So what's so bad about kiddy porn anyway?

[Argus]

So the Liberals are getting set to introduce newer, "tougher" anti kiddy-porn laws - again. What is it with this topic that it's become a neverending source of cheap exploitation for cheap politicians on all sides of the House? It seems like every year they introduce even tougher laws. But is that to protect children or to look good to the press? After all, how can you not look good defending children? Even if you're not?

Because the fact is that kiddy porn laws really have zero impact on children and crimes against children. Innumerable studies have shot down all attempts at showing that looking at porn causes violence, whether it's against children or women. To the contrary, many psychologists feel it can act as a sort of release valve and prevent sexual crimes.

As he sets the ink on the new law Justice Minister Irwin Cottler is considering an amendment sponsored by some Tory nobody which would impose a minimum two year sentence on anyone found in posession of kiddy porn.

It's worth noting nobody is calling for a two-year sentence for people who actually molest children.

The incredibly overbroad law as it already exists does not differentiate between a picture of a five year old being raped by a dog, and a picture of a 17 year old lying naked on a beach. As far as the law is concerned both are kiddy porn. Now a judge can obviously take this into account - now. He would not sentence someone with tens of thousands of pictures of little kids being molested to the same degree as some guy who downloaded some nudies without realizing a few of them were under eighteen. Remember Tracy Lords? This young lady was 15 when she was the centrefold in Penthouse magazine. Nobody knew it, of course, at the time. But anyone who downloads any of the videos she made then, or of any other older looking person who turns out to be under eighteen, can go to jail.

Not that a judge would be likely to do that - unless he has no choice. And that's what the proposed amendment does - it gives him no choice. Like the law, it makes no effort to differentiate between the vilest kind of child pornography and something which simply has a person in it who's under 18. The law, btw, also removes the artistic merit defence. And it retains the absurd phrasing "under eighteen or who appears to be under eighteen". In other words, even if the person in the porn is twenty two, if he or she "appears to be under eighteen" you can still go to jail.

Again, worth noting; You can seduce and have sex with a roomful of 14 year old Catholic virgin schoolgirls and the law doesn't care.

But don't you, by God have a picture, or a story that shows sex with anyone under eighteen - or who appears to be under eighteen.

[Choke]

I think it should be judged on pre-pubescence vs post-pubescense. If it determined that someone is in possession of kiddy porn, by that standard, then I don't think there is any penalty too severe for them.

[shackwacky]

Argus, I think it's the thread title. I have trouble posting to the "whats so bad..."

Someone help me with this. Recently (last 6-8 months?) there was a police officer (western canada) who was charged with soliciting. He tried to buy the affections of a 15 year old.

His penalty was (I believe) loss of employment and probation. He got to stay in his home town.

This is no penalty. Especially for a person with a duty of trust to others. I tell my kids, if I am not around, find a policeman.

Maybe if the penalties were more severe? Good thing he didn't have pictures of 15 year olds!!

[caesar]

Kiddie porn is disgusting as is anyone who would look at such pictures. Pornography is NOT just naked pictures. It is the exploitation of very young children who may never fully recover. Even if the person looking at the porn has not touched a child the child in the pictures has been harmed. Disgusting that anyone would make excuses for pronograpy let alone child porn

[kimmy]

caesar's post is a good example of why no politician has the stones to say what Argus wrote, even though his post makes a lot of sense.

Point out that the law is overly vague, and next election your opponents will be writing in their brochures: "Argus OPPOSED tougher child-porn laws!"

In our world of 10-second sound-bites, there's no chance for a politician to set out an intelligent argument on the issue without risking being charicatured.

-kimmy

[Choke]

Caesar is right.

If it were up to me, the death penalty would be available to judges when sentencing in these cases.

[Argus]

Kiddie porn is disgusting as is anyone who would look at such pictures.

I agree that society (and I as well) finds it disgusting. But then, a lot of people find a lot of things "disgusting" and we don't ban them, let alone criminalize them without there being evidence of actual harm done to society.

