So what is a Suitable Punishment for Consumers of Child Pr0n?

[TerraPrime]

Are we identifying child porn with live action scenes where prepubescent girls are raped?

That seems like a mighty narrow definition. For one, it excludes male victims. For two, rape denotes penile-vaginal penetration, when sexual violation encompasses far more than that. For three, pubescent teens can also be sexually violated.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Is it illegal to simply watch (without purchasing) videos of other crimes?

No? Then it should't be for this one either. Case closed.

[TerraPrime]

Is it illegal to simply watch (without purchasing) videos of other crimes?

No? Then it should't be for this one either. Case closed.

Yes, because treating all crimes as the same is obviously the most fair and logical approach since the impact of all crimes are identical.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Yes, because treating all crimes as the same is obviously the most fair and logical approach since the impact of all crimes are identical.

Um, no, but some semblance of logic would be nice.

You think ISIS doesn't want people to view its beheadings? Are you therefore an "accessory after the fact" by viewing them?

I've seen no concrete evidence that simply viewing child porn has any impact beyond the viewer, btw.

[Gears of the Beast]

Who denies this? Obviously producing child porn should be a crime, as should distributing. Both should carry extremely harsh penalties. But simply viewing it on a screen, thousands of miles away? The harm has already been done at that point.

People beheaded by ISIS are no less harmed than victims of child porn. Are people who watch beheading videos also guilty of aiding a murder?

What about the distinction between downloading/having it on your computer it and viewing it? I agree that simply clicking onto a video on the internet should not be a crime but there was recently the case with that filthy Vatican archbishop with like 80,000 videos and pictures, I think that guy should be prosecuted regardless of whether or not he actually physically paid for it. I guess the probability that you accrued that much CP on your computer without paying for it/filming it is pretty low. Should he be let go if it can't be established that he paid for it/filmed it himself?

[The Fallen]

Who denies this? Obviously producing child porn should be a crime, as should distributing. Both should carry extremely harsh penalties. But simply viewing it on a screen, thousands of miles away? The harm has already been done at that point.

People beheaded by ISIS are no less harmed than victims of child porn. Are people who watch beheading videos also guilty of aiding a murder?

GTFO with the name calling, btw. If this issue makes you emotional maybe your best bet is to just leave the thread

Do you agree that looking for and viewing the material creates a demand?

There isn't a similar demand for beheading videos. If there were then those demanding the videos would be complicit in getting people beheaded.

[MercenaryChef]

Who denies this? Obviously producing child porn should be a crime, as should distributing. Both should carry extremely harsh penalties. But simply viewing it on a screen, thousands of miles away? The harm has already been done at that point.

People beheaded by ISIS are no less harmed than victims of child porn. Are people who watch beheading videos also guilty of aiding a murder?

GTFO with the name calling, btw. If this issue makes you emotional maybe your best bet is to just leave the thread

i called you nothing. i simply asked if you were a moron.

the way you keep grasping at this isis beheading thing as the same as viewing child porn is rich, indeed.

being a consumer of child porn is objectifying and violating the child again. how that does not make sense to you is strange.

[snowleper]

i called you nothing. i simply asked if you were a moron.

the way you keep grasping at this isis beheading thing as the same as viewing child porn is rich, indeed.

being a consumer of child porn is objectifying and violating the child again. how that does not make sense to you is strange.

I think punishing the creation and distribution of child porn addresses the issue of acting on the objectification and violation of children in a meaningful way -- unless this is about addressing the potential thought crime of the people consuming these videos and images.

I think the question is -- should somebody be punished for merely possessing or having access to child porn that they are not creating or disseminating.

[Masonity]

I'm probably setting myself up as a target here, but I think it's also important to make a clear distinction when it comes to the ages involved. On both ends. And the actual facts of how/when/why it was produced. Basically a "common sense clause".

When I was 16, I probably could have (in the USA at least, I'm british so would have been safer due to a more common sense approach) been accused of the manufacture, distribution and habitual possession of child pornography. How/why? Me and a 17 year old American girl used to do things on webcam, and often sent pictures to each other. There was also a 16 year old Canadian girl I used to do the same with. That's two cases of international distribution of child porn (my pictures and video of me) plus international consumption of child porn that was produced explicitly for my use. But was it wrong / a crime? Fuck no. It was teenagers being horny, stupid fuckers and touching themselves while on cam with other teenagers. And hell, if they had flown to the UK (or I had flown to Canada, no idea which state the American girl was so I won't touch that one) we could have legally had sex. Images = hella illegal, actual touching = fine.

So yeah, when people talk about ultra draconian laws, I always worry that they will forget to add common sense clauses. We hear about people in America being put on the sex offenders list for life because they had consensual sex with someone the same age as them. We hear about people being charged with manufacture of child porn because they took nude selfies to send to a boy/girl friend. And that shouldn't be happening.

