• HeavenAndHell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.

    This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won’t make the abuse go away. We don’t arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.

    I don’t know if that’s the reason CP is actually banned, but his logic is even worse and dumber by a mile.

    • Syrc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, the article linked in that page (albeit horribly long due to useless info) does raise a point against current laws on viewing illegal material.

      But sharing it? Yeah that’s a bit of a stretch. Thinking that isn’t going to lead to more actual children being exploited is extremely naive.

      • Wollff@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thinking that isn’t going to lead to more actual children being exploited is extremely naive.

        That particular argument doesn’t hold water. We don’t generally subscribe to this kind of argument.

        The general principle behind the specific argument you bring up here is this: All expression which is likely to inspire someone toward illegal action should itself be illegal.

        CP is likely to inspire some people toward child abuse. Child abuse is illegal. Thus the distribution of CP should be illegal.

        We don’t do this anywhere else.

        Descriptions of non consesnual violence are likely to inspire some people toward non consensual violence. Non consensual violence is illegal. Thus the distribution of all descriptions of non consensual violence should be illegal.

        If we take this seriously, we have to ban action movies. And I am not even getting into the whole porn debate…

        No, the only valid reason for banning the distribution of child porn which I can think of, lies in the rights of the victims. The victims were abused, and their image was used without their consent. Without them even possibly being able to give consent to any of that, or the distribution that follows.

        So anyone who shares child porn, is guaranteed to share a piece of media which shows someone being subjected to a crime, while they couldn’t possibly give consent for that to be recorded, or shared publicly. Making it illegal to share someone being a victim of a crime, without them being able to consent to that being shared, is a reasoning which has far fewer problems than what you propose here.

        • Yendor@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That particular argument doesn’t hold water. We don’t generally subscribe to this kind of argument.

          The general principle behind the specific argument you bring up here is this: All expression which is likely to inspire someone toward illegal action should itself be illegal.

          CP is likely to inspire some people toward child abuse. Child abuse is illegal. Thus the distribution of CP should be illegal.

          We don’t do this anywhere else.

          Yes we do. Plenty of stuff is banned by federal law. Snuff films, for the same reason as CP/CSAM. Obscene pornography (stuff showing abuse or degradation, even if it’s just acting) isn’t illegal to posses, but it is illegal to buy, distribute or carry across state lines. Ivory is illegal, unless you have a certificate proving it is from pre-1989. These are all banned to stop demand.

          And that’s not even getting started Americas long history of banning books.

          • Wollff@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes we do. Plenty of stuff is banned by federal law.

            Do you get what I mean? If you do, why are you being so overly literal here?

            Snuff films, for the same reason as CP/CSAM

            And action movies are not. Neither are horror or slasher movies. Neither is porn. Even though each of them might (or might not) inspire and incentivize illegal deeds.

            It is not a general principle we subscribe to. It is enforced very selectively, and only in areas that we find most shocking. Which is understandable, but neither reasonable, nor consistent. I don’t know about you, but I think criminal law should be based on principles which are reasonable and consistent.

            One such principle may be: “Media which may inspire illegal action, should be illegal themselves”

            But that’s not consistently enforced, but selectively, limited by criteria which seem dubious at best.

            This is what I mean, when I say “This argument does not hold water”

            These are all banned to stop demand.

            And that’s the interesting question: Why only these things, and nothing else? There is plenty of stuff out there which may inspire people toward illegal action, from real world depictions of violence, to action movies.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You raise a few valid points, but the problem with the action film thing is that it is fiction, and thus protected by free speech rights.

          That’s actually the main argument against lolicon being illegal: depictions of other crimes, including heinous ones like murder and rape, are not illegal.

          Ultimately it comes down to inconsistency in the law, and sensationalism makes it very difficult to discuss rationally.

        • Syrc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The general principle behind the specific argument you bring up here is this: All expression which is likely to inspire someone toward illegal action should itself be illegal

          To me it’s more like “All situations where committing illegal actions could bring a positive feedback to the perpetrator should be avoided”.

          Allowing CP to be shared, and thus sold/hosted on for-profit sites creates a market for it, and makes abusing children an actual profession. That’s not ok and already a talking point against the current, legal, porn industry.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            that line of reasoning sort of assumes that there can’t be a market for illegal things, something anyone should be able to realize is fundamentally untrue, examples; Drugs, Firearms, the very CP we are talking about, rape porn, snuff porn, etc… they all have markets even tho they are completely or partially (like the firearms, with only some falling into the category) illegal

    • CaptainEffort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, that’s why CP is banned. It being distributed and sold encourages the further making of it, thus leading to more instances of children being abused.

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Child pornography is not necessarily abuse.

      What the fuck. How is this guy a CEO and not publicly shunned?

      Edit: My bad, I thought that was text posted by Spez.