[averagewall]

There's a big discussion about what's bad about drugs. But I wonder if we can rationally work out what's bad about child porn.

My understanding is that possessing it means you obtained it from someone, who probably wanted some kind of payment, who abused children to produce the material so he could get that payment.

There are quite a few gaps there. What if it was published for free? What if children weren't physically abused but were secretly and anonymously photographed? Shouldn't there be exceptions for victimless child porn?

Of course the dominant factor is people are horrified by deviant sexualities. We're barely managing to accept homosexuality which is probably more common than peadophilia.

[mulmen]

> There's a big discussion about what's bad about drugs. But I wonder if we can rationally work out what's bad about child porn.

You're right that this is a very difficult topic to discuss rationally but I'm going to try anyway.

> What if it was published for free? What if children weren't physically abused but were secretly and anonymously photographed? Shouldn't there be exceptions for victimless child porn?

1) Compensation does not have to be financial to be an incentive. 2) Anonymous photography of individuals without their knowledge can absolutely cause harm. 3) Being a victim of a crime does not require knowledge of the crime taking place nor does it require physical contact.

> Of course the dominant factor is people are horrified by deviant sexualities. We're barely managing to accept homosexuality which is probably more common than peadophilia.

You're equating homosexuality to child abuse which puts you on the wrong side of history.

[gasof]

Paedophillia != child abuse. It's a deviant sexual preference just like homosexuality, even though perhaps you think it is more morally wrong to have paedophillic tendencies than to have homosexual tendencies.

I don't think it is productive to strongly stigmatize all forms of paedophillac tendencies, specifically because it reduces the chance of would-be child abusers getting help controlling and/or channeling their urges.

There is some research that suggests higher availability of child pornography (including the simulated/drawn) reduces occurences of child abuse, and although it is of course highly controversial, to me it indicates that it is worth investigating.

As a specific example of what I consider to be a very harmful way of dealing with the (real or fake) child porn issue, is the UK porn identification requirement. No paedophile is going to enter their details when they want to look at loli hentai, so they'd be forced to find some other outlet, for instance by going on the darkweb. Or they end up not doing anything to pacify their urges, which might well raise the chances of them actually participating in child abuse. Of course this is purely speculative, but I don't think these are outcomes you can reasonably dismiss out of hand.

I'm not saying I condone the use of photographic material of minors, I tend towards "90% bad" but really have to think it through more, but I do believe it to be harmful to make hand-drawn or CG child pornography illegal. The "but you're abusing the children without their knowledge" argument doesn't hold water there, and it'd be great if it usurped large swaths of the market for abusive child pornography.

[nyolfen]

history doesn't have arbiters

[nnfy]

While I believe that western sexual norms are a bit puritanical, the premise behind protecting children with zealous laws is that it is extremely difficult to judge whether child pornography is truely victimless, even if you believe that harm from childhood sexuality is overstated in modern society. Because of the power imbalance between adults and children, and the permanent effects that abuse can have on children, it is reasonable to err on the side of caution and keep all child/adult sexual interactions illegal, and reduce demand for such interactions by keeping pornography illegal.

As an aside, I am curious as to the reason you are being down voted, besides your audacity of expressing an unpopular opinion.

[mulmen]

Short of presenting data I think you're making a bit of a leap to say that pornography encourages some undesired behavior. It could easily be argued either way.

[averagewall]

I tend to agree with "better safe than sorry" since it's unclear. It can go too far though if you end up punishing many more adults for tangentially related crimes than the number of children who were harmed by actual abuse.

As for cultural norms. Many primitive cultures use age of puberty as age of consent. I heard of one (probably Amazon) tribe where sex was treated as common as eating or pooing. It wasn't related to marriage, which they did have. Children were involved much younger than our age of consent. I don't think you could say they were harmed since it was normal behavior and they apparently grew up without emotional problems.

We tend to confuse normal sexual attraction to teenagers with peadophilia and lump them all into the same group. For example teachers having relationships with underage teenage students. It might be harmful but the sexuality is normal, not deviant.

[hallman76]

That's not expressing an "unpopular opinion". They're being ignorant about the harm being done to the victims of child pornography and (it seems) trying legitimize that harm by drawing a dotted line to homosexuality.

It has no place on HN. I would downvote if I could.

[glogla]

Depends.

Teenagers sexting each other?

Someone drawing or 3d modelling fictional underage character?

In many jurisdictions thats the same thing as genuine child abuse base child porn. In my jurisdiction, Harry Potter fanfiction with sex counts as child porn - and as one with extended penalty because it is "delivered through very efficient means like computer network".

Not all things are all the same, even with the same label.

[nnfy]

>They're being ignorant about the harm being done to the victims of child pornography

You are foolish to believe that all children are harmed by childhood sexuality and/or child pornography. Sex is part of the human nature, and we do not wake up on our 18th birthday and realize that we are ready to begin exploring our bodies. Never mind the fact that human beings can be conditioned to both be traumatized by and accepting of sexual activity by/as children.

>It has no place on HN. I would downvote if I could. This amounts to morally-derived censorship.

It is foolish to presume that your cultural programming should not be scrutinized; society is worse off for this kind of puritanical closed mindedness. No, I'm not asking you to accept victimization of children, but if you cannot honestly discuss and/or examine both sides of an issue, you cannot be confident in your opinion.

[throwaway8754]

> What if it was published for free?

If you believe the MPAA/RIAA's claims that piracy harms sales, there would be some moral case for piracy of CP. Although, there is still some direct harm from the distribution of the material (for the privacy for the victim). However it's more likely that (contra the MPAA) piracy actually serves as advertising, just like in the ordinary entertainment industry.

> What if children weren't physically abused but were secretly and anonymously photographed?

Still harmful for privacy reasons mentioned above, even if less harmful than actual physical abuse.

> Shouldn't there be exceptions for victimless child porn?

Probably, but the example I would reach for is art / drawings of obviously fictional characters, rather than any of the above. The fact that many CP laws extend to this is better evidence that lawmakers are being irrationally swayed by puritanism. (Or that puritanism breeds indifference. Maybe they don't care about the "deviants" interested in these sort of drawings enough to specifically target them, but they also don't care enough to carve out an exception.)

[ouid]

Cartoon child pornography is legal in the states provided it is not meant to depict an actual child. At least if I'm remembering correctly.

[averagewall]

Australia is stricter. Somebody was charged for possessing Simpsons porn because it was "sexualised depiction of persons under 16". The defence argued they weren't human because they only had 4 fingers on each hand!

[wheelerwj]

bro.. don't try and make the abusers out to be victims.

the dominant factor in stigmatized pea do philadelphia has very little to do with deviant sexuality and has everything to do with coercion and rape of still developing human beings. this is seen across just about every other facet of civilized society as well.

We don't allow minors into enforceable contracts, leave home or check out of school, smoke cigarettes or drink booze, and we sure as hell don't allow them to participate in "amateur" pornography where the consequences can be life long.

We restrict these things because the mind isn't developed or experienced enough to understand and appreciate the effects of these actions.

[speleding]

The abusers are not the issue here, the parent is questioning whether possession should be illegal in all cases, especially if we are talking about a victimless crime. Photoshopped adult porn to make the actresses look young, for example. It's a good question. However, I expect that no politician is brave enough to ask the question for fear of getting precisely the criticism you just demonstrated. So the discussion will remain theoretical.

[BearGoesChirp]

Go with an even easier case. What if it is of a 17 year old who is old enough to consent, even by the law where they live, who willingly takes the photograph and releases it. Technically illegal, but why?

[celticninja]

That's why there are levels of child porn and it impacts on sentencing.