Jmpace52
Gold
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2019
- Posts
- 906
- Reputation
- 877
As bad as child pornography is, however I will play devil's advocate here and say that prosecuting somebody over a jpg stored on their computer is beyond retarded, whether it depicts a criminal act or not, especially if they didn't take the photos themselves. A crime by definition is something that YOU did, not somebody else. Should we arrest witnesses to crimes now? How does that make someone equally as guilty? If child porn is so bad that it transcends common sense, then wouldn't the judge, solicitor and arresting officer be just as guilty? And then you have the slippery slope that the criminalization of this stuff provides. First it was just sickos who recorded themselves raping children. Then it was teens who sent their nude selfies to one another. Then it was people who photoshopped kids heads on nude adult bodies. And then it was cartoons, CGI animations and even written literature that can be deemed "obscene" now too. Dost has been stretched so many times, that CP can mean anything now. One example of child porn that falls outside of Dost would be clothed pictures that are meant to elicit a sexual response.
And for those that argue for why it should be illegal, they'll usually say that you're possessing evidence of a crime, but they are strangely silent when it comes to videos of people getting their heads blown off with shotguns. You can look at evidence of any crime in the world, but just not child rape? And obviously child rape is a heinous thing to do, but to base laws off of emotions rather than common sense is not the solution to that. And they might retort that child porn and gore are two different things and that child porn was meant to satisfy an audience, and while it may be true that they are not the same, however it's not an argument to simply say it was "meant for an audience" considering how every thing that is recorded or photographed and put out into the open domain (including gore) is also. And while it may be true that harm was involved in the making of it, but any harm involved with just the photo itself is up for debate. Even if we were to assume that the victim is being "reoffended" by the mere possession/distribution of said photo, it would still be objective, because there's harm in all kinds of other things, most of which are legal, that you could also argue, so why stop at this? People could argue that hentai or simulated CP is harmful because it could be used to groom children, but I don't see them arguing that. Same logic applies to adult pornography. You could argue that violent video games are harmful because they glorify and normalize violence and these have been implicated in many school shootings, but I don't see them arguing that. Similarly, saying "go kill yourself" can produce a harmful effect, because what if they do it? That'll fall on you. There's a million other things that you can argue are harmful, so why stop at this? And obviously, things are illegal because they are harmful, be it physically, financially or whatever. But why should we make something illegal because it's harmful mentally? I mean, you can degrade people as much as you want, you can bully people, and obviously bullying isn't illegal (at least not verbally). Defamation is different however, because in that case you're harming somebody's reputation. And even if we were to say that we should make it illegal because it's harmful mentally, then what about the child pornography victims who don't feel as affected by it? Not everybody is going to feel the same way. Maybe some people like the attention it brings. Who are we to deny them that right? And as for the argument that you're contributing to an industry, and that it provides a financial incentive, this still doesn't apply in every case. What if somebody just made child porn and freely distributed it? Then there's no "market" because there's no money involved there. Although I will be fair and say that the receipt of child pornography should remain illegal, because in that case you ARE contributing to the abuse by financing it, but just viewing something in itself demonstrably means nothing,nor does it make you "complicit" in anything. So to say we should ban it because it is harmful emotionally to the victims isn't right, because the first amendment is there to protect that kind of stuff. Without it, social justice warriors can just sign any law against something that they deem "offensive." If it wasn't for the first amendment, we would already have blasphemy laws. So really, I fail to see how looking at CP in the privacy of your own home and yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater are similar when they're clearly two distinctly different things.
So, to wrap this all up, by creating such a polarizing environment for pedophiles we have arguably put more children in danger than we've protected. Because now pedophiles can't satisfy their sexual urges through pornography nor can they even receive help from a counselor about it. So what does that leave them with? In a way, just being a pedophile in itself has become a criminal offense now.
And for those that argue for why it should be illegal, they'll usually say that you're possessing evidence of a crime, but they are strangely silent when it comes to videos of people getting their heads blown off with shotguns. You can look at evidence of any crime in the world, but just not child rape? And obviously child rape is a heinous thing to do, but to base laws off of emotions rather than common sense is not the solution to that. And they might retort that child porn and gore are two different things and that child porn was meant to satisfy an audience, and while it may be true that they are not the same, however it's not an argument to simply say it was "meant for an audience" considering how every thing that is recorded or photographed and put out into the open domain (including gore) is also. And while it may be true that harm was involved in the making of it, but any harm involved with just the photo itself is up for debate. Even if we were to assume that the victim is being "reoffended" by the mere possession/distribution of said photo, it would still be objective, because there's harm in all kinds of other things, most of which are legal, that you could also argue, so why stop at this? People could argue that hentai or simulated CP is harmful because it could be used to groom children, but I don't see them arguing that. Same logic applies to adult pornography. You could argue that violent video games are harmful because they glorify and normalize violence and these have been implicated in many school shootings, but I don't see them arguing that. Similarly, saying "go kill yourself" can produce a harmful effect, because what if they do it? That'll fall on you. There's a million other things that you can argue are harmful, so why stop at this? And obviously, things are illegal because they are harmful, be it physically, financially or whatever. But why should we make something illegal because it's harmful mentally? I mean, you can degrade people as much as you want, you can bully people, and obviously bullying isn't illegal (at least not verbally). Defamation is different however, because in that case you're harming somebody's reputation. And even if we were to say that we should make it illegal because it's harmful mentally, then what about the child pornography victims who don't feel as affected by it? Not everybody is going to feel the same way. Maybe some people like the attention it brings. Who are we to deny them that right? And as for the argument that you're contributing to an industry, and that it provides a financial incentive, this still doesn't apply in every case. What if somebody just made child porn and freely distributed it? Then there's no "market" because there's no money involved there. Although I will be fair and say that the receipt of child pornography should remain illegal, because in that case you ARE contributing to the abuse by financing it, but just viewing something in itself demonstrably means nothing,nor does it make you "complicit" in anything. So to say we should ban it because it is harmful emotionally to the victims isn't right, because the first amendment is there to protect that kind of stuff. Without it, social justice warriors can just sign any law against something that they deem "offensive." If it wasn't for the first amendment, we would already have blasphemy laws. So really, I fail to see how looking at CP in the privacy of your own home and yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater are similar when they're clearly two distinctly different things.
So, to wrap this all up, by creating such a polarizing environment for pedophiles we have arguably put more children in danger than we've protected. Because now pedophiles can't satisfy their sexual urges through pornography nor can they even receive help from a counselor about it. So what does that leave them with? In a way, just being a pedophile in itself has become a criminal offense now.
Last edited:
