Child Pornography: An Absolute Evil... ?

[SIZE="2"]I got hired around six months ago to help run the computer labs. It's the easiest job within our hired computing staff and requires no knowledge in programming or hardware. All you need to know is basic computer tasks, have some familiarity with using Macs and Windows, and how to work with the printers on-campus.

This year we recently got rid of a policy where students would have to run a program that would check your computer for anti-viruses before the user would be able to access the internet via ethernet chord connection. The reason was because the anti-virus program cost too much time (there would be a lot of callers), too much space (it stored a basic log of every user's file list), and we needed to hire computer specialists outside in order to deal with some of the issues coming up.

During one of my main training sessions, (yes I received lots and lots of training to compensate for my computer illiteracy) my supervisors emphasized an important unwritten rule. If we ever saw a user who had child abuse, child rape, or child pornography pictures within their system file when we checked it, we should call the FBI/cops immediately. The way our computer logging system works, when a user asks us for any service, they provide us with their computer I.D. that they make up. The user is protected because our computer system requires a user to enter their Computer I.D. and their password.

With their computer I.D. alone we are able to access where they live, how many times they've moved around campus, their MAC address, their IP address, and their bandwidth usage. The user can also ask for us to check their computer for viruses or fix their computer in emergency cases. Also if they can't connect to the internet because of a broken jack in the wall, we must fix it. During these cases, we often times check on their computer first for any silly mistakes they might have made such as not enabling the right iPV connection and so forth. If we accidentally catch a glimpse of a folder that might be labeled, "child pornography" then we do not only have a right to report it but could also be fired and incriminated if down the road another consultant finds out that we didn't address the issue.

In short, internet connection in your dorm via ethernet is seen as a privilege. The interesting part is that we used to keep logs stored in our database during the anti-virus checks for every user. No would actually bother to look through hundreds of thousands of logs to hand-cuff someone and ship them off to the police department, but is was surprising to know that my sense of privacy was a pseudo-illusion.

The main point of this thread is whether or not as citizens we have a right to privacy. Another point is to address whether or not child pornography is an absolute evil that must be punished. Our supervisors never addressed that we should call the cops on "adult" male/female pornography that depicted bondage, abuse, ect.[/SIZE]

[SIZE="2"]Out of courtesy to yourself, please open up this spoiler after you have posted your initial feelings. After you read this post, you may post again with your revised feelings.[/SIZE]

 Spoiler

[SIZE="2"]It was asked during our training what to consider if we happened to see image files of manga/anime/cartoon children being abused or put into what could be considered 'hentai' situations (i.e. bondage). The supervisors responded that cartoons were also inexcusable and that the main point was that whoever would actively engage in watching such activities needed help and posed as a possible danger to the people on campus. [/SIZE]

[SIZE="2"]Thanks for reading.[/SIZE]

Merely possessing child porn shouldn't be taken as seriously as someone who produces it, but it is certainly also something serious to consider. I would say that if they hand over their equipment with something so obviously incriminating, though, they deserve to go down for it. Might as well be walking down the street yelling about their cp collection as far as I'm concerned. Pretty dumb though... isn't that how most pedophiles are caught? And doubly bad if they're using an Internet connection from their campus dorm.

Lolicon aside, of course. Drawing fictional persons who are underage in compromising situations hurts no one (see: victimless crime). By using a definition such as that for determining child porn... even stick figures that are defined to be of a child could fall under that category, if the person who made the stick figure drawings intended the drawings to arouse the viewer sexually. And what of characters who are defined in fiction to be the age of an adult in the fiction, yet still have the appearance of a child? How does this differ from adults in pornography who look young, particularly these young women who are short, petite, and have those cutie-pie baby faces? Like, really, if I draw a doodle of a girl taking it in the butt, do I have to have accompanying literature asserting that the character in the doodle is a consenting adult? What if my artistic skills are lacking in such a way that an adult looks exactly the same as a child no matter how I go about drawing it? Should I not be allowed to draw sexually charged material on the grounds that my drawing might be misconstrued as being of underage persons?

Another interesting area is computer generated imagery which is intended to look like real child porn. I'm honestly not sure what my own stance on the issue here should be to be honest, just thought it would be something worth bringing up.

First impression is no. "material intending to portray or portraying" is far from the same thing as actual child abuse. I am very much against abuse and rape, but that is not what a picture is. It is just a picture. A collection of dots.-


edit: I believe that policy is in place in several countries. If it even looks like it, it's punishable the same as if it is actual photographs of crimes. I do not agree with this, of course I try to respect it because I live in one of those countries but I would never report someone for it. If you can't tell they have problems through any other method, then maybe they don't have a problem.

[SIZE="2"]Our supervisors never addressed that we should call the cops on "adult" male/female pornography that depicted bondage, abuse, ect.[/SIZE]

That's because that's not a felony.

Many things can contribute to this policy though. One would be the fact that it is indeed a federal crime to possess child pornography in the United States and Canada. Another is the protection of children against sexual abuse. Also, the fact that it is on a campus network would probably allow some loophole into the invasion of privacy on said issue. There are probably bylaws to assist in this as well.

As for lolicon, there are debates that you cannot determine the age of a fictional character, unless you explicitly state their age somewhere, thus it cannot truly be considered child pornography. Regardless, the FBI won't care when they come knocking at your door.

Rawr.

As a victim of child sexual abuse myself I am conflicted after reading your post; I absolutely think that child pornography (pornography depicting actual children) is evil. Pornography depicting adults who appear to be children, though I would consider it questionable, should be legal since no children are being exploited/abused/etc.

However, I also strongly believe that citizens have a right to privacy. How then am I supposed to reconcile these two beliefs based on your post? I honestly don't know.

Unfortunately, child pornography happens to make up a large percentage of all pornography found online. With a digital camera, a webcam, and an internet connection, it is ridiculously easy for anybody to become a perpetrator. Do I believe that people found posessing child pornography should be punished? Yes, I do. Of course, I don't think they should be as severely punished as one who actually records the sexual abuse of children (or abuses children themselves,) but I absolutely think it should be a crime. Child pornography is a big business. If you support it, you are supporting the exploitation and abuse of children.

 RE: spoiler

I actually have no problem whatsoever with loli. It should be protected under the 1st amendment (freedom of expression) and really, they're just drawings. There are no children being abused, and therefore no crime.

Child pornography is a big business. If you support it, you are supporting the exploitation and abuse of children.

The way it works now is networked across the Internet. Can't see how it's much of a business.

Furthermore, it is naive to think that one person choosing to download child porn or not has an effect on the amount of child porn that is produced. Pedophiles get off on it whether anyone other than themselves see it or not. For example, me typing up this post right now is having as much of an effect on the amount of children being abused as if I was downloading and sharing hundreds of images of child porn. Tonight, while I'm sleeping, I'll be having as much of an effect on the amount of children being abused as someone staying up all night downloading gigabytes of videos of children being abused.

People will abuse children whether or not anyone wants to see it.

If you support it (child pornography), you are supporting the exploitation and abuse of children.

Right on the button. It is sick and wrong and encourages the exploitation of children. I think the same of "regular" pornography but supposedly it is "Okay!" to exploit adults.

In regards to Afrobean, prior to wide-scale production of pornography, many Americans had seen pornographic images (ie 1900's all you could get was pictures of harlots in lingerie) but with the internet this has changed. Now pornography is a huge business. It has mimicked the tobacco companies, in that they deliberately target teens to get them addicted. Eh... whatever.

wait, so watching porn is ok, but not child porn?

what kind of rules is that? they are all the same.

and ppl perfers to watch any other porn other than child porn (at least that's what i think)

Firstly, greetings to Schrodinger

wait, so watching porn is ok, but not child porn?

what kind of rules is that? they are all the same.

and ppl perfers to watch any other porn other than child porn (at least that's what i think)

When an adult chooses to be filmed for others' sexual enjoyment, that's their choice. EDIT for clarity: I personally wouldn't star in such a film, but I recognise it's their prerogative and their choice, and if you want to do it and you're a consenting adult, then go and do it.

Child pornography.

Do you think it's a child's choice? Is a child's choice even relevant here? I can tell you right now that the age of consent is alive and kicking. If a grown man tries to claim that a 13 year old consented to sex, and even if the 13 year old agreed that they consented, that guy would still have no defense. Legally at least, children aren't mature enough to decide for themselves.

What's child pornography then? If you had no choice of being filmed for pornographic purposes, then the only alternative is that you're doing so without a choice.

Perhaps Collette Marie's entire story is not appropriate here; read it if you want to. A couple of excerpts. If in doubt, don't read unless you're R18 or whatever the limit is in your country.

 Spoiler

My father was an avid collector of pornography. He had boxes and boxes of Playboy, OUI, Penthouse, Hustler, and lots and lots of nudist magazines. He had some "underground" porn as well, including issues concerning coprophilia [sexual obsession with feces] and child molestation.
When I saw the magazines I was sickened and felt ashamed of him. In one creepy image, I remember a drawing of a father and daughter, in which the little girl who looked 5 or 6 was sitting on her father's lap, with the end of his huge dripping penis buried in her. I was horrified that my father wanted to own this stuff.

 Spoiler

Sometime that year, my father gave a slide show of several rolls of images from our vacation and scenery shots to Tom Doyle, a close family friend who sometimes attended nude beaches with us. Suddenly, a nude little girl appeared on the screen. I couldn't even hear my father's narration, I was so shocked. There I was with the beach ball on my head, "smiling." I had never seen the image before and didn't want to see it now. Nor did I want anyone else to see it. My father had kept those slides instead of dumping them or turning them in as evidence! I was very angry. I remember looking at my father's face, wondering if he knew what torment he was causing me. His face was calm, at ease; he never even looked my way.

I do not present an answer. I hesitate to present anything. I beg you all, though, to think outside just one or two perspectives, and think who is really in danger here.

I do not present an answer. I hesitate to present anything. I beg you all, though, to think outside just one or two perspectives, and think who is really in danger here.

What exactly is the danger of being photographed nude?:f6: Does it hurt? Can you get diseases? Will you have a baby?


I don't personally believe that "children" (aged 13-17) are incapable of making important decisions, any more than 18-24 year olds are, or whatever age group you want to choose.


The obsession with "routing" pedophiles is more harmful than anything the pedophiles themselves could accomplish - there is nothing wrong with loving someone, and if they reciprocate then physical intimacy is perfectly natural and acceptable. Claiming outright that all relationships between someone under 18 and someone 18 or older are bad and harmful is just plain destructive and ruins more lives than it could ever attempt to save. I feel bad for Collette Marie, these people ruined her relationship with her father, and for what? Some sense of moral superiority?

What exactly is the danger of being photographed nude?:f6: Does it hurt? Can you get diseases? Will you have a baby?

Hmm, my apologies for not linking the two. What do you suppose is the danger of child sexual abuse? I humbly invite the contribution, only if she wishes, of Throws in this, although not at the risk of stirring up feelings and emotions she would rather not re-live. I come, Stereo, from the point of view of a child-centred health profession as well as whatever a typical psychology major knows after they graduate. Stereo, CSA is not merely "having sex with a child." It is a child being fondled, a child being forced to watch sex, a child being forced to participate in sex, even a child being photographed in sex or suggestive positions. I cannot emphasise enough that CSA is misunderstood and underestimated.

Are you familiar perhaps with the effects of CSA? Even photography. It doesn't JUST make a child feel violated, betrayed, exposed, unsafe, and typically by someone they are supposed to be able to trust (which has its own host of major disruptions to childhood and perceptions of yourself, others and the world). That is merely the start of the huge emotional, psychological and social effects that CSA has, and they last a lifetime, and change all the things you do and think and feel. It may be hard to prevent it from defining your entire sense of identity and person. CSA may be underestimated, but it is everywhere, and it is devastating.

I'm sure this discussion has come up on Southperry before, but I don't wish to speak on a topic I have not been directly implicated in. This is why I invite a real person to speak; although I understand she may not wish to, and I would not attempt to persuade her to. The first clinical psych paper I ever took staggered me. Perhaps I should look up those lectures again; but I feel the facts should speak for themselves.

I don't personally believe that "children" (aged 13-17) are incapable of making important decisions, any more than 18-24 year olds are, or whatever age group you want to choose.

Oh, you are very right. They are certainly not all incapable. I'm sure I've met many a 13-year-old who felt capable of handling the world; others who were forced to grow up prematurely (at the expense of other socioemotional development) and could still make a rational decision. However, would you say they are all capable, just on the basis that some are? And if some are not, where are our priorities supposed to lie?

Let's suppose that only 20% of 13 year olds aren't able to make adult decisions. As an over-21 who has certainly been 13, 17, and 21 and knows what sorts of decision she made at those ages, I would disagree with this - but perhaps this is more acceptable to you all. Let's say at a conservative estimate that 10% of those 20% "consent," without the ability to make adult decisions, to be involved in child pornography.

What happens to each of those children who (through completely preventable means, to be perfectly honest) are left with a deep sense of shame and self-disgust? What is really worse here, the absence of the benefits of child pornography - or an entire .2% of a generation of 13 year olds without a sense of security, trust in those closest to them, self-belief, faith in their own ability, desire to be more than they are, etc.