When there is abuse, lack of consent or age gaps involved there absolutely should be punishment for possession. Where it's a bunch of horny teens sending each other pictures, there shouldn't be a crime.

[Masonity]

Actually, that does also open up another question.

If a third party had gained access to the pictures I took or the ones I received and later distributed them, where would they fall? There was no abuse (unless you consider masturbation to be self abuse I guess?) or trauma involved in their manufacture.

That said, I doubt there's much of a market for 16 year olds. Might as well just use young looking / barely legal 18+ stuff.

[Gears of the Beast]

Actually, that does also open up another question.

If a third party had gained access to the pictures I took or the ones I received and later distributed them, where would they fall? There was no abuse (unless you consider masturbation to be self abuse I guess?) or trauma involved in their manufacture.

That said, I doubt there's much of a market for 16 year olds. Might as well just use young looking / barely legal 18+ stuff.

In Australia they would definitely be charged with possession and labelled a sex offender, which is a good reason why these 'sex offender registries' are a terrible idea. I would have to imagine while there might not be an explicit distinction in the law between pre-pubescent child and a teenager old enough to consent to sex sending their nudes to another teen it must be considered a mitigating factor to the court. I imagine they deal with pre-pubescent CP quite severely (aggravating factor).

[Masonity]

Yeah if we're talking about 7 year olds, that's a whole different kettle of fish to a 17 year old.

I really don't understand why the age of consent and age of porn laws aren't combined though. How is it okay in the UK to have sex with a 16 year old but wrong to take pictures of them? I'd be fine with upping the age of consent but decriminalizing instances where the age gap is 2 years or less, with guidance to allow border cases (2 years and a few months) to be ignored too. Both for sex and possession of / taking of pictures/videos.

[Happy Ent]

I really don't understand why the age of consent and age of porn laws aren't combined though.

Because consistency has low priority when making laws. Laws (in democracies) are the result of lots and lots of compromises between different parties at different times. They do often not make sense in relation to each other, but were the best possible result that could be reached in a particular subtopic at that time.

Laws about issues related to reproduction are extra thorny, because they are often the result of very emotional discourse, with huge social capital to be won or lost when taking one position or the other.

[TrueMetis]

Yeah if we're talking about 7 year olds, that's a whole different kettle of fish to a 17 year old.

I really don't understand why the age of consent and age of porn laws aren't combined though. How is it okay in the UK to have sex with a 16 year old but wrong to take pictures of them? I'd be fine with upping the age of consent but decriminalizing instances where the age gap is 2 years or less, with guidance to allow border cases (2 years and a few months) to be ignored too. Both for sex and possession of / taking of pictures/videos.

Well I don't know the specifics of the UK in Canada my understanding is that while 16 is technically the age of consent with a significant age gap you can be put under increased scrutiny and still be charged with statutory rape if any evidence of coercion is found. 16 year old are capable of consent but with various caveats, something porn really wouldn't allow. The only way I could see this working is if the law states that only the person taking pictures and the receiver can look at the pictures, and if anyone else does it's child porn, and if the receiver give out the pictures that person is guilty of distribution. No actual porn though.

[Castel]

Well I don't know the specifics of the UK in Canada my understanding is that wile 16 is technically the age of consent with a significant age gap you can be put under increased scrutiny and still be charged with statutory rape if any evidence of coercion is found. 16 year old are capable of consent but with various caveats, something porn really wouldn't allow. The only way I could see this working is if the law states that only the person taking pictures and the receiver can look at the pictures, and if anyone else does it's child porn, and if the receiver give out the pictures that person is guilty of distribution. No actually porn though.

Yeah, looking it up it seems that the unconditional age of consent is usually around 18 while we add caveats to sex for up to two or three years before that to prevent idiotic situations like someone going to jail for having sex with their girlfriend/boyfriend with no significant age gap or coercion. So in a sense one might say that the laws are already consistent.

[Paladin of Ice]

Is it illegal to simply watch (without purchasing) videos of other crimes?

No? Then it should't be for this one either. Case closed.

Here watching the video creates a market with financial incentives for the abuse, victimization, and rape of these children.

Someone who consumes child pr0n is playing a small but key role in creating the conditions that make the abuse and lifelong suffering of that child a reality.

[Solmyr]

Laws about issues related to reproduction are extra thorny, because they are often the result of very emotional discourse, with huge social capital to be won or lost when taking one position or the other.

Ye, fuck emotional discourse for the sake of gaining social capital. I sincerely wish that I could make every single person, who ever partook in an emotional discourse on an issue of such magnitude and thus contributed to the creation of an unfair law, come to the full realization of what his actions have caused to others. The amount of repentance would be glorifying.