pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/16/85)
>[from Richard Draves:] >I think there is a very real difference between kiddie porn and >"normal" pornography. I don't think any kind of sex between >consenting adults should be banned; similarly, I don't care what >happens between a porn actress, her producer, and his customers. >The key phrase there is "consenting adults," obviously this is >lacking in the case of kiddie porn. Since people are pressing me for definitions, I'll do the same. What definition of kiddie porn will distinguish effectively between it and "cute pictures of naked kids". I think we will run into the same difficulties here as we would if we were to attempt a legal definition of adult porn. As for the "consenting" part of your distinction, I have already remaked that the fact that the kids aren't consenting is because kiddie porn is illegal in the first place. If it weren't it would be done by "consenting" children. I'll explain that by saying that it is the parents who would give consent. Last week I heard on the news of a couple who was arrested by an undercover agent posing as a kiddie porn producer. They "sold" their daught (either 8 or 12 years old, I can't remember) over to him for $300,000 saying that they could do anything they want to her. I think we are being inconsistent in our judgement in comparing kiddie porn with adult porn if when we don't take into account the differences made by the fact that one is illegal and the other not. If kid porn were legal couples like the one above would be granting consent for their children to be used. It could also be argued that the kids would suffer less abuse at the hands of people they no rather than strangers (i.e. kidnapping would be unecessary, the production would be less covert so abuse would be easier to detect, parents could supervise, etc.) What would be the difference between that and granting consent for them to be used in TV commercials or motion pictures? If you say the content of the material makes a difference then you must play the definition game and, in doing so, you need to justify why the distinction can be made based on content when consented (by parents) children are used, but no such distinction can be made for adults. When the two types of porn are placed on an equal legal footing they encounter the same problems (the only technical difference is that a third party, the parents, need to grant consent when kids are used). In both cases, 1) the distinction between artistic and pornographic content must be made. 2) Prohibiting the production of what is considered pornographic supposedly violates the rights of adults who like and want to buy the stuff. I think that if we actually had the situation where kiddie porn was legal (to the same extent as adult porn) much of the basis for argument against it, used by those against restricting adult porn with similar content, would disappear. My question then is, would that make kiddie porn acceptable? I think it turns into an argument for the legalization of kiddie porn based on the same 1st Amendment rights that are used to protect "normal" porn. It could be argued (though no one would dare) that keeping kiddie porn illegal only gives impetus to the mistreatment of the children used. Since it is next to impossible to remove the demand for it, kids will inevitably be used. Why not make it safer? If the production of adult porn is as protected as that of non- pornographic material, why does the situation change when kids (with parental consent) are used? Given that kiddie porn exists it would seem that adults have as much right to buy it and look at it as adult porn, if we accept the argument that porn may not be restricted. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/20/85)
> Since people are pressing me for definitions, I'll do the same. > What definition of kiddie porn will distinguish effectively between > it and "cute pictures of naked kids". I think we will run into > the same difficulties here as we would if we were to attempt a > legal definition of adult porn. I agree. And I wouldn't attempt either. > As for the "consenting" part of your distinction, I have already > remaked that the fact that the kids aren't consenting is because > kiddie porn is illegal in the first place. If it weren't it would > be done by "consenting" children. I'll explain that by saying > that it is the parents who would give consent. Last week I heard > on the news of a couple who was arrested by an undercover agent > posing as a kiddie porn producer. They "sold" their daught > (either 8 or 12 years old, I can't remember) over to him for > $300,000 saying that they could do anything they want to her. That's not "consent", it's commerce, and I believe there are already laws against that, regardless of any kind of pornography. I also wonder what kind of undue pressure the agent brought to bear to convince the parents of the sale (other than the price), but that's another story. > It could be argued (though no one would dare) that keeping > kiddie porn illegal only gives impetus to the mistreatment of > the children used. I'll dare. At least, I will if there is any relationship between the willingness to break laws and willingness to mistreat people, which I suspect there is. Much the same problem occurs in drug laws, which tend to encourage the spread of drug use (users must sell to support habit) and drug related crime (users must rob and burglarize to support habit) by making the drug illegal, and therefore expensive. A matter of "consenting adults" there, also. But that's another story. > If the production of adult porn is as protected as that of non- > pornographic material, why does the situation change when kids > (with parental consent) are used? Yeah, I wonder too. That's why I voted against a local politician who tried to win an election by distributing a letter saying "vote for me, my opponent voted to weaken child pornography laws". Of course, the fact that there was no reference to the bill number or the details of the bill in question helped somewhat. :-) Jeff Winslow
rodrique@hplabs.UUCP (Mike Rodriquez) (01/25/85)
> If the production of adult porn is as protected as that of non- > pornographic material, why does the situation change when kids > (with parental consent) are used? Given that kiddie porn exists > it would seem that adults have as much right to buy it and look > at it as adult porn, if we accept the argument that porn may > not be restricted. > -- > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd The same thing that stops kids(with parental consent) from working in violation of the child labor laws. Like it or not, kiddie is the operative word, not porn. Mike Rodriquez
crs@lanl.ARPA (01/28/85)
> As for the "consenting" part of your distinction, I have already > remaked that the fact that the kids aren't consenting is because > kiddie porn is illegal in the first place. If it weren't it would > be done by "consenting" children. I'll explain that by saying > that it is the parents who would give consent. Last week I heard > on the news of a couple who was arrested by an undercover agent > posing as a kiddie porn producer. They "sold" their daught > (either 8 or 12 years old, I can't remember) over to him for > $300,000 saying that they could do anything they want to her. > > I think we are being inconsistent in our judgement in comparing > kiddie porn with adult porn if when we don't take into account > the differences made by the fact that one is illegal and the other > not. If kid porn were legal couples like the one above would > be granting consent for their children to be used. It could also > be argued that the kids would suffer less abuse at the hands > of people they no rather than strangers (i.e. kidnapping would > be unecessary, the production would be less covert so abuse would > be easier to detect, parents could supervise, etc.) What would > be the difference between that and granting consent for them to > be used in TV commercials or motion pictures? If you say the > content of the material makes a difference then you must play > the definition game and, in doing so, you need to justify why > the distinction can be made based on content when consented > (by parents) children are used, but no such distinction can be > made for adults. > ******************************************************************** Aww, come on, Paul. Really! The comparison between kiddy porn laws and child labor laws would be more valid than those you suggest. They are FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CHILDREN. They are not for the "protection" of the viewer. Charlie *******************************************************************
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (02/04/85)
But I thought all sorts of people were claiming that pornography isn't
harmful. Now certain classes of people have to be 'protected' against it.
(or more particularily, being involved in the making of it.) Isn't this
a slight reversal of position?
Perhaps what is meant is that pornography *is* harmful, but adults are
generally able to suppress the harmful effects (except in certain rather
tragic cases).
To those who claim that pornography is harmless: Do you have any objections
to children purchasing pornography? Or is the harm for minors merely in the
making?
Tom West
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west