Yes it does, by discouraging people from robbing banks and killing cops. Are you suggesting that teenagers from posting nude pics online is such a heinous act that it should be meted out with criminal penalties just like those other things, in order to discourage it? I would suggest that criminal punishments are appropriate for acts that harm others and are intolerable to society; somebody voluntarily posting pictures of themselves doesn't exactly qualify.
And so your solution is...to overreact in exactly the same way for ANOTHER "crime" where no one was really harmed?
Right, this is where that common sense thing that I mentioned comes into play. And how it is routinely abandoned in our criminal justice system...ESPECIALLY on this particular subject.
How? If they took pictures of themselves and posted them online, no one exploited them. I hardly think that some pervert jacking off to the images in the privacy of his own home qualifies as "exploiting" them.
Why the **** do you keep bringing up this strawman? How many times do I have to say it. I am NOT suggesting criminal charges. I am not suggesting prison/jail, or even federal charges. All that I have argued is that the law should be enforced, and under the definition of child porn, it is child porn. I think the most that should happen is probably a cease and deist order the first time. That should work for most minors, unless they are really messed up kids. If you look at the law you can find examples where the law has gone A LOT further, and did press charges on kids.
And you're looking at the legal system ass backwards. If somebody robs a bank or kills a cop, then the government didn't take any steps to make a situation better. A person robbing a bank is bad situation that was not prevented. The government isn't in the business of preventing bad situations or making them better. The government doesn't try to actively prevent bank robbing with community outreaches to would be bank robbers, and try reasoning with them and ask them to not rob banks. The government is simply enforcing the law by punishing them.
Now you might be trying to argue that the government punishing people makes situations better, but I don't see how. If you argue that you'd also be arguing that the threat of punishment prevents other would be bank robbers, cop killers, etc. But I don't agree with that. I don't think the threat of punishment deters criminal activity. Using that logic, the more severe the punishment becomes, the less crime there should be. So if we make the punishment for rob banks more severe then eventually NOBODY would rob a bank, but that isn't necessarily true. We can easily look at an example like the USSR, and see that serve punishments for slightest crimes did not lead to no crime there. It ended up creating a lot of abuse and punishment where it was unnecessary.
You simply can't make the statement like... the government and legal system are here to make situations better... and not try to defend that statement somehow. It just sounds entirely preposterous.
the strawman appears again...
Yeah, you're right. We should just get over kids being in pornography as a society. We are just too uptight and lack common sense... it's just child porn afterall... :shrug:
The legal definition of child porn says it's child porn, and child porn is illegal under US law. That isn't my fault.
1. They run the risk of those pictures being exploited.
2. Internet is public domain.
3. Weather or not you subjectively believe those photos are being exploited, it doesn't change the legal definition of child porn.
4. Operating a website with illegal porn is illegal.
I seriously don't understand why it's going over your head... yes, pedophiles like to jack off to child porn. Pointing that out doesn't make a difference.
Owning child porn and trading it is illegal. Jacking off is not illegal.
wtf... do you think child porn should be legal? Do you think it should be legal for pedophiles to own and trade child porn so they can jack of to it?
OK, I'm going to end this discussion because frankly I think your posts have been a perfect example of how society absolutely loses its mind over this issue. So I'll let our arguments speak for themselves. Let me just try to connect the logical chain of what you have said:
First argument:
1. You think that this is child porn.
2. You think that the law should be upheld no matter what.
3. You think that there should be no criminal charges in this case.
#3 does not logically follow from #1 and #2
Second argument:
1. We need this law in place to protect kids from being victimized.
2. You don't think the purpose of the law is to make things better.
3. Therefore the law should be enforced and the "victim" should be punished, regardless of why the law exists in the first place.
I suppose this is logically consistent, but it displays an odd appreciation for the law if you want to use it as a weapon to harm people to prevent them from harming themselves.
3. Therefore the law should be enforced and the "victim" should be punished, regardless of why the law exists in the first place.
1. You think that this is child porn.
2. You think that the law should be upheld no matter what.
3. You think that there should be no criminal charges in this case.
#3 does not logically follow from #1 and #2
I think you're being a coward, and you frankly can't have this debate in a realistic manner. I am not being emotional at all.
