Kiddie Porn in a CGI world - legal vs. ethical question

MrBishop · 05-02-2006, 09:37 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3207462.stm

CGI and 3D modeling techniques have made one of the most difficult things to realize become a reality. Take a look for yourself and let me know if this isn't someone who you might run into on the street.

Take a look at the image and then think of one item. Kiddie porn!

The laws against Kiddie Porn are aimed specifically at one goal. It isn't an attempt to repress the pedophile's emotions/sensations...it's all about protecting the kids used in these pictures and movies.

Now...imagine that these kids don't really exist and never did.
How will the law touch on this? No children are harmed in the creation of this film/picture. Does it fall into the same loophope as illicit writings, poetry, thoughts?

All of those, although immoral, are NOT illegal. Why should CGI Kiddie-Porn be?

GreyMouser · 05-02-2006, 10:32 AM

Do recall one case in America where a previously-convicted kiddie-porn pervert took a plea bargain on possession based on his own entirely fictional writings- his PO found a fictional diary with all kinds of horrendous fantasies.
It was suggested that he might have been able to beat it on First Amendment grounds, but he chose the better part of valour.

The last sane person · 05-02-2006, 12:11 PM

*silently wonders how long this thing will last*

Insidious Rex · 05-02-2006, 01:18 PM

I guess some would argue that it incites people to do bad things to kids. We have no way of knowing if thats true though. In fact it could be the opposite. It could allow them to live out their fantasies without harming a child. I cant imagine how you could make it all illegal when you dont make pictures of simulated rape or simulated murder illegal. Seems so dangerous to litigate against it. But on the other hand is there an easy way to tell which pictures are real and which pictures are fake?

inked · 05-02-2006, 03:26 PM

Incitement to violence via various media is a well argued topic in regards to TV and movies and much ink has been spilt about it. There is no doubt however about the tendency of such films and stories to arouse passion in the individual. We tend to rate media stuff in a category of hotness, don't we? And we mean by that the explicit arousal of sensations and thoughts associated with the activity in question (sex, violence, and combinations of those subjects, mostly but not exclusively).

I would assert that this would be a bad option for society to tolerate. I would not watch it nor produce it. I would not wish for my children to be exposed to it. If those criteria are met, I don't think I would legislate against it, but I assure you I would never advocate for it, and, if given opportunity, would actively oppose it at the ballot box. I would employ computer screening of sites, child-blocks, TV blocks and certainly parental discretion at the box office. That is, never would I embrace it, and I could tolerate it only out of sight and out of mind.

That is legally and ethically speaking. Morally, a category not suggested, I find it reprehensible because of the incitement and inducement to engage children in inequalities of power about the issue of sexual expression. Phrase the question this way, is it legitimate to show adults in that fashion in unequal power arrangements in regard to sex? The feminists have taught us about that issue. Apply that equality here and it is patently offensive on the same grounds but worse because of the power differentials involved.

***Tessar*** · 05-02-2006, 03:44 PM

******** MODERATOR WARNING ********

I think this is a very interesting topic, and I would like to see it stay open. So far, everyone has been very tactful in the discussion, and I would like it to stay that way.

When posting in a topic like this, please think very carefully before making a post. Please stay away from sexual description or graphic discussion in this thread.

Thank you,

Tessar

05-02-2006, 09:37 AM	#1
MrBishop Elven Warrior Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Montreal Posts: 118	Kiddie Porn in a CGI world - legal vs. ethical question http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3207462.stm CGI and 3D modeling techniques have made one of the most difficult things to realize become a reality. Take a look for yourself and let me know if this isn't someone who you might run into on the street. Take a look at the image and then think of one item. Kiddie porn! The laws against Kiddie Porn are aimed specifically at one goal. It isn't an attempt to repress the pedophile's emotions/sensations...it's all about protecting the kids used in these pictures and movies. Now...imagine that these kids don't really exist and never did. How will the law touch on this? No children are harmed in the creation of this film/picture. Does it fall into the same loophope as illicit writings, poetry, thoughts? All of those, although immoral, are NOT illegal. Why should CGI Kiddie-Porn be? __________________ RPG gamers talk and podcast Chucky and Larry Blog

05-02-2006, 12:11 PM	#3
The last sane person The Black Númenórean Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,773	silently wonders how long this thing will last __________________ Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

05-02-2006, 01:18 PM	#4
Insidious Rex Quasi Evil Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Maryland, US Posts: 4,634	I guess some would argue that it incites people to do bad things to kids. We have no way of knowing if thats true though. In fact it could be the opposite. It could allow them to live out their fantasies without harming a child. I cant imagine how you could make it all illegal when you dont make pictures of simulated rape or simulated murder illegal. Seems so dangerous to litigate against it. But on the other hand is there an easy way to tell which pictures are real and which pictures are fake? __________________ "People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

05-02-2006, 03:26 PM	#5
inked Elf Lord Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol Posts: 3,114	Incitement to violence via various media is a well argued topic in regards to TV and movies and much ink has been spilt about it. There is no doubt however about the tendency of such films and stories to arouse passion in the individual. We tend to rate media stuff in a category of hotness, don't we? And we mean by that the explicit arousal of sensations and thoughts associated with the activity in question (sex, violence, and combinations of those subjects, mostly but not exclusively). I would assert that this would be a bad option for society to tolerate. I would not watch it nor produce it. I would not wish for my children to be exposed to it. If those criteria are met, I don't think I would legislate against it, but I assure you I would never advocate for it, and, if given opportunity, would actively oppose it at the ballot box. I would employ computer screening of sites, child-blocks, TV blocks and certainly parental discretion at the box office. That is, never would I embrace it, and I could tolerate it only out of sight and out of mind. That is legally and ethically speaking. Morally, a category not suggested, I find it reprehensible because of the incitement and inducement to engage children in inequalities of power about the issue of sexual expression. Phrase the question this way, is it legitimate to show adults in that fashion in unequal power arrangements in regard to sex? The feminists have taught us about that issue. Apply that equality here and it is patently offensive on the same grounds but worse because of the power differentials involved. __________________ Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 Last edited by inked : 05-02-2006 at 03:31 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion	brownjenkins	General Messages	208	05-27-2008 12:45 PM
The Conspiracies! (TOC vs. DC!)	Duddun	RPG Forum	321	01-22-2003 07:17 PM
The Entmoot Presidential Debate	Darth Tater	Entmoot Archive	163	12-06-2002 09:44 PM
I made a song!!!!!	StrawberryIcecream	Lord of the Rings Books	999	08-11-2002 01:58 AM

05-02-2006, 10:32 AM	#2
GreyMouser Elven Warrior Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 301	Do recall one case in America where a previously-convicted kiddie-porn pervert took a plea bargain on possession based on his own entirely fictional writings- his PO found a fictional diary with all kinds of horrendous fantasies. It was suggested that he might have been able to beat it on First Amendment grounds, but he chose the better part of valour.

05-02-2006, 03:44 PM	#6
*Tessar* Master and Wielder of the Cardboard Harp of Gondor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: IM IN UR POSTZ, EDITIN' UR WURDZ Posts: 6,433	****** MODERATOR WARNING ****** I think this is a very interesting topic, and I would like to see it stay open. So far, everyone has been very tactful in the discussion, and I would like it to stay that way. When posting in a topic like this, please think very carefully before making a post. Please stay away from sexual description or graphic discussion in this thread. Thank you, Tessar