Let's calm down about paedophilia

Remove all ads!

Problem with using that argument is where does it stop? There are a few people who use knives to kill others...ban all utensils? Ban all cars due to a small minority ending up killing others in them. No matter what the item there will be a small minority using it for actions that are morally/legally wrong.

Besides I would much rather a paedophile (in its true sense of being someone attracted to children) uses porn of a legal adult who is relatively flat chested to satisfy their cravings, rather than them acting out those cravings on a child.

 

That's just it Tarrasque, for people with such mental problems external stimulus tends to cause them to act out. In those cases (which arguably is most paedophiles) the mock-kiddie porn becomes part of the problem.

I think reason can tell us when such an argument is appropriate.

 

The evolution is playing video games is moving onto other, better video games, which doesn't hurt anyone except for the poor geek who is getting sucked in. OTOH, the potential shift from lolicon -> porn makes him a participant in underage porn/child abuse. In this case they doesn't have to get to the child molestation stage to be a harm.

I'd agree that watching child porn doesn't necessarily lead to actual child molestation, but it's still pretty disturbing and illegal.

 

My rage has been reignited, so...

I don't see how jail time is in any way justified given that no real children were involved and that no jump from drawn porn to real porn was made. 'course, I don't see how the potential jump is a very sensible argument for banning it anyway - you don't ban something because something else unrelated might happen. You do it because whatever you're banning has a substantiated harmful effect. Well, unless you're a prude at the wheel of a nanny state...

Why has 'art' been redefined to exclude porn, anyway? How does well drawn porn not have 'artistic merit'?

Meh - might be time to dump my Mohiro Kitoh comics into an encrypted volume. They're not even porn - they're well thought of in mainstream manga communities ... but this is an area where I don't think it's possible to trust that you'd get justice if you were accused.

 

Aik, numerous psychological studies have shown that viewing favored sexual fantasies promotes the viewer's favored sexual acts. Meaning that a guy who watches lesbians have sex will want to have sex with lesbians more, while a guy who watches kiddie porn will want to have sex with children. Banning kiddie-porn artwork seems like a reasonable preventative measure to me.

As to whether or not it's free speech (what I think you meant buy 'artwork'), that's a different issue with it's own standards (loosely defined as they may be). Porn can indeed be protected, but it isn't necessarily.

 

I think we have just found the definition of futility....

 

Yeah, pretty much, but it happens.

 

Any chance of a link to something about those studies? The only research I've heard about porn's influence on people has been inconclusive - with some coming out positive and others negative. Well, here's what I'm basically going by here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_effects_of_pornography

Some things there look damning of porn, others look the opposite.

With the artistic thing I was referring to this from the article:

And I'm not sure how that's determined, because there's no objective measure here. Does a really well drawn piece of porn have artistic value? I don't see how it's possible to argue otherwise unless you're working with some really fruity definition of what art is.

The only valid reason I can think of why porn shouldn't be protected as speech is if some crime is committed to produce it - otherwise it's the same as any other speech that might inspire someone to do something illegal. It's not even inciting illegal activities such as - say - hate speech is (not that I think hate speech should be illegal either, mind you - but that's a totally different argument).

The only reasons it can be made illegal is because 1) 'OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!', and 2) porn is considered shameful and people aren't willing to defend it. It's a fairly standard violation of free speech and the right for adults to see/hear what they please otherwise.

 

Here. The big difference is that, while a sexual drive for red-heads is just a sexual drive, a sexual drive for children usually brings in a whole slew of other factors, factors that promote the likelyhood they'll be acted on. Similarly with rape-fantasies.

The classic quote from the supreme court is 'I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.' Yes, it's a sticky territory.

The psychology on that is very complex. A stronger correlation would be to taunting someone with an illegal drug they're addicted to, or even giving them a free sample.

Again, I disagree here. Speech as a whole is defined as something containing “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Any speech lacking that can be curtailed, as I understand it. Look here for more info.

 

Thanks for the link - but be careful of reading too much into it given where the data came from (people in prison who volunteered - which is a pretty strong bias).

I'm not really convinced - I think these 'other factors' are muddling the correlation != causation waters. I will give that it's probably more likely for someone into child porn or rape porn to have molested/raped/whatever than someone who has a hardcore fetish for redheads, but saying that porn caused them to do it is going a bit too far for me.

*shrug* Anyway, I don't want to contest this too strongly. Perhaps in some cases (though I'd guess not a majority - your link supports that to a degree when it references other studies) - porn is the key inspiration behind someone doing something horrible and illegal. It doesn't really change my thoughts on the matter, because you get that with every piece of fiction/art that's on the extreme end of things.

(also, that article seems to be talking about real child porn, which is pretty much not part of this discussion and I'm not defending it in any way)

Argh - that link is full of America-speak

Anyway, if you agree with that definition, I think this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. Frankly, I think that's a stupid definition of 'speech' which completely changes the general meaning of what speech is - it's a jargon definition and not what the average English speaker would ever define 'speech' as.

Blah - that definition even makes me mildly angry It makes the entire idea of 'free speech' a lie by redefining what counts as speech. It means that any speech can be curtailed so long as the person doing the judging doesn't think it has 'serious value'.