I have asked you questions over and over again, and you have dodged them all. I have even used examples, posted legal sources, and made historical references to back up my opinions. I don't think my posts are representative of somebody having an emotional, irrational meltdown over child porn.
And after it's all said and done,
you're still clinging that damn strawman.
:shrug:
And btw, 3 does follow 1 and 2. A cease and deist order isn't a figment of my imagination. And as a kid having my share of run ins with the law, I have had my fair share of warnings for things like trespassing and vandalism. I also recently got out of a speeding ticket recently with a warning.
You swore at me twice in your previous post and accused me of being a pedophile. Nope, no emotion whatsoever. Pure reason.
OK, so let's ignore the obvious logical fallacy in your argument (that this is child porn, that there should be zero discretion in enforcing the law, and that they should simply get a "cease and desist" order...which is not logically consistent as child porn cases typically do not result in "cease and desist" orders).
Let's instead assume that they get a "cease and desist" order. Well, then why was it necessary to get the criminal justice system in first place and blemish their record with a criminal conviction that is a thousand times more harmful than the photos themselves were? A parent, or a teacher, or a counselor, or even a cop, couldn't have just told them to knock it off and explained the dangers?
Getting the legal system involved is a gross overreaction to something that is just a foolish mistake.
Then we get to the motive of the kid who self-photogged and posted. Then come mental health counsellors and lawyers. A court date. Lock the kid up? Probably not. Keep him away from the PC? Oh, yeah.
Crap. I voted wrong. I meant, yes. Prosecute. Keep in mind that doesn't mean jail necessarily, but juvie court and some sort of sentence.
I didn't accuse you have being a pedophile. I asked you how you felt about child porn and pedophiles having it and trading it. 1Perry even brought that question up, and it's because you keep arguing that jacking off isn't a crime. You keep arguing the pedophiles looking at nude children and sexualizing them isn't really harmful. The question has been brought up several times before, and it's a fair question.
In most of those cases the person trading and uploading child porn isn't the child or minor themselves... Furthermore, their intent is entirely different. We don't want to treat children like sexual predators, because they obviously are not. When the issue is statutory rape, we don't treat the minor the same as the adult.
The legal system is already involved because it meets the legal definition of child porn. Why would you suggest a cop talk to them and tell them to knock it off? Cops don't usually get involved in things that do not include the law.
A cop worked at my school when I was in high school. He would sometimes attend government class and answer questions and inform us about our rights, talk to us about search and seizures, Miranda Rights, drug possession, etc. I appreciated that experience. Children should be informed of the law. That's the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is seeing the law unfairly treat a child like a sexual predator.
"Mental health counselors"? Are you serious?
This presumes that teenagers who do this kind of thing must somehow be abnormal or have some kind of psychological problem. This seems like pretty normal behavior from teenagers to me. They're going to do foolish things because they're horny. Not much can be done to change that.
Why make their life worse by staining their record with a criminal conviction? Isn't the whole point of this law supposed to be to protect them? If we, as a society, are concerned for their welfare, then we would be wise to avoid imposing punishments that are far worse than the self-inflicted harm. And if we aren't concerned for their welfare, well, then who cares what they do anyway as long as they aren't harming others.
The harm occurs when child pornography is produced, because it involves an adult exploiting a minor (which obviously doesn't happen when a minor uploads the images themselves).
The reason that POSSESSION is illegal is because it theoretically creates a market for child pornography, encouraging its production and therefore resulting in more exploitation of minors by adults. So like I said, if some pervert wants to get their rocks off to a photo that some teenager uploaded to the web, I couldn't care less. It's none of my business what people are into, and no one was harmed. I think the law has more important things to worry about, like minors actually being exploited.
Then why is it illegal to trade it, since it's already been produced?
This argument could be taken to mean that you have no problem with child porn, as long as children produce it... let minors upload videos of themselves having sex with other minors, and then pedophiles can take those videos and photos and trade them.
And btw... children can molest other children. If children produce things like that, and trade it.. is that ok? Because that doesn't involve an adult in the production of the photos and videos.
So what are you saying exactly... you could careless about pedophiles jacking off, period?
Or you just don't care if they jack off to the kid in the scenario? It doesn't affect you, unless you're the kid in the video, or you're the parent of that child. The kid in the scenario was Kim Kardashian and it affects her current life. A pedophile jacking off to another pedophile molesting a child, doesn't affect you or me either.
