@hawkeye10,
Quote:You know my view, there is nothing wrong with looking at kids, there is nothing wrong with looking at nakid kids, there is nothing wrong with eroticising kids, there is everything wrong with acting sexual toward a kid. What is a crime should not be a crime, so adjusting penalties is not going to do the trick. You way also does nothing to address the abuse of the individual at the hands of the state.
The problem, Hawkeye, is that you see nothing wrong with the actual material and images contained in child pornography. You are so concerned with someone's legal right to view child pornography that you overlook the problems, legal and otherwise, with the material itself.
We have many laws to protect a person's reputation, image, and identity--slander, libel, identity theft, and personality rights, among others.
Quote:Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity." The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the Right of Publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction). In the United States, the Right of Publicity is a state law-based right, as opposed to Federal, and recognition of the right can vary from state to state. [1] This article examines the Right of Publicity (or equivalent rights by a different name) on a worldwide basis.
Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. United States jurisprudence has substantially extended this right in the United States of America.
A commonly-cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
Hawkeye, I can't take your Facebook photo, without your permission, and put it in an ad to sell my toasters. I can't steal your image to sell my product.
Internet child pornography is apparently a multi-billion dollar business. Digital images can be produced cheaply and quickly. It is definitely a commercial enterprise.
Obviously, the images and "persona" used in child pornography, which is a commercial business, would be protected and covered by property laws. Since many of these images are "stolen" and digitalized they are likely violating these laws.
And, Hawkeye, you also claim that
Quote:there is nothing wrong with eroticising kids...
This is simply your own point of view, but it reveals your blind spot when it comes to understanding the entire problem of child pornography--you just don't get it. Do you even realize the types of images depicted in child porn? Take a look at what the laws are prohibiting?
Quote: The First Amendment:
Unlike pornographic images of adults, the First Amendment does not protect the possession or distribution of child pornography. Content that depicts children engaged in sexual conduct is "a category of material outside the protection of the First Amendment." New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 1982. The First Amendment does protect some material that could be considered child pornography, for example images in a medical textbook that show a child's genitalia.
Federal Statutes:
Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. § 2256 defines "Child pornography" as:
"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."
Section 2256 clearly defines images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct as "Child Pornography." It also, however, adds to that definition images that appear to depict a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and images or advertisements that suggest images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
Sexually Explicit Conduct:
18 U.S.C. § 2252 prohibits the production, transportation, or knowing receipt or distribution of any visual depiction "of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." For the purposes of Title 18, 18 U.S.C. § 2256 defines a "minor" as any person under the age of eighteen years, and "sexually explicit conduct" as actual or simulated:
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"
We are talking about
sexually explicit content involving minors. And you are defending the production, distribution, and viewing of such images? You can't defend the viewing without also implicitly condoning the production and distribution of such images, Hawkeye, because you've said, previously in this thread, that you consider child pornography to be harmless.
The only reasonable conclusion I can draw, Hawkeye, is that you see nothing wrong with sexually explicit pictures of minors being created and distributed for the sole purpose of promoting children as sexual objects for adults. Whether this leads to actual child molestation or not, cannot you see what is wrong with the images themselves, or the type of sexual behaviors they are encouraging on the part of adults? You apparently find the sexual exploitation of children, in child pornography, acceptable. Do you wonder why other posters are upset about what you are condoning?
Hawkeye, you also seem to dismiss the actual damage done to specific children who can be identified in such photos--by representing their face, or a specific birthmark, or any other identifying characteristic. The invasion of privacy, and the depiction of the child in sexually explicit images causes not only emotional distress, it can also result in damage to reputation and character. These are real damages, and laws should exist to protect individuals from such damages being inflicted by another party.
People are arrested for possession of child pornography because such material is illegal. They are not being arrested for, or charged with, child molestation. If they possess child pornography, and are found guilty by a judge or jury, they go to jail. Therefore, how can you assert we are sending "innocent" people to jail, if they actually possessed illegal material? How are they "innocent"? The fact that some of these people may never have actually molested a child is irrelevant--they possessed illegal material and that is what they were charged with and convicted of. And, since everyone is entitled to a jury trial, these offenders are convicted by the public, as represented by a jury, and they are not being "tortured", railroaded, abused, or even incarcerated, on some whim of "the government"--they are convicted by juries, unless they have made a plea deal or otherwise given up their right to a trial.
The overwhelming majority of people recognize the dangers and ills inherent in child pornography and they want it's production stopped, and one way to control distribution and production is to try to limit demand. Punitive measures for possession help to control demand. Hawkeye, you sit on a rather lonely perch when you claim this material is harmless, and when you further state you see nothing wrong when children are eroticized by depicting them in sexually explicit photos, for commercial purposes. Most people would not only disagree with you, they would question your sense of morality.
People do not have "a right" to possess and view illegal material. People who choose to do this sort of thing should be prosecuted for it. If the sentencing guidelines for this type of crime have allowed for inappropriately long sentences, then these guidelines should be revised and clarified so that sentences are more appropriate. But child pornography, and its possession, should remain illegal. Children must not be sexually exploited in this manner.
