Should Child Porn be Re-legalized?

[Claire Diviner]

Lowering the age of consent can work, and can prevent unnecessary life-changing punishments. While some states have lower ages of consent (my home state of Massachusetts is 16), there's still "fine print" that make sexual contact in any form illegal if the minor in question is under 18, even if the age of consent is lower in said state. The problem is that it's entirely up to Congress to decide what is appropriate, and they are the ones who make it not only a felony, but also forces people - including those who happen to be a victim of circumstance - to be labeled sex offenders, ultimately ruining their lives. There needs to be some kind of system, as stated before, to prevent these kinds of situations. Of course, lawmakers are also more conservative than anything, and with morality being a big issue, it's doubtful we'll see a change to these laws anytime soon.

 

[Battlecow]

You know, the more I think about it the more I don't like the idea of 16 year olds being able to be in porn

I mean, couldn't we legislate to allow them to sext or whatever but not to have pictures taken of them by adults?

I just don't like the idea of a sophomore in high school being able to shoot a gangbang scene to get back at her father and never be able to say "y'know, I wish that tape wasn't out there in thousands of households right now" ten years later

 

[Claire Diviner]

You know, the more I think about it the more I don't like the idea of 16 year olds being able to be in porn

Personally, even the thought of 17-year-olds make me feel uncomfortable.

I mean, couldn't we legislate to allow them to sext or whatever but not to have pictures taken of them by adults?

I can get behind this idea. What if they send said picture(s) to an adult? What becomes of the adult? I mean, there'd be no real way to prove the adult had no involvement in the picture (coercion, etc.).

I just don't like the idea of a sophomore in high school being able to shoot a gangbang scene to get back at her father and never be able to say "y'know, I wish that tape wasn't out there in thousands of households right now" ten years later

I think you mean "just to say", but I don't know.

Anyway, couldn't the same be said of most people (let alone women), unless they actually aspire to become professional porn stars?

 

[Ussi]

People have regrets over things that are even less severe like just a simple topless picture that is circulated by a bunch of guys

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I had a conversation about this topic with Macman on Skype before I became a member of the Debate Hall. In discussions about legality I generally assume the point of view that things are easier to control when they are covered by a statutory framework than by just principally outlawing it. If a state legalized drugs then it would overpower the according black market to some extent, it would benefit from the taxes, it'd decriminalize innocent people and it'd generally give the state the ability to have control over the drug intake of people [i.e. if LSD was legal, more people may opt to take it instead of Crystal Meth, which I'd consider a good thing because no harm would be done].

Child Porn is a more sensitive issue but I'd treat it similarly, not in a sense that I think it should be legalized completely [because then the harm *would* be done] but that the government should try to gain more control over it by getting as much of it legally covered as possible, rather than just completely outlawing the entire complexity of the issue. The main things I had in mind here was to lower the age limit of what is considered "child porn" to 15 and generally legitimizing porn via the government more - that would result in large corporations gaining more interest in getting involved in the porn industry, which in exchange would give the government a better chance to control the whole thing [aka required agreement by underage actors / actresses, securing fair payment, et cetera]. If everything under the 15 years mark was covered by fictional porn such as hentai cartoons I do believe that the actual problem of child porn would be covered a good bit. Granted, 15 years is quite an arbitrary number and a rather subjective choice - I do think however, that lowering the age limit in general would be a step into the right direction.

Furthermore, it's my personal believe that watching child porn should not be criminal - only the distribution of it should.

 

[Dre89]

What I find silly about age restrictions is that once they turn 16, everything is ok, but like a day before it's a jail-worthy offence.

I think the problem is the empowerment-through-age system. Two 16 year-old girls can be completely different in maturity, yet the one who has the maturity of a 13 year old is restricted by laws which treat her as if she has the maturity of the other 16 year-old.

I think enpowerments should be attained not by age, but by passing certain tests or initiations, which can be attempted at basically any age. This is how things are done in other parts of the world and I think it's a much better system.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I think enpowerments should be attained not by age, but by passing certain tests or initiations, which can be attempted at basically any age. This is how things are done in other parts of the world and I think it's a much better system.

