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
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/22/85)
[] Paul Dubuc writes on Richard Draves: > >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. This paragraph showed promise. I was very disappointed, however, when I continued reading. (BTW, I hate "cute" pictures of naked kids... This happens when one sees too many such pictures of oneself.) >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. I don't see how making kiddie porn legal would make kids (as free agents) consent to being the objects thereof. We're having a small argument here as to what you mean, but here goes my answer... Even though I may be wasting my time. There are many ways a parent can give consent for a child to do one thing or another. A parent may, as you point out, consent for his or her child's face, or name, to be used in an advertisement. In many cases the child insists that s/he wants to be on TV, or wants to be a model. Please spare me the example of the pushy parent. No matter how the parent pushes, if the child does not want to be in pictures, the pictures will be awful and no one will hire him/her. (I have a friend who is a commercial photographer. He does publicity shots for both adult and child models/actors. He assures me this is true.) If what you say were true, and x number of parents would be willing to "consent" for their children to pose for legal "kiddie porn" shots, the market would weed most of them out because most kids would *refuse* to cooperate. The law does not grant a parent the right to sell a child's body. It can be argued that the couple you mentioned in your article sold the child's body. I won't touch that one, however. Another reader more familiar with the law maybe could enlighten us on this point. Consent in and of itself implies that both parties are in a position of equal power. That is, that the first party has no leverage over the second party to tell him/her what to do or how. This *never* applies to the relationship between children and adults. Children are taught that they must respect, honor, and obey all adults. Therefore, children never can consent freely to sex with an adult. There are adults who believe that it is possible: The Rene Guyon Society and NAMBLA come to mind. I have heard the motto of the former as "Sex by eight, or it's too late." (Anyone knowledgeable on the subject please correct me if I am wrong.) The fact remains however that the children are not in a position of equality to the adults, and that the adults are using the children for their own purposes, whether it is monetary gain, or sexual gratification. Therefore, there can never be "kiddie porn" with consenting children, whether or not the parents 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. Even if "kiddie porn" were legal, this motivation would be removed. There is a law (federal, I believe), against parents reaping the monetary benefits of having a child actor. That is, the child earns the money, and the parents may not spend it. I do not know whether the same arrangement exists for child models. I suspect it does, for the same reason the motion picture law was enacted: abuse of children's earnings by parents (expert testimony, please?). >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.) Not your argument, but an answer: Children are most often abused by people they know and love. A man in our own city published "kiddie porn" pictures of his own son. This happens every day, in every city in the nation. Children are not always kidnapped. Think also of the runaways who are led into prostitution, etc. > What would >be the difference between that and granting consent for them to >be used in TV commercials or motion pictures? Plenty. In commercials or motion pictures, it is the image of the child's body which is used, not his body. Any motions he or she makes are of his or her own volition. There are many laws regarding the use of children in motion pictures because of the abuses of the past. In "kiddie porn," the child's body is used for the sexual acts, as well as the image of its body for the production of the pornographic films or prints. Again, the "selling the body" argument, which I will not develop for lack of adequate legal knowledge. I would appreciate hearing from someone with more knowledge than I have on this point. > 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. I say it is the use that is made of the body and the image of the child and whether or not the child is in a position of equality to the pornographer. If you want to call that content, fine. I believe, however, that the mother who takes "cute pic- tures" of her naked child, while the child does not want them taken, and then calls the child "silly" (I am assuming no sexual content to the photographs) is playing the power games of the pornographer in that she is using the child's body, and the image of the child's body, against the child's consent. >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 differ. A person's body is his/her own property to use as he or she wishes. I extend those rights to the child. (Already born, that is. Please relegate all discussions as to the humanity of the unborn to net.abortion). A parent can not sell a child's body, injure it in any way, or permit it to be injured (this all applies to use for personal gain, not medical treatment) without running into problems with the law. Therefore, in the case of "kiddie porn," artistic considerations are virtually immaterial. I say virtually, because the aforementioned mother would never admit to being a pornographer, nor