One of few completely valid points the author makes is that there is such a thing as victimless child pornography. In fact, since the advent of webcams, it's probably come to outnumber the bad stuff 10 to 1. Under the law, every time a high-school student texts a nude photo to their beau, they don't just have poor judgment-- they're both felons.
That is absurd, and worth having a reasoned discussion about.
> On the other hand for child pornography there is always a victim. Some child, somewhere, had to go through an ordeal that will destroy and shape the rest of his/her life to produce that series of images or videos. Some child somewhere had to be damaged for the pleasure of people watching that video.
Absolutely not. Did you even read the article? Not everything that would be called child pornography in court is molestation of prepubescent children. One of the main points of the article is that it might be consensual sex between, say, two sixteen year olds. Or it could be kids putting it online themselves (remember Jessi Slaughter?).
Not to mention that you imply there's a causal link between people watching child pornography and people making more. That seems very far fetched. I doubt child molesters molest because they want more viewers on whatever site they're on, I'd think they take pleasure in molesting children.
Additionally in many countries, including Sweden, even entirely fictional pornographic drawings with children are banned. There was recently a quite well known case against a Swedish managa translator for possession of child pornography. He was convicted at the first two levels of court but he was freed by the supreme court.
Organization who fight child pornography in Sweden (ECPAT for example) support the ban on entirely fictional depictions.
>>> Did you even read the article? Not everything that would be called child pornography in court is molestation of prepubescent children. One of the main points of the article is that it might be consensual sex between, say, two sixteen year olds. Or it could be kids putting it online themselves (remember Jessi Slaughter?). <<<
Yes, I did and I was talking about the specific kind of pornography these laws were trying to ban. I wanted to raise the point that there are other concerns over here as well including the fact that it isn't a victimless crime.
>>> Not to mention that you imply there's a causal link between people watching child pornography and people making more. That seems very far fetched. I doubt child molesters molest because they want more viewers on whatever site they're on, I'd think they take pleasure in molesting children. <<<
Arousal and sexuality is quite a complex thing. It's not as clear cut as we would like to believe. I've tried to find case papers and references for this and failed, but I recall reading a fascinating account by a neuro-psychiatrist on how sex offenders often get aroused while reciting their tales. In some cases documentation and distribution of the act was a part of their ritual and it aroused them as well, so it's not as far fetched as you think.
> ... as well including the fact that it isn't a victimless crime
I feel like it still is. No child is directly harmed. There are indubitably indirect consequences, but those are unknown and irrelevant. If you search far enough, no crime is victimless.
For a less offensive metaphor, consider drug use. I have no doubt that if marijuana is legalized, people will die because of the actions of inebriated persons. However, because this is only indirect and no other aspects are taken into account, it would be unfair to not call the usage of marijuana a victimless crime.
So I don't deny some children might be molested that wouldn't have been molested without the legalisation of child pornography. However, some children might also be saved from harm (by paedophiles being able to "vent" perhaps). I don't think anybody can know whether the count of children saved minus children harmed would be netto positive (and I don't think it matters, because this is starting to sound like utilitarianism).
In short, some children might be saved, some might be harmed, we don't and can't know. However, because no child would be directly harmed, viewing and distributing is still a victimless crime and some people are of the principle that no victimless crime should be punishable by law.
> Arousal and sexuality is quite a complex thing. It's not as clear cut as we would like to believe. I've tried to find case papers and references for this and failed, but I recall reading a fascinating account by a neuro-psychiatrist on how sex offenders often get aroused while reciting their tales. In some cases documentation and distribution of the act was a part of their ritual and it aroused them as well, so it's not as far fetched as you think.
Granted. However, this also seems true (even more so) for murderers. Anders Breivik no doubt enjoyed the media attention and I didn't hear voices calling for his manifesto to become illegal to spread.
I think you're right. My original argument was that when you step inside the mind of someone who does something like this and examine their motives, then you come up with a series of whys. Why are they doing it? Why not just rape/molest the child in private behind closed doors? Clearly there won't be any photographic evidence lying around of their acts in that particular case making the prosecution's case weaker. A part of the reason why they do it because they have a need to perform and every performer needs an audience.
Given how controversial the subject matter is it might seem that I'm making a blanket statement to further my own objectives, but this is more of an observation rather than a conclusion. Why they do it is unclear and up for debate, but the fact that they are doing it isn't. The scenarios you have mentioned did not have this component in them. In those cases the harm is a probabilistic function requiring several requisite conditions to be completed. (someone has to be driving, the speed must be high and so on) A series of things must go wrong and the probability of occurrence isn't 1. On the other hand over here someone must be hurt and I assumed that there must be a psychological feedback mechanism which kicked in for the rapist when people consumed the said matter. That's why I thought it was more reasonable to assert that there is a function of the viewer in the crime itself and that it was a part of the motivations behind the crime.
However what I had forgotten was that correlation does not imply causation and all of this is orthogonal to the actual crime itself. Therefore, I was wrong and you were right. Possession is indeed a victimless crime.
Now we have that fact settled it is indeed an open question where there will be net good or net harm given legalisation or ban. That's a rather difficult question to answer and I do not have the skills or the understanding to broach upon it. However, I think that over here the answer isn't as simple complete legalisation or ban, but rather some X thing in combination with more sophisticated enforcement to catch the perpetrators.
>>> Anders Breivik no doubt enjoyed the media attention and I didn't hear voices calling for his manifesto to become illegal to spread.<<<
Again that's a completely orthogonal incident to what is being discussed. The two cases are radically different and have no common ground.
I'm not saying that it's inappropriate for HN. I flagged it because I felt the author was courting controversy and neither did he present an interesting solution. It's hard to take an unpopular side and that takes moral courage, but the extensive use of reductio ad absurdum combined with the heavy handed way he delivered his arguments made me feel that the author isn't being entirely genuine.
edit: I deleted my comment because I wasn't adding anything to the conversation either.
"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link."
The site has no appropriate way for users to deal with stories they disagree with. They can flag, which cause problems as you describe, or they can make negative comments, which are supposedly the big reason HN is going downhill. Correcting individual cases will not stop this until an appropriate outlet is given to express this.
