Ahh, counterpoint. This computer generated kiddie porn gets the interest of the casual pervert. The casual pervert then becomes curious to see what the real thing is like. This leads to him (or her) to download kiddie porn off KaZaa, which does have real participants, and real victims. As a result, that form of child pornography could encourage the viewing of child pornography which does victimize children.
Rather pathetic counterpoint. By this arguement we should outlaw all forms of pornography which depict illegal acts, for instance the infamous speeding ticket porn "plot". If you depictions which are known to be fake lead to the real thing, and should be banned for that, then everything depicting something illegal should be banned.
My personal arguement is that banning this crap makes it piss easier to track down and stop the REAL child pornographers and gives us an EXCELLENT way to get pedophiles into the criminal justice system. I personally have no problem trading a bit of free speach so the police can raid a suspected pedophiles computer, find his stash of kiddie porn (fake or not), and get his ass into jail ... possibly inspiring his victims to come forward and get him tossed away for a good long time (preferably with Bubba).
In this instance the potential harms far outweigh the cost in liberty.
now here is an interesting question. Child pornography. How do you define it? Legally it is any porno involving someone under the age of 18. Which means that if my girlfriend and I were to tape ourselves having sex (she is 16, i am 18) then we would be creating child pornography?
Now at least in my state of the US you are legally allowed to have sex consentually over the age of 13 with anyone up to and including 48 months (4 years) older than you, until you become 18 when you can have sex with anyone 48months younger than you (and younger than 18) and anyone older than you.
So then if you can legally have sex at 13, why is it then considered such a hugely immoral thing to tape that legal act and view it? I mean sure i completely understand the illegality of pornography including people who either arent having sex consentually or are below the age of consent, but if you are over the age of consent and are consenting to the whole dealy, what is the big problem? Is there some portion of this that im simply missing?
What the hell state do YOU live in where you can have sex with 13-year olds?! Edit: I just read the snip under your avatar. NJ lets kids that young have sex? Man... That's weird. I haven't decided if it's wrong or not yet...
It varies from state-to-state, but as far as the federal government is concerned, child pornography is defined as the graphic depiction of children under the age of 18 in any sexual position exposing their genitalia; and/or partaking in sexual activities with a partner or partners of ANY age; and/or the depiction of a child in the presence of of the enactment of sexual acts between two partners of ANY age.
As far as consensual sex laws go, the MOST liberal I've ever heard is that the age of consent is 16, so long as the partner is under the age of 18. And then after 18, you can have sex with anyone you'd like over the age of 18. I've NEVER heard of a state where the age of consent is 13. That's just... weird.
Proud owner of The Fleshlight
G.A.L.E. Force - Bisexual Airborn Division
SDnet Resident Psycho Clown
"I hear and behold God in every object, yet I understand God not in the least, / Nor do I understand who there can be more wonderful than myself."
--Whitman
umm most states have an age of consent lower than 16, otherwise half of high school students would be in jail, at least as far as I know.
now here is another question, where do they get the right to legislate how old you can be when you can have sex? If you have physically matured to the point of being physically able to, what is the logic behind the law preventing you from having sex? What is the justification under the constitution for the government to exercise this right?
seriously though, does it matter the age of the people so long as you are legally allowed to have sex under 18? why then is filming/taking pictures of anyone over the age of consent but under 18 illegal and immoral and a horrible act but doing it for an 18 year old isnt? I just do not understand the logic (or lack there of) behind it being legal to have sex but not to take pictures. That was the point of my post, not that having sex at 13 is legal or not (still dont get where uncle sam can legislate this point anyway, isnt it sorta natures decision when you can have sex or not?). I would consider it a good think btw that NJ (at least as my sex ed teacher informed us) has the law set up as is, they have no right to prevent people who are physically capable of having sex and are able to be tried as adults in some cases (dont get me started on trying minors as adults, but if they do it then that means that minor vs adult is a very nonexistant line) from having consentual sex with people of their age group. Give me a reason why the state SHOULD stop 13 year olds from having consentual sex? or 14 year olds? or 15 year olds? is there any logic behind your position, because i cannot grasp it if it is there.