would I accuse her of pornography (I try not to impose my views on child-abuse/care/pornography on anyone.) >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? First Amendment rights do not enter here because the parties can never be consenting. We are abridging the rights of those who produce and consume kiddie porn, but only because the element which makes the production of "normal porn" acceptable is absent: That is, consent of all parties to participate in the activity. Please notice that this also covers the production and consumption of "snuff" movies, in which the woman (almost always) is actually killed, and the murder recorded on the film. The woman may have consented to participate in a pornographic film, but she never consented to being murdered. This is a case of breach of contract, therefore her consent is anulled. As far as the consumption of kiddie porn is concerned, I would like to hear from someone well versed in psychology. I would not want to harbor any guesses as to the normality or abnormality of being sexually attracted to children or adolescents (Oedipus complex, and all that), so I won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. >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 A right to buy kiddie porn? I suppose the First Amendment covers that. I dispute that no one has a right to produce it. As to parental consent, note the discussion above referring to the difference between consenting to the use of the image of the body, or the name, and the actual use of the child's body. It seems to me that you set up your little straw man and knocked it down. Do you know anything at all about pornography? -- Flames to the address below, Andrea Albert The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Posting for a friend, I remain, Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/24/85)
A response to Andrea Albert's response to me: }>As for the "consenting" part of your distinction, I have already }>remarked 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. } }I don't see how making kiddie porn legal would make kids (as free agents) }consent to being the objects thereof. We're having a small argument }here as to what you mean, but here goes my answer... Even though }I may be wasting my time. Your article is the most thoughtful response to me I have seen (really). It's a shame to see you taking the attitude already toward me that you're wasting your time. Please don't. }In many cases the child insists that s/he wants to be on TV, or wants }to be a model. Please spare me the example of the pushy parent. No }matter how the parent pushes, if the child does not want to be in }pictures, the pictures will be awful and no one will hire him/her. }... If what you say were true, and x number of parents }would be willing to "consent" for their children to pose for legal }"kiddie porn" shots, the market would weed most of them out because }most kids would *refuse* to cooperate. The law does not grant a }parent the right to sell a child's body. It can be argued that }the couple you mentioned in your article sold the child's body. I'm not sure I know how many kids come to be used on TV, put you can't exclude the case where the parent initiates the idea, especially with very young kids. I really doubt that most kids are the ones who get the idea that they want to be models. Their parents do. And they aren't necesarily being pushy. They just think kids look good enough. If kid porn were legal the fact that most kids were weeded out says nothing about the ones that aren't. We are talking about kids that are actually used. Also the standard of what makes a picture awful is different for TV commercials and publicity photos than it is for kid porn. They are used for totally different purposes. The one who buys kid porn doesn't care if the kid in the picture will sell him baby food or whatever. So we are left with the kids that aren't weeded out and are suitably cooperative for kid porn. It may be true that their bodies are being sold, but is that any less true for the parent who lets his child be used in a diaper commercial? If so, what makes the difference? The content and purpose? Then we are back to the need for a definition to distinguish between the two. And if we can do it here it is posible also for adult porn. }Consent in and of itself implies that both parties are in a position }of equal power. That is, that the first party has no leverage over }the second party to tell him/her what to do or how. This *never* }applies to the relationship between children and adults. Children }are taught that they must respect, honor, and obey all adults. }Therefore, children never can consent freely to sex with an }adult. Still for the kids to be used in legal porn the consent would be between two adults: the pornographer and the parent or gaurdian acting on the child's behalf. Kid porn does not have to depict children in sexual relations with adults just as all adult porn does not have to depict adults in the act of sex. }> 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. } }Even if "kiddie porn" were legal, this motivation would be }removed. There is a law (federal, I believe), against parents }reaping the monetary benefits of having a child actor. That is, }the child earns the money, and the parents may not spend it. I }do not know whether the same arrangement exists for child models. But if kid porn were legal then we still have to deal with parents who have the same motives for putting their child in kid porn as they would for using him on TV. What about the parents that can't support their children very well? They are