Bear in mind the paedophilia is not something anyone buys in a store. I'm not entirely sure psychologists agree as to why some people are paedophiles but I'm quite certain none of them want to be. No one seems to have any choice over what arouses them. So calling people "disgusting" because of a condition over which they have no choice is, imho, unfair. You might find the sight disgusting, but would you call gay men themselves disgusting because they have anal sex with each other?

Pornography is NOT just naked pictures.  It is the exploitation of very young children who may never fully recover.

No, I'm afraid you're quite wrong. Pornography is fairly clearly defined in law, and that is what I'm talking about. And it includes people who are not children, and includes paintings and pictures and computer animation drawn from the imagination, or fictional stories, none of which involve children either.

Disgusting that anyone would make excuses for pronograpy let alone child porn

Isn't freedom terrible!? Why, if only you could censor everything people watch, read and look at, and put people in prison if you thought it was "disgusting"! What a wonderful world it would be!

[Argus]

I think it should be judged on pre-pubescence vs post-pubescense. If it determined that someone is in possession of kiddy porn, by that standard, then I don't think there is any penalty too severe for them.

But think of the absurdity of wanting to put people in prison for a minimum of two years for having a picture of something it is quite legal to do! The age of consent is 14, so you can have sex, but if you take a picture they will put you in prison for two years minimum!? Then there's the fact that we have no minimums for actual child molesting, nor is anyone seriously suggesting them. Why on earth would we have a minimum two year sentence for some stupid schmuck who downloads a picture of a naked kid in his basement, but no minimu for someone who actually molests a child?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

In our world of 10-second sound-bites, there's no chance for a politician to set out an intelligent argument on the issue without risking being charicatured

Dead on with this one. It is the same reason no politician will touch legalized prostitution.

Dear caesar,

Disgusting that anyone would make excuses for pronograpy

I hate pronograpy. Pornography, on the other hand, is here to stay. Even television ads use it to a degree. Tittilation, even mild, is porn in a sense.

Kiddie-porn, however, is a sign of mental disturbance, as far as I see it. I disagree with the notion that this kind of porn's availability reduces actual incidents by providing an 'outlet'. It is only stoking the fire until such time as the 'offender' works up the courage to 'try out the fantasy for real'.

[Argus]

Caesar is right.

If it were up to me, the death penalty would be available to judges when sentencing in these cases.

Sheer reactionary stupidity. Let's look at things objectively. So you have some middle-aged guy who, through no fault of his own, is a paedophile. He downloads some naked pictures in his basement, and you want him executed for it.

Okay, we now have a new standard for executions. Even if you never touch a child, but just look at nasty pictures, you can be excuted.

Surely we have to execute murderers now, and those who deliberately cause serious physical harm to others, and drunk drivers, and armed robbers, and, of course, child molesters, be they parents or whatnot (Gee, I'm sure little Suzie won't be traumatized or have lifelong guilt after dad is gassed for touching her). And of course, all rapists, and hey, pimps, obviously. How about adulterers? Shouldn't they be executed? They do damage to children too when marriages break up. For that matter, how about executing parents who divorce? They cause lifelong trauma for their children. And bad teachers! They make little Jimmy's life a misery because they didn't properly teach him to read and write. Execute them all! Kill anyone who harms anyone! That'll make society a better place!

[Argus]

Disgusting that anyone would make excuses for pronograpy

I hate pronograpy. Pornography, on the other hand, is here to stay. Even television ads use it to a degree. Tittilation, even mild, is porn in a sense.

Kiddie-porn, however, is a sign of mental disturbance, as far as I see it. I disagree with the notion that this kind of porn's availability reduces actual incidents by providing an 'outlet'. It is only stoking the fire until such time as the 'offender' works up the courage to 'try out the fantasy for real'.

That is the same argument religious groups have been using about pornography for decades. Yet despite at least two presidentital commisions on porn, and innumerable academic and privately launched studies no one, and I mean NO ONE, has been able to show that this is the case. Therefore stating it as a fact is absurd.

