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

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I agree with Hector. Ban it. The non-CGI stuff is illegal because it is a form of violence, only its an assault on the mind. Even a complicit child is being violated because his lack of experience makes him believe the adult, who is lying when he says it is real affection and this is a secret not to share with Mom and Dad. The real thing is violent because the child can't defend himself from the deception, because the child is taught to trust adults.

And since the excellent sophists here will quickly seek to extend the argument to violence, I say ban that, too. I'm for banning violent video games. So of course I for banning CGI kiddie porn.

Unlike Hector my rationale isn't because God said so. It's because it is wrong on a societal level. It would hurt me and it would hurt you, too, so it's wrong. Some people don't care if you are hurt so long as they are getting pleasure. We use laws to control this. One such law, I say, is to ban this sort of thing... and violent video games, too.

p.s. Interesting topic. It's amazing how civil everyone is being.

Elfhelm!!! You're still alive! ...glad we agree. Would you step into the Classical Music thread for an update of your musical juornies since you've been gone?

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You are assuming here that pedophila is somehow more prevalent in today's world when you say "rampancy". I'd say not. I just think it is more visible due to the forms of media and communication we have today.

I'm not one who believes that the solution to addiction is removing it's availability. That just drives it underground and adds the factors of money and criminal activity. Better to deal with it out in the open.

um ... BJ ...

isn't making it more "prevalent" simply a statistical fact via it being more "visable" to a world-wide audience ...

I.E ..specifically talking about the very real here and now, CGI or web or freedom to create world we live in??

i beleive in freedom. i beleive in rights. I beleive in opportunity and the opportunity to enjoy and be sucessfull, or artisitc....

does that mean anything goes?

NOT IN MY BOOK.
Does it in yours?


er.. otherwise a lot of universally agreed principles of Every day life would seem to go outta da window there ...

now doncha get me wrong - i am not saying you do or do not- you know?

and i take The Rev's point -


but ultimately i have to ask: what is this question really about?

(ok - the more cynical amongst you will think ... i HAVE actually forgoteen the original question ....)

hah!

i'll be back ...

(well ... don't wait up! )

best all, BB

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I agree with this, but the US does not control the internet. Even China can't completely control it, and they certainly try.

mmm... speculative at best, BJ ..and they (China) are in their infancy (no pun intended to be sure) in this resspect.

It's a Complicated beast - not only the Net, but communication and ideas / beleifs and the indomitable spirit of the individual ... whoever they are all over the World...

have we as a species learnt nothing yet??


You cannot ever ultimately deny the human spirit, or ... if you will .. that which has given it ... (your choice) ..my point is this only: either way, we have a choice and a living prescence - either this a is a wall of loving colour or it is a wall of frozen fear...

beyond that simple choice ... all is up for debate.

best, BB

simplistic sounding, but to the (ultimate) point.

Systems of beleif no longer come into it: it is entirely pure thought:
Therefore: define yourself.

Which one do you pick, which way do you swing?

[hectorberlioz]

...I'll never make that mistake again.



I also wanted to raise the question....how about if someone can't prove that a picture is CGI?

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

how about if someone can't prove that a picture is CGI?

Not being able to prove that a picture is CGI is one thing. Being able to prove that a picture is photographic evidence of a real criminal act, or in fact depicts a real person, is something else.

If I, for instance, create a 12 year old model using 3D Studio Max, rendered an ultrarealistic scene with that model, saved the exported pic on my memory stick, and the next day suffer a fatal hdd crash, losing everything--I can't prove that my pic is CGI. Doesn't mean it isn't.

[Old toby's wicked weed]

Lordy!!

mr Vicar man, we looks to you, yes, be , for guidance seeking on this morality isssue, please.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

i beleive in freedom. i beleive in rights. I beleive in opportunity and the opportunity to enjoy and be sucessfull, or artisitc....

does that mean anything goes?

NOT IN MY BOOK.
Does it in yours?

When it comes to thought vs. action I think anything goes. Imagine if we developed the technology to scan other people's minds, would we arrest someone for thinking about committing a murder? Would we even allow our government to monitor people for this kind of prevention?