surely allowed to use the money the child earns for support of that child. }>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.) } }Not your argument, but an answer: Children are most often abused }by people they know and love. A man in our own city published }"kiddie porn" pictures of his own son. This happens every day, }in every city in the nation. Children are not always kidnapped. }Think also of the runaways who are led into prostitution, etc. It can still be argued that the amount of abuse is aggravated by the fact that it is an illegal activity no matter who takes the pictures. Child abuse in itself is a slightly different matter. The point is that abuse is *always* involved in kiddie porn because it is illegal. If it weren't there would probably be much less physical abuse connected with kid porn. As it is the fact that some parents make porn with their own kids still does not cover the whole issue. As with any type of porn a variety of subjects are needed to make it worth making. }> What would }>be the difference between that and granting consent for them to }>be used in TV commercials or motion pictures? } }Plenty. In commercials or motion pictures, it is the image of }the child's body which is used, not his body. Any motions he }or she makes are of his or her own volition. ... In "kiddie porn," }the child's body is used for the sexual acts, as well as the image of }its body for the production of the pornographic films or prints. Again, }the "selling the body" argument, which I will not develop for }lack of adequate legal knowledge. What forces us to conclude that all child pornography is forced acting rather than volitional, and, for that matter, that all TV acting is always volitional. To what extent do the children act on their own volition. As I said before not all porn requires sexual activity although photos may be retouched to depict it (that gets around your objection). It seems to me that the "selling the body" distinction is a fuzzy line requiring a legal definition. Adults are not allowed to "sell their bodies". Prostitution is illegal most places. }> 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. } }I say it is the use that is made of the body and the image of }the child and whether or not the child is in a position of }equality to the pornographer. If you want to call that content, }fine. I believe, however, that the mother who takes "cute pic- }tures" of her naked child, while the child does not want them }taken, and then calls the child "silly" (I am assuming no sexual }content to the photographs) is playing the power games of the }pornographer in that she is using the child's body, and the image }of the child's body, against the child's consent. What about children too young to refuse? Is a parent playing the power games of a pornographer any time there is a clash in the wills of the parent and child? No. Again your distinction does seem to reduce to one of content. Kids get spankings or get sent to their rooms (dictations of the child's bodily actions) against their consent. But this control over the child is not illegal if it is not abusive (another legal distinction in need of a defintion). So why is porn ruled out given that it is done without physical abuse? I think it's because we find the content and message of kiddie porn objectionable. Yet the same standards are not applied to adult porn. }>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 differ. A person's body is his/her own property to use as he or }she wishes. I extend those rights to the child. }A parent can not sell a child's body, injure it }in any way, or permit it to be injured (this all applies to use for }personal gain, not medical treatment) without running into problems }with the law. Therefore, in the case of "kiddie porn," artistic }considerations are virtually immaterial. Kid porn can be done while getting around the "selling the body" distinction you make (if it really is one) between it and commercial pictures. Also injury to the child does not have to be inherent in the production of kid porn, especially if it were legal. }First Amendment rights do not enter here because the parties }can never be consenting. We are abridging the rights of those }who produce and consume kiddie porn, but only because the }element which makes the production of "normal porn" acceptable }is absent: That is, consent of all parties to participate in }the activity. Please notice that this also covers the production }and consumption of "snuff" movies, in which the woman (almost }always) is actually killed, and the murder recorded on the film. }The woman may have consented to participate in a pornographic film, }but she never consented to being murdered. This is a case of breach of }contract, therefore her consent is anulled. One-year-olds do not consent to be used in diaper commercials either. I think your criterion of consent breaks down when the child is too young and when the consenting arrangement with parents meets the same standards for porn as it does for TV acting (for example)--which is entirely possible ... if kid porn were legal. The consent standard is immaterial in the case of "snuff" movies because even if the woman were to give consent to her own killing (not inconcievable) her act of doing so is illegal as is the murder itself. Consent makes no difference. }As far as the consumption of kiddie porn is concerned, I would }like to hear from someone well versed in psychology. I would }not want to harbor any guesses as to the normality or abnormality }of being sexually attracted to children or adolescents (Oedipus }complex, and all that), so I