It was, in fact, a presidential commision into porn, a commision made up of sociologists, psychologists, sexologists and psychiatrists who suggested that the more deviant elements of porn could actually serve as an outlet, rather than "stoking the fires". With what educational background do you dismiss their suggestion?

All the laws against porn, and kiddy porn, are in place for the very reason Caesor so clearly outlined; that people find it "disgusting", not because it causes any damage to anyone.

[Argus]

Argus, I think it's the thread title.  I have trouble posting to the "whats so bad..."

Well, I admit I was trying to be provocative. On the other hand, it is a legitimate question. Yes, it's disgusting, but do we make laws on that basis? Lacking demonstrable harm why criminalise something to this extent? We don't criminalize cigarettes, which clearly kill untold tens of thousands each year, yet some people want to execute those who consume kiddy porn for - why exactly? Because we find them disgusting!

Keep in mind that all acts of sex with children are already illegal, and anyone who engages in them can be imprisoned for long periods of time - although they rarely are. So anyone who actually produces "real" kiddy porn can be arrested under those laws.

So why exactly do we want to lock up someone who paints a picture from imagination, or writes a story? Because it's disgusting!

I just don't feel we should be putting people in prison because we find what they do or what they think or fantasise about "disgusting". And no one has been able to demonstrate the societal harm caused by kiddy porn - which is already banned under obscenity provisions, and always has been.

[caesar]

Weren't you "righties" and Harper whining during the lead up to the election that the Liberals were soft on porn. How soon we forget

[Tawasakm]

Sheer reactionary stupidity. Let's look at things objectively.

Adults in general, and parents especially, naturally have strong protective instincts toward children. On an issue such as child porn its very hard to ask people not to react strongly (and protectively) toward the child.

Personally I am dead against child pornography. Yes it does disgust me. I don't think you should necessarily dismiss that disgust. I think it is based on the adults instinct to protect a child.

You raise some very valid points though. There should be a difference between someone looking at a picture of a seventeen year old naked (or a twenty year old that looks seventeen) and someone viewing a child engaged in sexual acts. It is common sense that the latter should receive the full weight of the law and the former should be warned to 'step more carefully in future'. Thats how I see it anyway.

I also believe you are dead on in arguing that actual acts against children should be receiving the focus and greater punishment. There are those that are receiving benefit from the predators (by looking at their movies or pics) but they are nothing to the ones that are the predators. It is the predators that are creating the greatest harm - that are the ones actually exploiting the children and forcing them to commit acts. No child should be put throught that. It is the people performing these crimes who should receive harsh minimum sentences (if someone committed such an act against a child of mine I don't know if I could stop myself from killing them). It is where we should put our primary focus.

On another note, which may or may not interest anyone, the age of consent laws are quite different in the state of Western Australia. Basically the age of consent is eighteen. Anyone who is eighteen can have sex with anyone else who is over the age of eighteen. However a sixteen year old girl can have sex with a boy who is eighteen. A seventeen year old girl can have sex with an eighteen or nineteen year old boyl. The rationale being that girls mature faster at that age. It is illegal to have same gender sex at all before eighteen. At least thats how the laws were a few years ago. I understand they were altered slightly during the last few years. I should research that.

Thankyou for starting this topic Argus. You have raised some very interesting points and presented them well.

PS The thread title definitely turns me off too.

[Choke]

But think of the absurdity of wanting to put people in prison for a minimum of two years for having a picture of something it is quite legal to do! The age of consent is 14, so you can have sex, but if you take a picture they will put you in prison for two years minimum!? Then there's the fact that we have no minimums for actual child molesting, nor is anyone seriously suggesting them. Why on earth would we have a minimum two year sentence for some stupid schmuck who downloads a picture of a naked kid in his basement, but no minimu for someone who actually molests a child?

Did you miss the part where I said it should be judged on pre-pubescence/post-pubescence? Also, I didn't say there shouldn't be a minimum sentence for molestation, I only addressed the porn issue.

Let's look at things objectively. So you have some middle-aged guy who, through no fault of his own, is a paedophile.

This is a ridiculous premiss on which to base an arguement.

He downloads some naked pictures in his basement, and you want him executed for it.