The obsession with "routing" pedophiles is more harmful than anything the pedophiles themselves could accomplish - there is nothing wrong with loving someone, and if they reciprocate then physical intimacy is perfectly natural and acceptable. Claiming outright that all relationships between someone under 18 and someone 18 or older are bad and harmful is just plain destructive and ruins more lives than it could ever attempt to save. I feel bad for Collette Marie, these people ruined her relationship with her father, and for what? Some sense of moral superiority?[/color]

Loving a child is important. How do you show love to a child? Is it fondling the child? Is it taking pictures of them for someone else's sexual pleasure? Is it introducing a child to sexual practices they have no true control over? I used the age of 13 and older in my earlier comments as this was what we had been speaking of, but I would venture to say that child pornography is not limited merely to over 13-year-olds. Is a sexual relationship with a 7, even an 8 or 9 year old, ever anything but destructive?

We must be careful not to tread on others' rights to sexual pleasure - but I do not understand how we can be happy to let it happen in the full knowledge that in order to obtain it, a child is being slowly destroyed.

Let's suppose that only 20% of 13 year olds aren't able to make adult decisions. As an over-21 who has certainly been 13, 17, and 21 and knows what sorts of decision she made at those ages, I would disagree with this - but perhaps this is more acceptable to you all. Let's say at a conservative estimate that 10% of those 20% "consent," without the ability to make adult decisions, to be involved in child pornography.

Much like insanity as a criminal defense, it should be demonstrated that they are incapable of making that choice on an individual basis. There will never be a demographic who is 100% capable of understanding what "consenting" means or making those decisions.


Sorry, I'm not at all sure what you mean by "CSA".


I'm not gonna fully debate the rest, I already stated my opinion that it's society creating these feelings of self-disgust, shame, and so on. I will state that I've known children as young as 7 who had healthy sexual relationships (not necessarily intercourse). Fitting the idea that it's bad for everybody is just as destructive as saying it's ok for everybody. People are not all the same.

Much like insanity as a criminal defense, it should be demonstrated that they are incapable of making that choice on an individual basis. There will never be a demographic who is 100% capable of understanding what "consenting" means or making those decisions.


Sorry, I'm not at all sure what you mean by "CSA".


I'm not gonna fully debate the rest, I already stated my opinion that it's society creating these feelings of self-disgust, shame, and so on. I will state that I've known children as young as 7 who had healthy sexual relationships (not necessarily intercourse).

My sincere apologies, Stereo, that was not meant to be directed just at you, although I tried to quote you to tie in with what you had said. Although I'm not sure I managed to do that either. I had read your earlier statements, but felt, as I always feel, moved and hurt by the predicament of such children, rather than by the strength of your comments - my apologies again.

CSA means child sexual abuse. I notice now that you have stated your disbelief that photography is included in that. I might venture to cite various literature that could argue otherwise, but I think it is not my story to tell. This discussion moves and upsets me; I'd rather not say anything I should regret even more.

Stereo, Schrodinger, and all the rest who have posted, my regards.

What exactly is the danger of being photographed nude?:f6: Does it hurt? Can you get diseases? Will you have a baby?

When I was thirteen years old, the police needed physical evidence that I had been sexually abused. A very creepy lab person (I have no idea what his actual title/position/whatever was, as I was thirteen at the time) told me to undress and sit on the bench so they could take photographs of my private parts. My mother was told that she could stay in the room to make sure that nothing "inappropriate" went on between myself and the lab person. So there I was, thirteen, naked in front of my mother, and this very creepy stranger was photographing my private parts, when at the time I didn't even know what I looked like down there myself.

Let me tell you, that event alone was almost as psychologically scarring as the abuse I experienced at the hands of my father. I very distinctly remember thinking that I would rather have been molested by my father again than to be in that situation, naked in front of a stranger with a camera. Right this moment, my heart is racing, my hands are shaking, and I honestly can't fathom why anyone in their right mind would think that taking sexual photos of children should be "ok."

I will come back to this thread when I stop shaking... maybe. Right now my stomach is unsettled and I have a sudden urge to punch something.

wait, so watching porn is ok, but not child porn?

what kind of rules is that? they are all the same.

and ppl perfers to watch any other porn other than child porn (at least that's what i think)

I'm going to guess that you support rape on camera too, right?