won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Many psychologists wouldn't touch it either. It amounts to branding certain types of sexual activity "abnormal". Even if they did do this it dosn't say a thing for what such people may read and look at. That is supposedly protected by the Constitution. Can you define an abnormal person by his/her taste in literature? That's like someone else saying everyone who reads porn is a rapist. That's not true. But a case might be made on the content and message of the porn itself and influence in that direction. But that case would have to be made on the content of the porn and not the character of everyone who reads it. If you wan't to find fault with kiddie porn based on the character of those who are attracted to it (rather than the influence its message has on those who use it) then you would have to prove that *everyone* who read kid porn was "abnormal" and give a legal definition of "abnormal" in order to justify banning it on that basis. }>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. } }A right to buy kiddie porn? I suppose the First Amendment covers }that. I dispute that no one has a right to produce it. If the First Amendment covers the right to buy it it covers the right for it to be produced. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/24/85)
>There is a law (federal, I believe), against parents >reaping the monetary benefits of having a child actor. That is, >the child earns the money, and the parents may not spend it. I >do not know whether the same arrangement exists for child models. >I suspect it does, for the same reason the motion picture law was >enacted: abuse of children's earnings by parents (expert testimony, >please?). The law in question is known as the Jackie Coogan Law, as it arose from a famous case in the twenties and thirties involving that actor. He had made fantastic amounts of money in silent movies as a child actor, but, as all children do, he grew up and was no longer cute. (In his old age, he played Uncle Fester on "The Addams Family". Compare that character to some stills from "The Kid" if you want a shock.) His parents, however, had squandered all of his money. As a result of the subsequent lawsuits, California enacted a law requiring most of the profits from a child actor's labors to be placed in trust until he/she grows up. Apparently, the law has loopholes and only applies to income from motion pictures (perhaps not even television). It does not apply to models, to my knowledge. I believe that a few other states have laws modelled on this one. This sort of area is definitely not the place for federal law, being purely a local matter. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
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 *******************************************************************
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (01/29/85)
For that matter, how can a child make an informed decision (assuming
that constitutional rights extend to children, such as the power to enter
into a contract...) about consenting to kiddie porn when he or she has
imperfect knowledge about their own sexuality until puberty?
It would seem to me that using whatever means to contractually engage
a child (even through their consenting parents) and bind him or her legally
to perform pornographic services would be in roughly the same ethical
catagory of deceiving someone who is legally retarded into purchasing
securites. ( I believe Ferraro's husband got nailed for doing something
similar while executor of an estate ??)
Since we do not allow children to purchase securities or mortgage
real estate (presumably due to their imperfect knowledge) I don't think
that children are able to make an informed and rational decision about
the effects (good, bad, and indifferent) of contractual engagement to
perform pornographic personal services.
Acting and modeling are obstensibly NOT the same thing. Most children
can understand what is going on. On the other hand, there are few people
who are of the age of majority who would claim that they had as complete
an understanding of their sexuality at age 8 as they have now. No one
is going to condemn Emmanuel Lewis for appearing on "Webster" or modeling
the latest in fashions for the Sears catalogue.
People ** might ** (whether or not it is "right") condemn a child
who was a prior pornographic subject. This includes other children, BTW.
This would be true even if the child received no psychological damage
and actually enjoyed engaging sexual acts with adults for public consumption.
It is in the spirit of PROTECTING the autonomy of the child -- for
it to live its adult life by making decisions based on good forward-thinking
behaviour -- that kiddie porn should be illegal. Autonomy (and all that
good First Amendment crap) is forefit when the child makes a decision
based on imperfect (or nonexistent) knowledge. Due to biology, children
have an attenuated perception of this situation. If children (even older
teenagers) had even semi-decent knowledge about their own sexuality, there
wouldn't only be as much kiddie porn, but the teenage pregnancy problem
would be greatly reduced.
dya
.ayers@convex.UUCP (02/08/85)
****************************************************************** If the First Amendment covers the right to buy it it covers the right for it to be produced. ****************************************************************** Unfortunately, most of your argument is based on legalities, and with this statement you show just how little you know about the law... (Don't shoot the messenger!!!!!!) blues, II