This can certainly be a good idea, as it can separate those who have full understanding of themselves from those with the naïveté of a 13-year-old. Still, it could give would-be pedophiles a reason to want to actively seek the young children who have passes said test. What kind of proof would the child carry to let people know they passed (some sort of ID, I assume)? Also, I know of no country that does this, and is my understanding that nearly all countries have ages of consent. Then again, I've live in the U.S. all my life, so what do I know?

 

[Pyra]

I don't quite have the time to read everyone's posts in this thread in order to make a proper response, so I apologize in advance if I make a point that has already been made; take it as an agreement if such an occasion arises.

Here's my two cents:
I think the "child porn" tag should only apply to those who are under the age of consent, though that could cause consistency problems (the age of consent generally depends on the location). Any younger than that is just... wrong, I suppose. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I suppose any age past 15 (that is, 16 and up), would be reasonable.

Everyone knows the deal with teenagers "sexting" all the time, but if one of them was caught by authorities they would face consequences which are generally blown out of proportion because the picture/video in question was considered "child pornography".


Then again, I'm probably slightly biased considering I'm 17.

Just my two cents.

 

[Dre89]

This can certainly be a good idea, as it can separate those who have full understanding of themselves from those with the naïveté of a 13-year-old. Still, it could give would-be pedophiles a reason to want to actively seek the young children who have passes said test. What kind of proof would the child carry to let people know they passed (some sort of ID, I assume)? Also, I know of no country that does this, and is my understanding that nearly all countries have ages of consent. Then again, I've live in the U.S. all my life, so what do I know?

I didn't get the idea from countries per say, but from tribes.

A certain tribe used to let boys undergo an initiation at any age. If they passed, they would be able to get jobs and women. Until they passed, they'd live with their mothers as children.

I obviously don't want an exact replica of this example, but what I'd like are initiations or tests for all enpowerments, that can be taken at any age.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What I find silly about age restrictions is that once they turn 16, everything is ok, but like a day before it's a jail-worthy offence.

I think the problem is the empowerment-through-age system. Two 16 year-old girls can be completely different in maturity, yet the one who has the maturity of a 13 year old is restricted by laws which treat her as if she has the maturity of the other 16 year-old.

I think enpowerments should be attained not by age, but by passing certain tests or initiations, which can be attempted at basically any age. This is how things are done in other parts of the world and I think it's a much better system.

So like a Driver's license? You can do it at anytime over the age of 15?

More generally, I get this weird feeling that the guy who wrote the article just wants to legitimise probably his own paedophilia. He uses that kind of argument against those outlawing child pornography, so I can get all accusatorial and ad-hominem on him.

More seriously however, this is just ****ed. I mean, he's complaining that banning CP violates Free Speech? At what point is it necessary to express your heartfelt opinions in the form of child pornography?

I think there is a privacy issue as well here with regards to the possession of child pornography, not just a free speech one. I don't think children understand that in participating in this kind of act, they are permanently and grossly violating their privacy and thus, it's important to protect them.

Additionally, these issues could pretty much all be dealt with using law reform. Sexting could be made legal, so long as the pictures you send are of you. If you accidentally come into possession of CP, you could take it the police and they wouldn't be able to convict or arrest you. At no point here is the outright legalisation of the possession of CP required to address these issues.

 

[Dre89]

So like a Driver's license? You can do it at anytime over the age of 15?

Sort of, but that's still age-restricted though. The point is to do away with age-restrictions. In the case of a driver's licence, most pre-teens wouldn't be able to pass, and if they did, then there wouldn't be a problem with having them on the road if they've proved they're capable.

 

[GwJ]

More generally, I get this weird feeling that the guy who wrote the article just wants to legitimise probably his own paedophilia. He uses that kind of argument against those outlawing child pornography, so I can get all accusatorial and ad-hominem on him.

Please don't. Please never ever ever ever do this again. It made me nearly stop reading when you said that. If you MUST say something like that, put it at the end so it's too late to quit.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Sort of, but that's still age-restricted though. The point is to do away with age-restrictions. In the case of a driver's licence, most pre-teens wouldn't be able to pass, and if they did, then there wouldn't be a problem with having them on the road if they've proved they're capable.