I honestly can't fathom why anyone in their right mind would think that taking sexual photos of children should be "ok."

Why is taking pictures of your family at a nude beach sexual? I would agree that forcing a child to strip and then photograph them naked is inappropriate, but nudity in general is not.


Sorry for being a bit off-topic :/ I still think it's just the taking pictures that should be punishable, not possession of them.

One of the teachers from my high school got busted for possession of child porn. He was not given a jail sentence, but he is on the convicted sex offender registry, (open viewing of his info to the public,) for the rest of his life.

Regular pornography used to be banned in the US. I agree with that getting reversed. Porn is not exactly vital to a human being's spiritual development, but it's natural and fairly harmless. A guy that has no girlfriend for 9 months needs porn, or he may well do something stupid, like go get drunk in a bar and father a bastard.

Child porn is not like that. Producers only seem like worse than the viewers, but the viewers are just as culpable because they created the market for this pumpernickel. There is simply no excuse for fostering or supporting an industry that enslaves and abuses children by its mere existence. If you pineapple up the users, you make it harder for the vendors to sell their pumpernickel. Honestly, I have to ask what sort of person jacks off to a child being molested, so I personally have no problem with extremely harsh punishment for everyone in the child porn black market. On this issue at least the vast majority of society agrees with me, and I dearly hope no leniency is ever given to those people.

wait, so watching porn is ok, but not child porn?

what kind of rules is that? they are all the same.

and ppl perfers to watch any other porn other than child porn (at least that's what i think)

you are sh**ting me, right?

wait, so watching porn is ok, but not child porn?

what kind of rules is that? they are all the same.

and ppl perfers to watch any other porn other than child porn (at least that's what i think)

That's sick...

Sorry for being a bit off-topic :/ I still think it's just the taking pictures that should be punishable, not possession of them.

The problem with that is that if it is legal to own and distribute, it would be a lucrative business. If it were a business, there would be a demand to produce more. Keeping it illegal, even in instances, such as say, if a "child" created porn of themself, maintains the stance that it is wrong to create it in the first place.

And as for the age of consent stuff, I think you guys really nailed it, but I just want to add something. Kids aren't legally allowed to consent to ANYTHING, sexual activities aren't a special instance here. Normally a parent would be allowed to give permission for consent purposes, but a parent giving consent to their child appearing in child porn would identify them as unfit parents.

The nudity versus sexuality is another point. It is difficult here though, because even nonsexual nudity can be used to lurid ends by pedophiles. And this just brings us back around to the idea that if it is ok to have it, it encourages production of more.

the viewers are just as culpable because they created the market for this pumpernickel.

Absolutely not. Even if there was only one pedophile in the world, I assure you that were he to molest or rape a child, he would want a video or pictures of it for himself. The "market" exists as it is because people create these things for themselves and share them with others who want to see them. But even if no one wanted to see it, they'd still be creating it.

And actually, there is even the argument that with child porn being available to people, certain pedophiles who would otherwise molest children would instead just see pictures and videos of others doing it and live vicariously through them. This is an interesting paradigm though, and parallels can be drawn to other things, such as violent media. Does watching the movie Hostel make me more likely to want to commit these heinous acts myself or does my innate desire to commit these acts get fulfilled vicariously by just watching it? I can't say for certain myself, and I'm not entirely familiar with the experiments and results, particularly how it relates to child porn. After all, I'm sure they could do studies on violent films and video games, but they'd be hard pressed to do a sociological experiment where they show pedophiles child porn and measure whether they're more or less likely to commit similar acts for real.

If you pineapple up the users, you make it harder for the vendors to sell their pumpernickel.

Is there really VENDORS though? This pumpernickel bounces across p2p and torrents, I don't think I've ever heard of a brick-and-mortar vendor of child pornography. Maybe in other parts of the world, but they also have child prostitution in other parts of the world, so I'd say that's more worthy of concern there.

I have to ask what sort of person jacks off to a child being molested

A person with a fetish for it. People have fetishes, it is an unavoidable part of being human; people will have different tastes in things, even things which are horrendous, things which hurt or kill others. But people will always have their own personal tastes no matter how terrible they may be. Simply having an affinity for something on its own isn't bad though, only if they apply their desire into actually doing something with it. For example, I might have a desire to kill my neighbor, but it's only a crime if I actually do it (or rather, if I conspire or attempt it). The point I'm trying to make here is that people have private thoughts and these private thoughts may be hideous and terrible, but as long as nothing comes of them, it's not bad.