Well then you're getting into the logistical problem of how you figure out if there was an adult involved in the production.
The purpose of the laws should be to protect minors, not to prevent people from jacking off just because they're creepy.
If it's an actual child being molested, then it should be illegal because it encourages the production of MORE child pornography. But if it's just some teenager who uploaded the image herself? Meh. I'm more concerned about ACTUAL exploitation than I am about some pervert jacking off to an image that some teenager uploaded of her own accord. It affects Kim Kardashian's current life? Sucks for her; people do dumb things when they're teenagers and the consequences often extend into adulthood (see post #112). How exactly would the intervention of the criminal justice system have improved her life?
Oh I forgot, that's not the purpose of the law anyway...the law must be enforced at all costs regardless of whether it improves the "victim's" life.
So just answer the questions, and quit dancing around already.
Should it be illegal to possess child porn?
Should it be illegal to distribute child porn?
This is where you're entire argument has gone... Nobody is being harmed, it doesn't affect me. Oh, it affects other people like Kim Kardshian, well, she doesn't count. It still doesn't affect me.
There are two sides to this debate.
1. Is this child porn under the definition of child porn?
2. If so, should it be considered a criminal offense?
I am arguing, yes on one, and no on two.
You seem to be arguing no and no.
The current law says yes on one, and sometimes yes on two...
The law has to be consistent. If a child uploads a nude photo that meets the definition of child porn, then it is. If a pedophile has it on their computer, along with other child porn, it's considered child porn. The law doesn't consider weather or not a child or minor produced that photo or video themselves. If an adult has it and is jacking off to it, then that adult is in trouble for possession of child porn, not jacking off.
The law has to consistent. There is no other way. There is no way the law could function the way you want it to.
This came up in another thread, but I felt it warrants it's own discussion.
The scenario is a minor, takes naked/sexual pictures of themselves, and posts it on the internet. Now my question is, are they distributing child pornography, and if so, should they be prosecuted like any other child pornographer?
Thoughts?
Of course, as it encourages the production of more of it which will cause more children to be harmed by adults.
If we're talking about adults distributing images of children being raped, then of course it should be illegal. If you're using "child porn" as an emotionally-charged way (whether legally correct or not) to describe a 17-year-old posting nude images of him/herself online, then I really don't care about it.
The legal definition of child porn includes images of 17 year old posting nude photos of themselves... unless the minor has parents permission and his posing nude for artistic photos that involve nudity, it's not protected as freedom of speech by the constitution.
Your problem is, you think the definition of child porn should be changed... If 17 is ok, then is 16, 15, and 14 ok too? Minors can not be in porn movies, and they can't pose naked for playboy, therefore it isn't legal to trade nude photos of minors. That is simply the law.
I'm saying that the level of harm caused by a teenager posting nudies of themselves online doesn't rise to a level that calls for the criminal justice system to get involved. Especially given the myriad of other ways that teenagers can harm themselves legally.
I am arguing no on #2, and "I don't care" on #1 because it's irrelevant if the answer to #2 is no.
That's mainly because the courts don't want to deal with the hassle of trying to determine who produced it
not because videos that the minors posted themselves are inherently exploitative. I don't buy the argument that someone can be harmed merely by someone else jacking off to them.
If I was a district attorney and someone was arrested for having nude pictures of a 17-year-old that the minor uploaded themselves, I doubt I'd give a ****. I certainly wouldn't regard them as a monster who wanted to rape little kids. I'd probably just tell them that they were playing with fire and they should knock it off. The law does NOT need to be consistent; that argument is exactly why common sense is routinely abandoned in our criminal justice system.
No, this is called "teenagers being stupid".
Prosecuting a teenager for their own pics, is like putting a child in prison for child-abuse for falling off a bike.
With that said, I think it is kinda idiotic to treat the sexuality of a 14-17yo in the same manner as the sexual abuse of younger children... legality schmegality, once a minor is past puberty consent is at least partly relevant.
Well then you are equivocating. On the one hand, you are arguing for a legalistic definition of child porn. That's fine...but then you can't turn around and ALSO use it in an emotionally-charged "OMG you think child porn is OK" argument, as though self-taken nude photos of a 17-year-old are remotely the same thing as a 10-year-old being raped by an adult.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?