I think what some people fail to realize is that it is about a balance of evils. Neither choice, allowing virtual expressions of things we deem criminal or banning them, is the perfect solution. But allowing them fits better with the society we have decided to encourage, innocent of a criminal act until proven guilty. Not everyone who contemplates child pornography will become a criminal and actually harm a child, so we do not treat them as such. Or else we are basically getting into the business of making thought a crime, as opposed to action.

[Elfhelm]

But BJ you are the one who argues that morality is what the current social power says it is. The current social institution says child labor and child prostitution are wrong. Many previous cultures did not make this distinction, they based it on economic class. Children born into poor families could be sold into slavery. This was considered normal. In the west at this time, it is considered wrong. The reason why is all the moral philosophers like Jesus, Mohammud, Abdul-Baja, etc. who have encouraged humanity to treat children as special, close to the heart of their particular divinity.

But let's pull back. What about pure anarchies like the people of the Congo who live in band societies, or bushmen. They don't need laws to tell them that certain behaviors are abusive to children. They have their traditions. But they also have their empathy. They "know" right from wrong based on this amalgam of feelings and ideas that they inherited from their parents. The children in these societies are cherished. They are the future. It's just unthinkable to them to harm their children. The question doesn't even come up.

Then look at tribal societies. Now you start to see people being used as commodities. Children married against their wills to cement inter-tribal relationships. Men demanding to know for absolute certainty that their bloodlines are fostered.

And at each "advancement", people become more like commodities.

So at some point in the growth of civilization we need moral philosophers to put the brakes on this tendency.

What I'm saying is that the ideal of a utopic anarchy did exist at one time, but it depends on the human element of pathos. Once groups become so large that pathos can only be applied to a chosen group (cliques, buddies, other baseball fans, whatever), we need to codify the natural pathetic urges to make sure they continue to be applied.

That's why we have laws. People say laws shouldn't be based on morality, but the fact is that laws are codified morality.

Back to the children, it would be unthinkable to the natural being to abuse a child. But in a world where people are commodities, it is unavoidable. So we make laws to codify the natural way that was lost.

And one other thing. The guy making CGI kiddie porn needs a doctor. He's not well. In a bush society, a person who did nasty things to kids, or who talked about it, or who encouraged it, would get his butt kicked. We're more civilized. We'd get him a doctor. I like our way better.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

But BJ you are the one who argues that morality is what the current social power says it is.

Very true, and I would abide by the law, but I still reserve the right to express my own personal opinion on the matter as to which way I think society should lean. And you can as well.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

The current social institution says child labor and child prostitution are wrong...

All good points, but you are confusing the act of abusing a child and the thought. It's not against the law for someone to say "if it wasn't illegal, I'd marry my 10-year-old daughter". No matter how much it would disturb most of us. It is illegal to actually do it.

This is what I mean when I say legislating morality. We make laws against actions, not against thoughts.

As others have stated earlier. We allow the depiction of murder in all forms of media, even when it is glorified. How is this any different?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

And since the excellent sophists here will quickly seek to extend the argument to violence, I say ban that, too. I'm for banning violent video games. So of course I for banning CGI kiddie porn.

So where do you stop exactly? Do you ban all depictions of illegal acts? Censor/ban books and movies and computer games? Do you burn artwork and run artists out of town? Theres plenty of art out there that some would consider underage porn.

[Elfhelm]

I understand that it is a pleasure to take a stance and defend it intellectually. I have been a young intellectual, too. I was speaking of practical matters. So I think we are discussing this with different objectives in mind.

As a father who has three daughters, one granddaughter, and who is still paying for my kid's student loans, when I speak about laws and children and love and the future, it's all part of my personal experience. In my experience I have come to the conclusion that such games as first person shooters are harmful. I have come to the conclusion that TV and video games turn children's minds to jelly. They must be moderated.

I have also come to the conclusion that men who draw pictures of kids having sex need to see a doctor. They are in pain.

So I don't wish to argue "how far does this go" and "would you burn books". I am a Dad saying my opinion. What else can I do?

[Insidious Rex]

Well you can minimize the likelihood that your girls will be victimized by those inclined to do so by means of education, communication, and careful use of technology. As I do...

But that doesnt really address the question of does fake child porn increase or diminish the problem of child sexual abuse nor does it help us determine what it is that should be controlled and what should be allowed. Its simply a visceral gut response from a Dad who worries. Understandable but largely useless Im afraid.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

As a father who has three daughters, one granddaughter, and who is still paying for my kid's student loans, when I speak about laws and children and love and the future, it's all part of my personal experience.

