Morality and reasoned justification are incompatable

[Sandra Craft]

It is certainly detrimental to the children, but what is most detrimental is the act being committed, the individual or individuals who make the videos are responsible for the aggression upon the child, not the men or women who watch it.

I have to disagree with you there.  Consumers create the demand, and are therefore involved and culperable if the demand is for something illegal, tho I would say it's to a lesser extent than the suppliers.

Although I think the viewing is sick and repulsive, I don't think it should be illegal. Watching videos of other crimes being committed is usually not a crime itself. So, I fail to see why this crime is different.

If selling vids of those crimes is the reason for the crime being committed, I think buying them, or paying to watch them on the internet, should be illegal along with committing the crime and taping the crime.

Just as I have never seen evidence to link mainstream porn to abuse against women, I have seen no evidence that child porn leads to violence against children.

I don't think it has to, the crime against the child or children directly involved is enough.

[Stevil]

Although I think the viewing is sick and repulsive, I don't think it should be illegal. Watching videos of other crimes being committed is usually not a crime itself. So, I fail to see why this crime is different.

Most countries have a law that if you are aware of a crime then you are legally obliged to report it.
Would you agree with this law? Would you agree that viewers of child porn would thus be legally obliged to report it?

This is my main problem with the idea of amoralism. I don't think it would help the problem of people reacting to "morally repulsive" behavior based off their strong opinion about it.

If there is justified reason to oppose an action then government can impose law. If there isn't justified reason then the society members will need to learn to mind their own business. Again, we aren't moral guardians, if morality exists and there is a god that cares about morality then leave it to the god to implement justice in the afterlife.
If society members can't mind their own business on an issue then it is worth exploring further as maybe there is justified reason to oppose.
Nothing is certain, there are many ambiguous scenarios that require much debate. This is why I like common law as opposed to legislative law.

[ThinkAnarchy]

It is certainly detrimental to the children, but what is most detrimental is the act being committed, the individual or individuals who make the videos are responsible for the aggression upon the child, not the men or women who watch it.

I have to disagree with you there.  Consumers create the demand, and are therefore involved and culperable if the demand is for something illegal, tho I would say it's to a lesser extent than the suppliers.

I agree that supply and demand apply to how much of a product is created, but I'm not positive that logic works in relation to child porn. I am unsure of how much child porn is sold, vs. how much is shared for free.

Although I think the viewing is sick and repulsive, I don't think it should be illegal. Watching videos of other crimes being committed is usually not a crime itself. So, I fail to see why this crime is different.

If selling vids of those crimes is the reason for the crime being committed, I think buying them, or paying to watch them on the internet, should be illegal along with committing the crime and taping the crime.

What about when money does not exchange hands? I used to frequent 4chan.org for a while, in order to keep up with what anonymous was up to. That site, due to it's anonymity (I think that is the reason), has a major problem with child porn being posted. The threads get deleted, the IP banned and likely reported, but those images can be downloaded for free. I also used the program TOR for a while when I would visit the site, because I didn't want my IP associated with the site, but it became impossible to use it, because about 90% of the IP's I rerouted through were banned due to the posting of CP. 4chan informs you why the IP is banned when you attempt to access the site through that address.

The point is, I don't think most people make money off child porn. I see no evidence to suggest it is a profitable business model. Granted that is likely due to it being illegal.

I also have never been provided with evidence proving a link between those who view child porn and harming children themselves. Nor have I seen evidence that sharing child porn leads to more child porn.

Just as I have never seen evidence to link mainstream porn to abuse against women, I have seen no evidence that child porn leads to violence against children.

I don't think it has to, the crime against the child or children directly involved is enough.

I have to disagree. The crime against the child is justification for criminalizing those who directly aggress upon the child. But the problem I have with your argument, which is similar to most I have seen, is that the logic is not applied across the board. If we were to apply this logic to everything; viewing videos of robberies, assaults, murders, etc should be illegal as well. It isn't though, at least in most Western countries I can think of. There are laws for those who commit the crime, but those who witness it or watch a video, are not viewed as criminals. I see no reason why that same logic does not apply to this issue.

Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?

[DeterminedJuliet]

Just as I have never seen evidence to link mainstream porn to abuse against women, I have seen no evidence that child porn leads to violence against children.

I don't think it has to, the crime against the child or children directly involved is enough.