No, but I do want it to be an option if it is determined that he cannot be rehabilitated.

Surely we have to execute murderers now, and those who deliberately cause serious physical harm to others, and drunk drivers, and armed robbers, and, of course, child molesters, be they parents or whatnot (Gee, I'm sure little Suzie won't be traumatized or have lifelong guilt after dad is gassed for touching her). And of course, all rapists, and hey, pimps, obviously. How about adulterers? Shouldn't they be executed? They do damage to children too when marriages break up. For that matter, how about executing parents who divorce? They cause lifelong trauma for their children. And bad teachers! They make little Jimmy's life a misery because they didn't properly teach him to read and write. Execute them all! Kill anyone who harms anyone! That'll make society a better place!

I love tirades that follow no reasonable sense of logic. I think any serious offender (murder, rape, contributing to either) that has no chance of rehabilitation should be put out of their own, and society's misery.

All the laws against porn, and kiddy porn, are in place for the very reason Caesor so clearly outlined; that people find it "disgusting", not because it causes any damage to anyone.

Of course it couldn't be because it HARMS THE CHILDREN involved, could it!?

Yes, it's disgusting, but do we make laws on that basis? Lacking demonstrable harm why criminalise something to this extent?

There absolutely is demonstrable harm. Your arguement is based on the theories of some psuedo-scientists, you may be willing to put the welfare of children in their hands, but I'm not.

Weren't you "righties" and Harper whining during the lead up to the election that the Liberals were soft on porn.

I honestly don't see what reason Argus would have to vote Conservative...he's way off in libertarian land.

[ndpnic]

is it child pornography to take a pic of say your 3 year old playing in the tub?

Is it child pornography if you take a pic of your naked baby laying on a blanket?

Most fam albums are full of pics like that!!!!

[Choke]

Pornography means sexually explicit material...not just nakedness. I don't know or care what the current legal definition is, that is what the word actually means, and that's what I mean when I use it.

So to answer your questions ndpic, no.

[Argus]

Weren't you "righties" and Harper whining during the lead up to the election that the Liberals were soft on porn.  How soon we forget

Caesar, my mind is not bound up in a straitjacket of ideology and party politics as yours seems to be. Consequently I am free to take whatever position on any given issue seems most logical and sensible.

[Argus]

Sheer reactionary stupidity. Let's look at things objectively.

Adults in general, and parents especially, naturally have strong protective instincts toward children. On an issue such as child porn its very hard to ask people not to react strongly (and protectively) toward the child.

Naturally enough. I think everyone feels protective towards children. However, what if there is no child involved? What about works of imagination? I find that aspect of the law particularly troubling. It's almost like crimiinalising the imagination. You can fantasise about something, but if you write down that fantasy, or draw a picture, they will put you in prison for it. That disturbs me because I don't think we should be in business of judging other people's sexual fantasies.

The reason that, and other language which criminalises porn with adults who "look under eighteen" is the apparent presumption that this stuff inspires people to act. Yet despite years, decades of determined attempts (mostly by religious and feminist groups) to show a causal affect no one has been succesful.

I also believe you are dead on in arguing that actual acts against children should be receiving the focus and greater punishment.

This is a second angle I find disturbing. Anyone who follows the news and crime reports must be aware that many of these child predators have dozens of convictions for child molesting. Yet they continue to receive light sentences! And I have noted no serious government effort to strengthen laws against child molesting over the last decade. Instead continue to strengthen porn laws - almost as if it is the evidence of child molesting which bothers them rather than the actual act.

Most real child porn (as opposed to the fictional stuff) is produced as a byproduct of the crime of child molesting. It is some paedophile recording their crime to relive it later. If you focus on stopping these people then it seems to me the supply of fresh kiddy porn will dry up on its own. So how come no crackdown on child molesting? How come no call to make minimum sentences for child abuse?

[Argus]

Let's look at things objectively. So you have some middle-aged guy who, through no fault of his own, is a paedophile.

This is a ridiculous premiss on which to base an arguement.