I wonder what you think about Lost Girls by Allan Moore. It's a pornographic graphic novel involving children, basically - is it something you think should be banned? (note: I haven't read it and can't clarify anything about it beyond that)

I think it's important to emphasise that we're talking about fiction here, and that to me this all basically looks the same as the violent video game debate only with extra hysteria. Once you add sex and/or children to something, it seems to become a Great Menace rather than what it is: fiction.

 

To admit crimes for which they haven't been arrested, tried, or convicted? I don't think so.

Oh, I'm not arguing a direct causation. It's no more a direct causation than alcohol 'causing' an alcoholic to beat his wife, wreck his car, and loose his job. It is, however, a serious contributing factor, and in this case it's one enjoyed primarily (possibly solely) by those who commit such crimes.

My point here is actually that child porn or rape porn do so to a much larger degree than porn, or other works of fiction/art on the extreme end.

... Aik, the topic isn't 'porn', it's 'paedophilia'. That means child porn, pretty much. I kinda got the feeling you were loosing the topic up above, though.

Well, it is talking about US courts.

It was a practical redefinition. Without it, you could tell someone to kill someone else, even promise payment, but you can't be tried for anything because all you did is 'speak'. Likewise, you could yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, kill hundreds, and get away with it, because all you did was speak. The definition originates from the idea that 'speech' is a mechanism for communicating ideas and information, for forming intelligent debate, and the like. This is reflected in another ruling where people inciting a crowd are only considered to be 'speaking' if there is time for a rational, two-way discussion on the issue. Thus, the most hate-filled racist can advocate all kinds of hate against blacks, asians, and jews, but as long as there aren't any present to be the immediate subject of that hate, it's 'free speech'. On the other hand, someone whipping a mob into a frenzy that is about to act is held accountable for doing so.

Well, since I haven't read it either, neither can I. In the US, though, it apparently isn't banned because it didn't involve actual children. Personally, I think that's a cop-out. As for it's artistic and literary quality, I'd have to read it, or at least read reviews of it, to decide.

I agree it's fiction, but then so is much live-action porn: i.e. the scene depicted isn't actually what's happening. There are plenty of S&M shots out there, I'm sure, but I doubt many actually involve the torture of anyone.

The real point, though, is that fiction and fantasy can have a very real, and very significant, effect on actual psychology and action.

 

I'm a bit surprised that no one who has had any primary or secondary experience with victims of child pornography has spoken up here. (That's a good thing actually - hopefully no one ever will.) I suspect though that such persons would be far less inclined to "calm down about paedophilia," similarly to how people who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers might not be particularly interested in championing the cause for higher BAL standards to define driving while intoxicated.

Things like these tend to have a more resounding ring for those who are not fortunate enough to have the topics limited to hypothetical discussions. I don't claim that such realities are justification for further infringement on individual rights, but you might think differently if your son or daughter had been a victim.

 

When it comes to something like a story about having sex with kids or a drawing of a naked kid, I would argue that while I think such stuff is disgusting, the act of creating it does not injure any children.

But I would be in favour of some increased vigilence in terms of spreading that material around -- in other words, you can make it, you can even publish it (yuck) but it can't just be sold anywhere, and those purchasing it (double yuck) need to prove that they have no criminal record for any sexually deviant behaviour involving kids. That seems like a fair balance.

 

Gaear, the original topic was about some truely ridiculous laws and actions, things that stretched the term 'paedophilia' beyond the breaking point. The equivalent for drunk driving would be a law that bans anyone anywhere from driving while having any form of alcohol anywhere in the vehicle, even a closed bottle of alcohol-based soap in the trunk.

 

Yeah, I know ... I'm only saying that those with first-hand experience with the real thing tend to have less sympathy for any question involving the topic at all. e.g., someone whose daughter was raped by a pedophile would not likely be sympathetic to those who feel their free speech is being infringed upon by not being allowed to draw pictures of minors engaged in sex acts (and might even support prohibiting small-breasted women from participating in legal pornography).

Whether that's right or not I don't presume to say. You would think that a non-emotional judgement would be preferred, but ... can anyone who doesn't know just how horrible child pornography is first-hand really make an informed decision either? I don't know.

 

I say that it is wrong not because it isn't non-emotional, because all our reasons and experiences are colored by emotions of some kind or another, but rather because it's purely emotional. There is nothing more to those accusations than emotional outrage, and this is no clearer than in such cases where the only presence of paedophilia is someone crying to word. In short, they aren't objecting to paedophilia any more, but rather to anything anyone, rational or not, educated or not, experienced in the thing being accused or not, may cry 'paedophilia'. It outright rejects the use of facts and reason, but rather is guided only by sensationalism.

 

I think you're probably right. Still, I could easily see myself becoming an anti-paedophilia-in-any-form crusader in general if I was suddenly transferred to the victims category, and I suspect that others might too.

 

So would I, but please at least make sure it really is paedophilia and not a cute picture of someone's kid at the pool.

 

In Islamic countries pictures of kids in bathing suits IS kiddie porn and the military prosecutes such things (I mentioned this before) -- often this is due to state department negotiations. When the government says you can't do something in-country, the vast majority of the military listens; those few who do not end up being used as inappropriate examples on message boards (and go to jail).

 

That's true, the guy should have known better. Still, it is an extreme example of how things can go, and is legitimate in that regard.