I have to disagree. The crime against the child is justification for criminalizing those who directly aggress upon the child. But the problem I have with your argument, which is similar to most I have seen, is that the logic is not applied across the board. If we were to apply this logic to everything; viewing videos of robberies, assaults, murders, etc should be illegal as well. It isn't though, at least in most Western countries I can think of. There are laws for those who commit the crime, but those who witness it or watch a video, are not viewed as criminals. I see no reason why that same logic does not apply to this issue.

Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?

The difference between a video of a robbery and a video of child porn is that the video of child porn is a commodity. Most robbers don't rob a bank so that they can sell/produce the video after the fact. Most people are aware of this context when you view the videos.

On the murder front, I think there is definitely a difference between watching a snuff film where someone is intentionally murdered to produce the film, and watching a youtube video (or something similar) where a murder just happens to be caught on film.

[ThinkAnarchy]

The difference between a video of a robbery and a video of child porn is that the video of child porn is a commodity. Most robbers don't rob a bank so that they can sell/produce the video after the fact. Most people are aware of this context when you view the videos.

I don't see any evidence proving people record their raping of children solely to share it though. Nor do I see evidence to support the motivation of the crime was the sharing or selling of the video. I have recorded some of my sexual conquests, mind you they were legal and consensual, but my motivation was not personal gain or online sharing. Those videos are encrypted and password protected, and the motivation was purely my being able to watch them later. I had sex with those women, because I was horny, the videos were simply a bonus of my desire and their willingness and trust in being filmed. Just as most robbers don't rob a bank due to a want to share the video, I don't think those who rape children are motivated by the idea of sharing the video. It can be a result of the act, but I don't see it as being the motivation of the act... I hope that makes sense to others.

On the murder front, I think there is definitely a difference between watching a snuff film where someone is intentionally murdered to produce the film, and watching a youtube video (or something similar) where a murder just happens to be caught on film.

I'm unable to make that distinction. It is either wrong to view acts of aggression, or it isn't. I don't see why watching a snuff film is any different than watching someone being murdered during a bank robbery. With snuff films, the practice of murdering women after sex, was not a result of video or the internet. Video simply facilitated the sharing and/or selling of such films.

I view snuff films the same as child porn. I choose not to watch or make such videos, but don't think people should be punished by the state for simply viewing these videos. I'm all for society shunning people who enjoy viewing these videos, but I don't support laws that criminalize the viewing. I simply don't see the link between crimes being committed due to a want to sell or share the video. No matter the money, you couldn't get me to star or record a snuff or child porn film, just as you wouldn't be persuaded to be in one. Those who are in them, or record them, are likely motivated by the act itself, not the monetary gain. I would argue the adults in CP videos are motivated by a want to have sex with a child, not the actual act of recording and selling such videos.

I'm also curious if viewing fantasy rape films should be illegal, or fantasy child porn? I'm trying to narrow down how you all view this by asking these questions. Does staged fantasy rape porn promote rape? Is viewing fantasy rape equivalent to watching an actual rape? Does having a young looking model, who is over the legal age, promote violence against children or make people want to abuse children? Are those who view these fantasy video's contributing to actual rape and other forms of violence?

[Sandra Craft]

Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?

Think I did address this aspect of it -- if the murder was committed in order to make the video, then yes.

I'm also curious if viewing fantasy rape films should be illegal, or fantasy child porn? I'm trying to narrow down how you all view this by asking these questions. Does staged fantasy rape porn promote rape? Is viewing fantasy rape equivalent to watching an actual rape? Does having a young looking model, who is over the legal age, promote violence against children or make people want to abuse children? Are those who view these fantasy video's contributing to actual rape and other forms of violence?

If it's simulated rape between consenting adults, or sex with a consenting adult who looks like a child, that's not a legal matter for me.  The "adult" and "consenting" make all the difference.  We'll have to agree to disagree about consumers of real kiddie porn, rape and snuff films being contributing factors in the particular crime that was taped.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?

Think I did address this aspect of it -- if the murder was committed in order to make the video, then yes.

How am I as the viewer, expected to know what the motivation behind the video is?

[Stevil]

Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?

Think I did address this aspect of it -- if the murder was committed in order to make the video, then yes.

If the police don't know about the video then you are entitled by law to report it,  otherwise you are deemed to be concealing evidence which makes you an accessory.

[Sandra Craft]

Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?

Think I did address this aspect of it -- if the murder was committed in order to make the video, then yes.

How am I as the viewer, expected to know what the motivation behind the video is?