Why? I'm sure he doesn't want to be a paedophile. I'm sure he never asked to be a paedophile. I'm sure he has no more say over what turns him on than someone who lusts after people of the same gender, or is into feet or bondage, or whatever. You is what you is, so to speak.

He downloads some naked pictures in his basement, and you want him executed for it.

No, but I do want it to be an option if it is determined that he cannot be rehabilitated.

Why, other than disgust? If this is someone who has never touched a child - and most of the kid porn arrests I've read about have been such people, why would you want to put him in prison forever at enormous cost?

I love tirades that follow no reasonable sense of logic. I think any serious offender (murder, rape, contributing to either) that has no chance of rehabilitation should be put out of their own, and society's misery.

And do you put people who look at dirty pictures in the same category as murderers and rapists? My point was that it is so obviously a lesser category that if you execute people for looking at dirty pictures or reading dirty stories then you must obviously execute everyone who commits a more serious offence.

All the laws against porn, and kiddy porn, are in place for the very reason Caesor so clearly outlined; that people find it "disgusting", not because it causes any damage to anyone.

Of course it couldn't be because it HARMS THE CHILDREN involved, could it!?

It does? How? Bear in mind that the crime involved is already illegal, and that child porn was already banned under obscenity provisions. So try to justify this huge, broad, unwieldy law on the basis of how it prevents harm to children. Especially in light of the dangers to civil liberties it presents.

Yes, it's disgusting, but do we make laws on that basis? Lacking demonstrable harm why criminalise something to this extent?

There absolutely is demonstrable harm. Your arguement is based on the theories of some psuedo-scientists, you may be willing to put the welfare of children in their hands, but I'm not.

Pseudo scientists? And what are your arguments based on but pure emotion?

Weren't you "righties" and Harper whining during the lead up to the election that the Liberals were soft on porn.

I honestly don't see what reason Argus would have to vote Conservative...he's way off in libertarian land.

Not actually true. Would it surprise you to learn the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (of which I am a member) has presented numerous arguments against the child porn law? That the Ontario and Quebec bar associations both called the law dangerous and unnecessary when it was first drawn up, and opposed its implimentation?

[Argus]

Pornography means sexually explicit material...not just nakedness. I don't know or care what the current legal definition is, that is what the word actually means, and that's what I mean when I use it.

So to answer your questions ndpic, no.

No, no, no. You cannot use your own definition of porn while defending a law which uses an entirely different definition. And by that definition it is indeed child porn. Locally, we saw almost exactly that sort of thing take place last year. A local Polish immigrant was arrested after taking pictures of his very young son horsing around on the rug. He was ordered out of the home and it wasn't until the case was about to come to court - and the crown realized no sane jury would convict, and under enormous media criticism, that the case was dropped. The CAS continued to persecute him and his family for months afterwards, defying local opinion and media, and, from what I could determine, rather upset they couldn't continue to ban him from the house.

[Choke]

I'm sure he doesn't want to be a paedophile

Then he wouldn't be looking at kiddy porn. One can make a choice to reject those sort of feelings or embrace them...it's still a choice he's making to break the law.

Why, other than disgust? If this is someone who has never touched a child - and most of the kid porn arrests I've read about have been such people,

Just because it can't be proven they have, that doesn't prove they have not. Once someone's caught with kiddy porn, and it's determined that it wasn't just planted on them or something, then IMO they're guilty of child molestation until proven innocent since they've shown a predisposition to such behaviour.

why would you want to put him in prison forever at enormous cost?

I wouldn't, notice the capital punishment bit there.

And do you put people who look at dirty pictures in the same category as murderers and rapists?

YES!! To me they are equivalent. Looking at pictures of children being sexually exploited is as bad as being an accomplice to murder, IMO, and therefore worthy of the same punishment.

It does? How?

A child has to be exploited for child pornography to be made, unless you mean stories/drawings.

Especially in light of the dangers to civil liberties it presents.

Civil liberties should not be allowed to trump civil safeties.

Pseudo scientists?