I see what you mean, like a driver's license, but without the 15+ thing.

Please don't. Please never ever ever ever do this again. It made me nearly stop reading when you said that. If you MUST say something like that, put it at the end so it's too late to quit.

I just got really mad. Sorry man.

Edit: Your gender says that you're a woman, so "man" was probably inappropriate.

 

[Battlecow]

So like a Driver's license? You can do it at anytime over the age of 15?

More generally, I get this weird feeling that the guy who wrote the article just wants to legitimise probably his own paedophilia. He uses that kind of argument against those outlawing child pornography, so I can get all accusatorial and ad-hominem on him.

More seriously however, this is just ****ed. I mean, he's complaining that banning CP violates Free Speech? At what point is it necessary to express your heartfelt opinions in the form of child pornography?

I think there is a privacy issue as well here with regards to the possession of child pornography, not just a free speech one. I don't think children understand that in participating in this kind of act, they are permanently and grossly violating their privacy and thus, it's important to protect them.

Additionally, these issues could pretty much all be dealt with using law reform. Sexting could be made legal, so long as the pictures you send are of you. If you accidentally come into possession of CP, you could take it the police and they wouldn't be able to convict or arrest you. At no point here is the outright legalisation of the possession of CP required to address these issues.

I agree with all this.

Edit: Your gender says that you're a woman, so "man" was probably inappropriate.

but his name says "man." SO CONFUSED

 

[Dre89]

Wait Gwjumpman is a girl?

Honestly even when someone lists their gender as a girl on a gaming site I still have my doubts.

 

[FirestormNeos]

NOT SURE IF SERIOUS,

OR BAIT.

 

[Mc.Rad]

Why are people even debating to re-legalize it...


That is just gros....

 

[_Keno_]

Instead of reviving a thread like this, can we remake one to start up better discussion?

 

[Sucumbio]

I've thought about this again... and it's definitely true that intent is important to any case that a court addresses. I think you'd be safe from child porn charges if you also invoked your right to making a citizens arrest, and called the police. And prolly would have to turn your phone over to the police anyway. The people watching your livefeed, their names and numbers, given to the police. Anyone a witness. Any witnesses who -recorded- what happened, yeah, best turn those in. Delete nothing, let the police decide what to delete/not delete.

If you think that's a clear violation of your "god-given" "rights" to "privacy" then don't own google-glasses, or don't watch live feeds. Simple enough.

To address it the age thing, I never did comment after battlecow, lol:

And i reconsidered... 18 is prolly best. 16, yeah even 17... too young. at least at 18 you can decide to vote, you can volunteer to die in the military. May as well have the freedom to get gang banged for profit.

As for Dre's comments... eh, initiation is okay, I guess. But how does this play out?

"I'm 15 but I'm a MATURE 15, so I'm ready to suck 36 *****. In a row."

I mean, that's just... I dunno. Not gonna happen legally.

 

[LunarWingCloud]

It's a really touchy subject but I don't think the solution has to do with age of consent. To add, the age of consent is only 18 on the federal level. It's anywhere from 16 to 19 dependant on the state (here in Massachusetts, it's 16 for example). So trying to resolve the issue using a change in the age of consent would require an entire overhaul to that system as well.

Personally, I think much like a lot of crimes, it needs to be looked at based on the level of offense. If you're 17 or so and your 15-year-old girlfriend/boyfriend sends you a nude, you should not be tried on the same level as someone actually committing to a physical act, it's absurd. However then it has to be looked at in a different way; you're involved in the passing of something which is in itself illegal.

However we do need to remember there is a difference between being a sicko who has immoral interests and someone who actively forces upon and participates in such acts. It may not be socially acceptable in any sense, but the law system is a very messed up, uneven field that has so many issues with it and will punish people unevenly. 15 years for loli manga. But there are people doing that same time who have murdered someone. Think about that. One person might be dirty on the inside but has victimized absolutely no one and they're spending the same amount of time in jail for someone who took someone else's life.