If it was produced as part of the porn industry, I think we can assume it was done for profit and the viewer/buyer is contributing to that industry continuing to make that type of porn.  If it was just done and shared for sheer fun then, as Stevil noted, seeing it and not informing the police makes the viewer an accessory.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?

Think I did address this aspect of it -- if the murder was committed in order to make the video, then yes.

If the police don't know about the video then you are entitled by law to report it,  otherwise you are deemed to be concealing evidence which makes you an accessory.

How do you know if the police know of it? I also don't agree with compelling bystanders to report a crime, but that is a different argument. You wouldn't be concealing evidence unless you hide or destroy it yourself. If you happen to stumble upon an internet underground site that hosts illegal content, I don't think you are "concealing evidence" simply by failing to report it. The destruction of such evidence I think would constitute concealing it, but not reporting the infringing site, and never going back to it, doesn't seem to constitute concealment. If you were to destroy evidence the site ever existed, I would say you are guilty of concealment, but simply not reporting a crime, shouldn't constitute concealing evidence. If I happened across illegal content while searching for porn I see no reason why I should be forced to report the crime, especially since I have failed to report crimes that were perpetrated against me. I'm not arguing along what current laws are, but rather what they should ideally be if we are to have laws enforced by the state.

I also apologize for derailing your thread, but I wanted to use an example that would get people to respond mainly on instinct, as a way to test you're argument.

[Stevil]

If the police don't know about the video then you are entitled by law to report it,  otherwise you are deemed to be concealing evidence which makes you an accessory.

How do you know if the police know of it? I also don't agree with compelling bystanders to report a crime, but that is a different argument. You wouldn't be concealing evidence unless you hide or destroy it yourself. If you happen to stumble upon an internet underground site that hosts illegal content, I don't think you are "concealing evidence" simply by failing to report it. The destruction of such evidence I think would constitute concealing it, but not reporting the infringing site, and never going back to it, doesn't seem to constitute concealment. If you were to destroy evidence the site ever existed, I would say you are guilty of concealment, but simply not reporting a crime, shouldn't constitute concealing evidence. If I happened across illegal content while searching for porn I see no reason why I should be forced to report the crime, especially since I have failed to report crimes that were perpetrated against me. I'm not arguing along what current laws are, but rather what they should ideally be if we are to have laws enforced by the state.

I also apologize for derailing your thread, but I wanted to use an example that would get people to respond mainly on instinct, as a way to test you're argument.

Err on the side of caution. If you think the police might not know then let them know. No harm in them knowing twice.

Don't worry about derailing, conversation is organic, I have no problem with it.

[Sandra Craft]

How do you know if the police know of it?

Does that matter?  You tell them, they take it from there.

[ThinkAnarchy]

If it was produced as part of the porn industry, I think we can assume it was done for profit and the viewer/buyer is contributing to that industry continuing to make that type of porn.  If it was just done and shared for sheer fun then, as Stevil noted, seeing it and not informing the police makes the viewer an accessory.

I have already responded to Sevil's point, but it was posted after this post. Porn producers don't dabble in child porn, I would imagine it's equivalent to legal amateur porn, in that an individual simply decides to record their sex act and post it online. Sometimes amateur porn is motivated by monetary gain, other times the couple simply gets off on other people watching them. Amateur porn sites, can easily pay their contributors though, I don't think the same applies to child porn sites.

Now we are on the topic of reporting a crime. For this I would like to mention the following:

Max Hardcore, who owned and starred in his films, was sentenced to jail time for one of his videos. I have seen the video that resulted in him being charged and prosecuted, and agree it could have been rape. I don't know all the facts though, so can't determine if it actually was or not. Seeing has he has been charged with the crime, and served his sentence, am I a criminal for having watched that porn video, in order to determine if he should have been arrested?

By the argument you have laid out, I have not concealed evidence seeing as the trial had played out and the video is still easily accesible through the internet. If we carried this over to kiddy porn, is it acceptable to view it if the individual in it has been arrested?

Also, in many U.S. jurisdictions it is not illegal to not report a crime.

[Sandra Craft]

By the argument you have laid out, I have not concealed evidence seeing as the trial had played out and the video is still easily accesible through the internet. If we carried this over to kiddy porn, is it acceptable to view it if the individual in it has been arrested?

I'll quote your arguement here: how do you know those responsible have already been arrested?  Report it anyway.

[ThinkAnarchy]

How do you know if the police know of it?

Does that matter?  You tell them, they take it from there.

It does when the argument is based upon the "concealing of evidence." How can you conceal something the government has already discovered?