When you claim unproven theory is fact, that's psuedo-science. Until we have the technology to read minds, all psychology will be is theories, I prefer to deal in concrete facts.

And what are your arguments based on but pure emotion?

My arguements are based on my interest in preserving children's safety. Anyone who expresses a sexual interest in children is inherently dangerous and should not be allowed to live freely in society. Whether that means removing them and keeping them locked away, or rehabilitating them, or executing them is a matter for debate, but they absolutely cannot be allowed any access to children.

Not actually true. Would it surprise you to learn the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (of which I am a member) has presented numerous arguments against the child porn law?

The CCLA is also way off in libertarian land. Freedom of expression and civil liberties in general are not conservative inventions.

That the Ontario and Quebec bar associations both called the law dangerous and unnecessary when it was first drawn up, and opposed its implimentation?

Would it surprise you to learn that I don't give a crap what any bar association says, especially if they're from Ontario or Quebec?

[Choke]

No, no, no. You cannot use your own definition of porn while defending a law which uses an entirely different definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pornography

That's where I get my definition from, and whoever said I was defending the current law? I think the law is currently crap, but so are your ideas. Capitalists advocate laissez faire economic policy, you seem to be advocating laissez pervertis social policy.

[Argus]

I'm sure he doesn't want to be a paedophile

Then he wouldn't be looking at kiddy porn. One can make a choice to reject those sort of feelings or embrace them...it's still a choice he's making to break the law.

That is pretty much the same sort of thing which used to be said about homosexuals, back when it was illegal to practice homosexuality. It's very hard to reject what turns you on. Have you ever tried? Sexuality is a powerful driving force.

Why, other than disgust? If this is someone who has never touched a child - and most of the kid porn arrests I've read about have been such people,

Just because it can't be proven they have, that doesn't prove they have not. Once someone's caught with kiddy porn, and it's determined that it wasn't just planted on them or something, then IMO they're guilty of child molestation until proven innocent since they've shown a predisposition to such behaviour

No, I don't like this argument either. Because you're convicting someone based on their fantasies. For example, I think it's been determined that huge numbers of women have rape fantasies. That does not mean they want to be raped. It's just a fantasy. Less studied is that many men have rape fantasies - thus the plentiful amount of bdsm porn out there - but they too are disinclined to rape anyone in real life.

You cannot put someone in prison because they have a sexual fantasy you dislike.

And do you put people who look at dirty pictures in the same category as murderers and rapists?

YES!! To me they are equivalent. Looking at pictures of children being sexually exploited is as bad as being an accomplice to murder, IMO, and therefore worthy of the same punishment.

That's quite simply absurd. Even if we're talking of "real" kiddy porn the only way I would place substantial guilt on the shoulders of those looking at it would be if the porn was being manufactured for their consumption. Then, I'll grant you, they would bear a strong responsibility for the activities taking place. But that is simply not the case.

Especially in light of the dangers to civil liberties it presents.

Civil liberties should not be allowed to trump civil safeties.

I agree, as it happens. However, I am unable to get over the fact that no one has been able to show that this involves civil safety. If the law was tossed out tomorrow, for example, what would be the result? Well, there really wouldn't be any. Kiddy porn would still be banned under obscenity provisions. And, of course, child molestion is illegal in itself.

Pseudo scientists?

When you claim unproven theory is fact, that's psuedo-science. Until we have the technology to read minds, all psychology will be is theories, I prefer to deal in concrete facts.

Hey, I agree again! But... you don't have any concrete facts.

And what are your arguments based on but pure emotion?

My arguements are based on my interest in preserving children's safety.

Now do you really think the Canadian Civil Liberties Association doesn't care about children's safety? Come on.

Anyone who expresses a sexual interest in children is inherently dangerous and should not be allowed to live freely in society.

What about people who have rape fantasies? What should be done with them?

[caesar]

Caesar, my mind is not bound up in a straitjacket of ideology and party politics as yours seems to be. Consequently I am free to take whatever position on any given issue seems most logical and sensible. 

Yeah right. You diss anything and everything the Canadian government does. Whining about this legislation shows you to be a sick puppy.