These aren't even made up situations, these are things ACTUALLY HAPPENING in our law system. A person's rights ought to be protected as long as they do not infringe on another person's. Sure you may think of another person as immoral but if they are not victimizing anyone else, they are not truly doing anything unlawful. I remember a saying: "Your rights end where another's rights begin."

Now I will close in that the creation of such content to begin with is completely unlawful: it shouldn't exist but it does. But for the people in possession of it they have actually not victimized anyone or interfered with anyone else's rights; therefore, I agree it should be treated different, although not outright "legalized".

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Wait. Child porn is illegal?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Wait. Child porn is illegal?

 

[EZdelFresco]

This thread can't be serious...

 

[TheVillainous]

Should be legalized. Just as long as they are 13 and not being forced into it and if their personal information is protected and it cannot be tracked to them then it should be fine. It's better to have people that watch underaged pornograph than there is to have people ****** others just because they have no way to unleash their sexual tension. Anyone that's addicted to porn of children under the age of 13 is weird and should see a psychiatrist.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Should be legalized. Just as long as they are 13 and not being forced into it and if their personal information is protected and it cannot be tracked to them then it should be fine. It's better to have people that watch underaged pornograph than there is to have people ****** others just because they have no way to unleash their sexual tension. Anyone that's addicted to porn of children under the age of 13 is weird and should see a psychiatrist.

If you're going to say something like that, you'd better have a much better argument over why it should be legalized.

 

[BBC7]

I could just imagine someone in his 20's going on a pornographic site and immediately losing his erection after seeing a thumbnail of a video called "Petite 13 Year Old takes it on the Playground". This post contributes nothing to the discussion but I guess it's important to consider if the idea of child porn is popular to those who are not viewing the issue from a political or legal point of view. An idea can sound good on paper but prove to not work as well in practice. Think of how communism sounds amazing on paper but has failed when it was put in practice in Russia, and still fails today with North Korea. Considering I just switched the topic completely, I likely don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I could just imagine someone in his 20's going on a pornographic site and immediately losing his erection after seeing a thumbnail of a video called "Petite 13 Year Old takes it on the Playground". This post contributes nothing to the discussion but I guess it's important to consider if the idea of child porn is popular to those who are not viewing the issue from a political or legal point of view. An idea can sound good on paper but prove to not work as well in practice. Think of how communism sounds amazing on paper but has failed when it was put in practice in Russia, and still fails today with North Korea. Considering I just switched the topic completely, I likely don't know what I'm talking about.

Whether it changes the topic or not, I still agree with the analogy.

 

[bound_for_earth]

While this is actually a pretty interesting viewpoint, not all parents (or the kids themselves) like pictures/videoes as such floating around the internet for anyone to see. I mean, that's the case with anyone over 17 as well, and I suspect it can be mentally traumatizing.

The author is entirely correct in the point that the major crime is in the actual act and not related to anything virtual.

Also, my knowledge of porn laws are a little fuzzy, is REAL **** porn illegal in America?

took the words right out of my mouth

 

[DunnoBro]

Animated sure, way fewer participants and overall much cleaner to deal with. (Also I don't think you can really stop it) I don't really see a downside.

Actual CP though... Maybe pseudo-cp, like the context of it divorced from actual underage participants. But I can foresee far more problems than benefits this route.

 

[Braydon]

The writer of this article is either a pedophile or an idiot fooled by a pedophile into believing this crap. These points are all purely fictional. First bringing evidence to the police of child molestation will not get you a felony, you may be charged but not convicted in a trial. The same goes for teenagers sexting, the charges could easily be refuted in court.

The third point is just crazy, unless SOPA is revived by the government religious groups and copyright owners won't have the power to censor the internet. Also no such law would ever be past because even though congress is ran by dinosaurs are president and likely future presidents know enough about the internet to know that such censorship laws wouldn't do anything, as child pornography is only distributed through untraceable sources.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The same goes for teenagers sexting, the charges could easily be refuted in court.

Stop acting like you know things you don't. There are plenty of other cases where the teens were charged, but I couldn't find information on whether they were convicted or not.

