This attitude is why it's so hard to have a sensible conversation about child porn. Change the subject to torture, murder, genocide or any number of far worse things and people won't get so emotionally wound up. There's something about child porn that bring out the jungle in people beyond proportion. There's nothing wrong with throwing ideas around in a discussion. Nobody here is going to go rape a child just because they talked about the definition of rape.
The sad-irony here is, the very same wound up individuals don't give anything emotion-wise if a childs rights are violated on a non-sexual basis.
Sweatshops to glue those phones, shoes and shirts together? Not a problem.
Beating them for religious reasons.
Not a problem.
Starving them for social ideologies.
Thats okay, they are responsible for themselves.
As seen in WW2 and later crimes. Genocide on families (including children), okay, as long as you don't have to witness it and can make a profit from it.
Its really only sexual crimes that get monsters to rage at monsters.
It must be some primal instinct, that is completely detached from the crime and the victim itself. Its really all about the pure existence of the criminal.
In our current environment, this is mostly a pedantic distinction because almost all child porn is produced in an otherwise abusive environment.
Also, the definition of child porn is far broader than what would be required to meet the definition of rape, which requires penetration. [0]
The definition of child porn is also sufficiently broad to include any pornographic image that depicts an identifiable minor in a sexual act, whether or not said minor was actually ingaged in said act, or involved in the production in any way.
The FBI also has a stash of already created child porn. Any harm resulting from the creation of said porn has already been done, and is therefore not a reason to not use it in order to reduce future harm.
[0] Technically, many jurisdictions do not have any form of "statatury rape", but instead use other crimes like sexual abuse.
> The FBI also has a stash of already created child porn. Any harm resulting from the creation of said porn has already been done, and is therefore not a reason to not use it in order to reduce future harm.
I'd like to play the Devil's Advocate here.
Isn't that application of intent and affect the same as a convicted viewer could use to explain why they didn't hurt anyone? They weren't the person behind the camera, nor the person who had sexual relations with the child, so what harm is their consumption of the content?
The government also has a substantial quantity of already produced narcaotics, opiates, psychadellics, and other Schedule 1 drugs that they've confiscated from suppliers and users. Are they free to sell a portion of those drugs in order to find people they can target for future prosecution? I'm not talking about stings where no actual product is exchanged, but months of supplying communities with illegal drugs.
We're not talking about a 25 year old filming his 17 year old girlfriend giving him head here. This is the kind of stuff where the people involved cannot consent. Your spellchecker is broken.
>We're not talking about a 25 year old filming his 17 year old girlfriend giving him head here.
Yes we are. What you describe is child pornography. Depending on jurisdiction, the girlfriend cannot consent. Even in jurisdictions where she can consent, it is still child porn. Even in situations where the 17 year old is acting alone, it is child porn. Even in situations where the 17 year old draws a picture of herself masturbating, it is child porn.
I guest you are correct, my comment should read:
s/rape/depiction in a sexual manner/g
Either way, my point is that we should be careful of the language we use, and recognize that child pornography is far broader than circumstances that would generally be considered "rape" are. My phrasing was sub-optimal due to my other problem with the conflation of statutory rape and normal rape.
The idea the some people "cannot consent" is disproven by the fact that some countries allow underage people to have consensual sex with each other but not with overage people. Somehow they can consent sometimes but not other times. Where I'm from, it's common for kids to be having sex at 13. They "can't consent" but somehow do it anyway without breaking the law.
And? the FBI did not create it, it redistribute it much of it I would assume is pretty darn old, wouldn't surprise me if things that originally were recorded on VHS is still around being sold and traded.
I think that the entire argument flew over your head, the FBI isn't going after consumer it is going after the producers you know the ones in your case who are actually doing or arranging the raping.
You do understand that child pornography is created by the rape of children?
You're saying, "Well, it could be argued that if we stop letting these guys rape them, possibly more children might get raped. We should let it go."
No.