I can respect that.

I have three children as well and another on the way. I let them play first person shooters and watch TV, even most of the irreverant cartoons they show these days. All in moderation, but not too much. Strangely enough, but as I hoped, they moderate themselves pretty well and actually choose to do other stuff for a change of pace on a pretty regular basis.

I draw the line at normal pornography (and always would at kiddie porn), though I'm not sure how far I'll adjust at least the "normal" side as they mature. My oldest is only just turning twelve.

My theory (and I'll admit it's a theory): They'll come in contact with this stuff one day without me around, and it's better to work through the good's and bad's of society when they are young and impressionable and still in daily contact with me than to shield them from it or only speak of it in terms of condemnation.

That said, I may be wrong. Time will tell. But they are pretty good kids so far, and I do spend a lot of time observing and thinking about their behavior. And will continue to.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well you can minimize the likelihood that your girls will be victimized by those inclined to do so by means of education, communication, and careful use of technology. As I do...

But that doesnt really address the question of does fake child porn increase or diminish the problem of child sexual abuse nor does it help us determine what it is that should be controlled and what should be allowed. Its simply a visceral gut response from a Dad who worries. Understandable but largely useless Im afraid.

Was that really the question, IR? I read the thread completely before replying and I got the impression that the linking of depictions to actions was generally considered unprovable. I thought the question is about what we think is right and wrong. So I said my opinion.

I heartily disagree on one other factor. It is most certainly the visceral gut responses of Dads who worry that guides the legislative process in my country. So our opinions aren't "largely useless". In fact, they are probably a good indicator of what will happen. I would say that concerned Dads have a lot more power than those who pride themselves on their fine debating skills to the point where they can successfully argue an unpopular point of view. Good debating may win points in college but in reality the laws are made by people who are afraid.

And this topic is about the laws. Right?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Good debating may win points in college but in reality the laws are made by people who are afraid.

Scary, but true.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Was that really the question, IR? I read the thread completely before replying and I got the impression that the linking of depictions to actions was generally considered unprovable. I thought the question is about what we think is right and wrong. So I said my opinion.

I heartily disagree on one other factor. It is most certainly the visceral gut responses of Dads who worry that guides the legislative process in my country. So our opinions aren't "largely useless". In fact, they are probably a good indicator of what will happen. I would say that concerned Dads have a lot more power than those who pride themselves on their fine debating skills to the point where they can successfully argue an unpopular point of view. Good debating may win points in college but in reality the laws are made by people who are afraid.

And this topic is about the laws. Right?

I only state its fairly useless because while the father's response of 'ban it all' may be understandable it certainly opens a Pandora’s box of legal possibilities related to it and thus leads to a million other questions that would really need to be addressed with a response other then "I dont care". But thats fine. Youve completed the minimum assignment asked by this thread. But it doesnt take us anywhere. Thats all. The question remains that IF you ban fake porn and fake violence then what else do you ban to be consistent so it doesnt all get thrown out of court? And how do you counter the right to free expression? And where do you draw the line of what is porn and what is violent exactly? But these are of course questions which you do not need to answer as you state.

[Elfhelm]

I'm sure with enough misrepresentation my opinion can be completely marginalized, in some people's minds. Yet the fact remains: scared Moms and Dads make the laws. Those who argue about angels dancing on the heads of pins are too busy talking to actually affect reality.

[Tessar]

Careful, guys.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I'm sure with enough misrepresentation my opinion can be completely marginalized, in some people's minds. Yet the fact remains: scared Moms and Dads make the laws. Those who argue about angels dancing on the heads of pins are too busy talking to actually affect reality.

Not so, Elfhelm. Socrates was a master of dancing-angel-discussions, but he changed Athenian society in a very real way; such a real way that they had to get rid of him.

[Elfhelm]

Well, the part of my opinion that matters is this:

I think men who draw pictures of children having sex need to be in counseling.

Others are welcome to split hairs all they want, I'm sure. I can imagine the reaction will but, but what if they just show pictures of kids doing this or that which might or might not be sex by everyone's definition. And of course, if I choose not to be drawn into that my point is just ignored, right.

I doubt it. Actually, I think most people agree with me, so I don't really have more to add. OK?