The third point is just crazy, unless SOPA is revived by the government religious groups and copyright owners won't have the power to censor the internet. Also no such law would ever be past because even though congress is ran by dinosaurs are president and likely future presidents know enough about the internet to know that such censorship laws wouldn't do anything, as child pornography is only distributed through untraceable sources.

I'm sorry, what, exactly, is crazy about people attempting to censor something under the guise of "think of the children"? Your arguments make no sense. SOPA failed; you think they aren't going to try again? Really?

 

[Braydon]

Stop acting like you know things you don't. There are plenty of other cases where the teens were charged, but I couldn't find information on whether they were convicted or not.



I'm sorry, what, exactly, is crazy about people attempting to censor something under the guise of "think of the children"? Your arguments make no sense. SOPA failed; you think they aren't going to try again? Really?

Well I didn't say they wouldn't be charged I said they wouldn't be convicted, so your point is?

Also, I'm sure the teen in the article you linked could get sentenced because what she did is black mail, threatening to text naked images of someone else is no the same as sexting.

My argument makes perfect sense, religious groups do not have the power to censor the internet guise or not. What makes me think SOPA won't come back? It failed to get through or government of 60 year olds who don't know what the internet is, and in the future when current representatives retire and younger one takes the place, they'll only understand it better making them want to implement it less.

 

[Sucumbio]

Also no such law would ever be past because even though congress is ran by dinosaurs are president and likely future presidents know enough about the internet to know that such censorship laws wouldn't do anything, as child pornography is only distributed through untraceable sources.

Hm... Well, tbh there's no way to guess at this part. I believe there will come a day when censorship is eradicated. Harming a child is one thing. But for instance, Lolicon is technically "harmless" and yet it's been studied at length by psychologists and sociologists both in the United States and Japan, because of the implications of reading or watching material that sexualizes child-like imagery/situations.

Some reading material on the matter:
Lolicon: The Reality of ‘Virtual Child Pornography’ in Japan - Patrick W. Galbraith

 

[Legitimate Ted]

I think enpowerments should be attained not by age, but by passing certain tests or initiations, which can be attempted at basically any age. This is how things are done in other parts of the world and I think it's a much better system.

Where is this? I'd like to move there so my children might have a fair upbringing.

Also, I happen to agree with the original point. If you have a problem with it, go find some feminists and argue with them, cause I don't want to hear it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Where is this? I'd like to move there so my children might have a fair upbringing.

Also, I happen to agree with the original point. If you have a problem with it, go find some feminists and argue with them, cause I don't want to hear it.

You do realize that this is the debate hall, right?

 

[Braydon]

Also, I happen to agree with the original point. If you have a problem with it, go find some feminists and argue with them, cause I don't want to hear it.

You agree with allowing child porn to be legalized based on a bunch of blatantly untrue pedophile propaganda?

Besides the bans not really about whether or not it concerns you it's about whether or not it hurts children...

 

[Octavium]

We have little to no idea of the consequences allowing children pornography could cause, having it legalized could cause more victims, children can be quite easily lured with money and they also (generally) make much more Irrational decisions from lack of experience, if the decision is left to the parents to whether or not the child should participate in the child pornography, that could be EVEN WORSE!

Considering a market could actually rise for child pornography after its legalization (many people search for the lowest possible age when watching pornography), legalizing it would be way too risky. If only we had more statistics.

 

[Tino]

Nothing good comes out from people distributing child pornography. Why in hell's name should that be legal?

 

[Chinaux]

congrats you win the dumbest thread on smashboards award

 

[FairyLip]

Reddit just purged some subreddits, banning the worse ones, but they also banned lolicon/shotacon, and there was a massive outrage. I think that animated stuff (again, lolicon/shotacon, although they called it "animated CP" out of ignorance) definitely deserves to be legal, just because it's not really harming

----
[totes smooth transition]

If the majority dislikes it and says no with the loudest tone possible, I'm saying no.

Is the majority always right? If the majority decides that slavery should be relegalized, should that be allowed?

That would make a good debate thread in its own right, actually.