting, but on the other hand, we need to stop with the witchhunt mentality.

[LanternWaste]

97. A trial before a jury of their peers. n/t

A trial before a jury of their peers.

[alarimer]

100. First we have to define what is child pornography.

I recall people getting in trouble over their family photos, which happened to have a young kid running about in the nude. THAT is not pornography. My grandmother for years had a photo in her bathroom of my cousins in the bath as very young children. Perfectly innocent picture that nowadays might get someone jail time if some nosy parker at the photo lab saw it.

Yes, it is an important issue but a witch hunt atmosphere does not do society any good at all.

[ileus]

101. 12 months in iraq no body armor...

[Forkboy]

107. Those Republicans should be thrown out of Congress.

[XemaSab]

108. .

:thumbsup:

[hyphenate]

113. Convict (if evidence) as a misdemeanor

and make them volunteer (supervised, of course) at a domestic violence or abuse center. Some sort of community service that shows the effect of child porn on kids and adults. If the person isn't potentially a sex offender, it should deter them in the future. Some people treat child porn as a victimless crime, because they don't see the effects and after-effects from it. Once they do, they become more empathetic and smarten up.

[ismnotwasm]

114. Hmm

I think a minimal prison sentence of some sort followed by some extended, useful community service. Mandatory psychological evaluation and mandatory follow up, and also banned from being around children.

Anyone who is of the opinion that "they didn't really hurt or exploit anyone" is full of shit and obviously knows very little about the prevalence of child pornography or structure of the industry. The people who monitor such things, legal or health wise, tell otherwise.

An expert nurse witness, for example who works in the field views thousands of images a month. Her job is to testify whether the child is above or below 18 years of age or above or below 12. She is an expert on child development and anatomy. The images she views are horrible to any reasonable person, and she must testify when, say, a 6 year old is developmentally a 6 year old--- or a 12 years old is not really 18, something, especially in females, not always easy to do. In the case of infants, she must also testify developmental age. The things she uses are not only the child's body, but the relative development and size of any adult participate, hands, genitalia, body hair.

And there are thousands of photo shopped images of children on the web as well. The makers of child pornography go to personal web sites of families, or mind space, what have you, and take what they need for their production. A person viewing these images for sexual pleasure may not be "exploiting" the actual child, but does that matter? In simplest terms, Viewing child pornography (demand) is what keeps exploitation of these babies and children alive (supply) In my view, the harm is to all children, a harm to society itself in fact.

[JackRiddler]

115. If someone sends you an unsolicited e-mail with an image classed as child pornography...

You are a felon: possession of child pornography. Federal charge if out of state.

If you delete the image from your hard drive, you have committed a second felony: destruction of evidence in a felony case.

[ismnotwasm]

119. I didn't know that

Heres another quandary;
If two 14 year old have consensual sex, one of them takes a picture of the other performing a sex act, posts it on the internet somewhere, the 14 year old can be charged with producing and distributing child pornography.

I think the laws need to be clear and in the best interest of children. And they aren't always. My husband recently received an image on his phone that appeared to be a young girl with a dog. He was so disgusted he took it to the police (after he told off the first sender, and tracked to the original sender and told him off as well) who told him "It's probably an adult", not satisfied, he tracked the image to a young woman's website, she was adult, although she looked about 12 in the picture. The woman was portraying "child pornography", yet perfectly within her legal rights as an adult. Anyone viewing, also legal.

[JackRiddler]

120. Allow me to correct myself...

In the case of the child porn spam, you do have the option of rushing to the cops and letting them into your house and your machine, in the hope they will promptly and fully exonerate you. Might work, if you happen to be good friends with the Sherriff in your Shire. Might not turn out so well, in towns of population 14 or higher, or if the Sherriff thinks you're a Red.

The only concern with real child porn images (that is, of actual children) in an electronic age should be in tracking down the source, the makers of said images, so as to protect real children and prosecute their abusers. Anything else is the short road to a police state. But the state has prosecuted, I am not kidding, a guy who cut and paste (physically, with scissors and glue) the heads of children onto pictures of naked people in a magazine.

[booley]

121. I'm not sure most people can even have a rational discussion of this

In my experience, you say child porn and people's brains turn off. They already have an idea of what "child porn" is but frequently it doesn't match what the law views as child porn. And I am thinking they don't care. Any attempt at disabusing their notions is seen as defending exploitation of children.

I mean, an adult having sex with a four year old? yeah, there's not a lot of ambivalency there.

But what about those old or foreign skin rags where the age of consent was different?

What about artwork where children are posed nude?

What about a family photos of kids in the bathTub?

What about sexy pics passed only between a boyfriend and girlfriend, both of whom are underaged?

What about the new tactic of the FBI to send out spam and if you hit the link, they now have probably cause to arrest you for "child porn"?

What about teenagers? Do they still count as children and why should they suddenly not count when the moment they reach a certain age?

And what about the discussion of the subject? What about literature where there is sex between adults and children? Should even writing about the idea be illegal?

All of these things have happened, people have been arrested. and when people find out you are a "sex offender" they typically don't bother to also find out the circumstances. They just assume you must have been having sex with toddlers. Any protest is seen as being in denial. Even if one isn't a registered sex offender, that just means you secretly are a child molester because like I said, criticism of child porn laws is seen as the same as defending raping small children.. It's a no win situation.

Complicating this is the fact that human sexuality is so varied and fluid. what is erotic to one person isn't to another. Actual pedophiles probably get off on diaper commercials. Should we then arrest the makers of Huggies as child pornographers?

And I should mention I have seen this same thing in other areas of debate such as immigration, guns and hugo chavez. I guess it's just human nature. I do wish there was a way around it. but you can't force someone to think.

Oh but as to the question in the OP, first law enforcement should be a bit analytical and establish that this is a pattern, not a mistake or one time thing.

But another thing we al should do is remember that punishing the consumer of an illegal product has never worked. Put a million people who have ever seen child porn in jail and you won't make a dent in child porn.