Comments on: Combating Child Porn is Necessary but Risky

By: Erin

Erin — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:58:33 +0000

I am glad that someone thought outside of the box and thought to work with the distributors of the porn, instead of the makers of it, but you make a good point in saying that we need to place boundaries around how much control the government may have. Giving the government too much control is going against everything the Founding Fathers created for us.
I also think that adult porn and child porn are two totally different animals. One deals with individuals who have come into their sexuality and sexual identity, whereas children have not done that and forcing them to do porn or selling them into prostitution forces them to deal with something they haven’t grown into yet. It is like forcing a flower to bloom early – the damage done outweighs the beauty.

By: Fluffy

Fluffy — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:41:32 +0000

I’m not sure whether the evidence is that solid about whether viewing child porn causes a person to molest children. I think there is a correlation but I don’t think it is causal.

If all pornography were made illegal and a death penalty established for those who broke the law then it seems like if a person were to watch porn under those circumstances then viewing porn would be more important to them than, potentially, their life. I suggest that such a desire is not only mentally unhealthy but also exactly the kind of desire that will lead a person to commit sex crimes. Consequently, in such a society, we would find exactly the same correlation amongst porn viewers and sex offenders as we currently find amongst child porn viewers and child molesters.

To put it more succinctly: Given societies attitudes towards child porn, the majority of those whose desire to view child pornography is sufficiently strong to make them risk their lives in order to view it have something wrong with them and that is exactly the kind of thing that would lead them to commit sex offences.

I think you are right that this is essentially irrelevant when it comes to child porn because children are abused in its production and so those who view it are culpable for that. However, in the UK, we are currently bringing in legislation to ban any sort of depiction of children involved in sex acts. For example, a cartoon involving child sex would be illegal. I believe you already have a similar law in the USA. Yet it is not so clear why this should be illegal. There is no child abuse in the production of such images and if viewing such material does not cause people to molest children then it is difficult to point to the harm which this material causes.

Of course we might find such things morally repugnant or disgusting but those feelings are hardly enough to justify the institution of a law. I think that the question of whether child porn causes sex offences is a serious one that needs to be answered because it is also conceivable that cartoon child porn could be used to treat paedophiles as paedophilia is an addiction.

I should also point out that because of US law, the ISPs will be blocking both kinds of content. If we are worried about freedom of speech then we should make sure that any restrictions are as minimal as they need to be.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:46:12 +0000

OK, I got so pissed off, I did my own post. Not as eloquent as yours though.

http://hummingbunny.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/teenage-sex/

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:55:32 +0000

I was reading the links you provided and then more and more. I was aware of some of the cases but not all.

Child abuse and rape should be prosecuted and pursued wherever it occurs. Rape and abuse are not protected by free speech.

Nude children however are free speech in the terms of being nudist or painting, drawing or photographing naked children. That is not a crime and should never be a crime.

Lumping adolescents and teenagers who had sexual contact with older or younger children and who are not violent or at risk of repeating should never, never be put on a sex offender registry. To place a sixteen-year old or fourteen-year old or ten-year old on a sex registry for life is INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!