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

[MrBishop]

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]

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]

*silently wonders how long this thing will last*

[Insidious Rex]

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]

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]

******** 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

[Insidious Rex]

We're gonna need a definition of kidiporn by the way. Currently I believe its not illegal to posses pictures of naked children as long as they arent posed or engaged in a clearly sexual context. So the ones of you when you were 3 in the bathtub arent kidiporn. Even the 'nude beach' shots arent kidiporn. So what are we talking about here exactly? Strictly sexual stuff?

[Rían]

A very relevant but sad topic ...

I recall that case, GM.

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

As said elsewhere, I am for it. Obviously, rather CGI than the real deal.

Something to be concerned about, however, is the possibility of digitizing real pedophiliac material in such a way that it comes across as CGI.

Thus far, I have not come across any of the CGI material in question that could possibly be mistaken for the real thing. It is getting closer, of course, but it isn't there yet. One could argue that the more realistic it becomes, the more people will opt for CGI child porn over actual child porn. At the same time, if the CGI effect is required, advances in modelling software technology should reduce cases of digital manipulation of the illegal material.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Rev. Justin Timberlake

As said elsewhere, I am for it. Obviously, rather CGI than the real deal.

Something to be concerned about, however, is the possibility of digitizing real pedophiliac material in such a way that it comes across as CGI.

Thus far, I have not come across any of the CGI material in question that could possibly be mistaken for the real thing. It is getting closer, of course, but it isn't there yet. One could argue that the more realistic it becomes, the more people will opt for CGI child porn over actual child porn. At the same time, if the CGI effect is required, advances in modelling software technology should reduce cases of digital manipulation of the illegal material.

Sadly, I'm afraid I'd disagree here. I think that at least the hard-core fringe of people who are sick enough to be into kiddie porn and other forms of non-consensual sex actually want to believe that these are real people being abused- I suppose you could claim that it's realistic enough to fool them.

I thought I'd be enough of a civil libertarian to accept this, but my reaction is ban it.
OTOH, I'd accept written versions, but drawings or cartoons arouse the same reaction. Intellectual snobbery, or is there a difference?

[brownjenkins]

I think Inked summed it up pretty well, and I agree.

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Sadly, I'm afraid I'd disagree here. I think that at least the hard-core fringe of people who are sick enough to be into kiddie porn and other forms of non-consensual sex actually want to believe that these are real people being abused- I suppose you could claim that it's realistic enough to fool them.

You might have a type of person who fantasizes along these lines, but doesn't find manga (i.e. lolicon) or hentai variations to be believable enough. He/she might want something more realistic, without going the real-life route. Instead of persuing actual kiddy porn, there will be an option for him/her. A victimless option.

There will always be a "market" for real kiddy porn, though. In the case of those particular people, the whole CGI argument is irrelevant. Even if CGI modelling progressed to the point of being interchangeable with reality.

my reaction is ban it.

What else should be banned, under the same principle? CGI renditions of adult-specific rape, or murder, or what else? What would be your argument for banning a picture of a fictional character or characters, created in/with a software package?

[hectorberlioz]

here's my say on it...If this so called "kiddie porn" stays in the basement, let it be...just don't let it come to public light. And posting on the internet is also a No no, IMO, it accomplishes the same as other kid porn.

[Insidious Rex]

There will always be a "market" for real kiddy porn, though. In the case of those particular people, the whole CGI argument is irrelevant. Even if CGI modelling progressed to the point of being interchangeable with reality.What else should be banned, under the same principle? CGI renditions of adult-specific rape, or murder, or what else? What would be your argument for banning a picture of a fictional character or characters, created in/with a software package?

Exactly. Damn slippery slope. And the renditions of things like rape and murder dont have to be CGI even. As anyone who has ever watched a PG or R rated murder mystery knows...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Exactly. Damn slippery slope. And the renditions of things like rape and murder dont have to be CGI even. As anyone who has ever watched a PG or R rated murder mystery knows...

However, no matter what the pictures are made of, the more they are circulated, the more pedophiles we have to deal with...and the bigger chance of child rape.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

However, no matter what the pictures are made of, the more they are circulated, the more pedophiles we have to deal with...and the bigger chance of child rape.

I think it's naive to assume that pictures alone make someone a pedophile.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think it's naive to assume that pictures alone make someone a pedophile.

I don't. I think naivete has a lot to do with pedophiles in the first place.They are too immature to fight or realize their error. Too naive to think about the consequences of their thoughts in action.

So maybe images don't make someone a pedophile...but SOMEBODY looks at them, and SOMEBODY is after kids...eh?

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think it's naive to assume that pictures alone make someone a pedophile.

I went through a phase when morbid curiosity compelled me to download a good few decapitation video clips. I'd always wondered what such an event might look like; real, unedited. The relatively recent availability of said clips was not itself the "spark" of interest. At the same time, seeking the footage, satisfying my curiosity, and the mere possession of the media did not somehow introduce the desire to decapitate someone by my own hand.

Likewise the amputation clips. The vehicle fatality clips. Heh, none of the broken-bones-from-stupid-stunts clips compelled me to break my own limbs or get others to break theirs.

But! We're not talking about actual child pornography here. We are talking about the equivalent of CGI beheadings. Computer generated killings.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Rev. Justin Timberlake

I went through a phase when morbid curiosity compelled me to download a good few decapitation video clips. I'd always wondered what such an event might look like; real, unedited. The relatively recent availability of said clips was not itself the "spark" of interest. At the same time, seeking the footage, satisfying my curiosity, and the mere possession of the media did not somehow introduce the desire to decapitate someone by my own hand.

Likewise the amputation clips. The vehicle fatality clips. Heh, none of the broken-bones-from-stupid-stunts clips compelled me to break my own limbs or get others to break theirs.

Naturally not. The inclination has to be there; merely looking at it by itself will not cause it to sprout into being. But if someone has the inclination towards pedophilia, or any of the other things you mention, then I think stimulating it would make them more likely to actually do what the inclinations are (dis)ordered towards.

[hectorberlioz]

But the thing about porn is that it's power lies in addiction to it...it's a lot easier to get away with porn-looking, than killing someone.

While I don't necassarily think that looking at bad pictures makes you emulate or want to emulate them, I do believe that the porn pictures have a lot to do with whatever pedophile rampancy we have in this country...not EVERYONE is strong-willed against the power of pictures.

CGI porn does the same harm to people as "real", though it doesn't involve the poor children.