You are viewing azrhey

This a post about virtual kiddy porn.
Specifically, the drawing of it, or 3D rendering of it, when no actual kids are involved.

I shouldn't have to say it, but I will anyhow, to make it perfectly clear:



MOLESTING KIDS IS WRONG.
CHILD ABUSE IS WRONG.
KIDDY PORN WITH ACTUAL KIDS IS WRONG.
THERE IS NO SITUATION WHERE LIVE CHILDREN AND SEX BELONG IN THE SAME CONTEXT FOR THE PLEASURE OF AN ADULT.



If this were the 90s I would have used a blink tag up there! Maybe even a scrolling marquee!
So don't go and say that azrhey condones child pornography.

Now, there are all sorts of laws to protect children from abuse (with more or less success, I might add) as there should be. Kiddy porn, be in movies or pictures, depicting actual kids being molested by adults, or just actual children in a sexualized way is illegal in most places. Although some countries have no laws concerning child pornography.

My question is this: are those laws there to protect the children or to legislate morals?

Because I am all for protecting the children, but it seems to be that in some places the law is there to legislate morals in situations where there are no actual children present.

In places like Canada and the U.S.A. (I haven't looked into other legislations, there is only so much legalese I can read in one sitting. This is a rant, not an academic paper :P) it seems the situation is not very clear.

So, say I take my sketch book and draw some child being molested. Or use my graphic skills and make some 3D artwork depicting kiddy porn. Static or cartoonish. In Canada, that is illegal and I can be prosecuted for producing and distributing child pornography with the same consequences as if I had actually videotaped some creep actually molesting a live, real child.

In the U.S.A. it seems the Supreme Court has changed its mind a couple of times in the last 15 years or so. Sometimes siding with freedom of speech artists saying that if no actual child was used as model there is no crime. Sometimes saying that what is illegal is the "depiction of child pornography" regardless of the presence of actual real, live, children or not.

This situation kind of bugs me because it seems we are legislating morals more than protecting children.

NOT THAT I THINK THAT ABUSING CHILDREN IS A GOOD THING TO DO!

In case you had forgotten the beginning of this text.

"But it's wrong! And it's sick! And it's disgusting!"

I agree. So is rape, murder, torture, chopping women into bits and feeding them to your dogs, while you molest said dogs.

Yet I can draw any of that to my heart's content and post it online. Some sites will require an 18+ warning label but the law will leave me alone.

This is where I think the argument that says "allowing drawing or 3D renderings of child porn will endanger actual children because you start by watching a drawing and then you want to get your hands on a live one" doesn't really cut it: because then why not make drawing of rape and murder illegal as well?
And aren't we getting pretty close to pre-crime? And Thought Police?

Wouldn't not have access or cartoon child porn as an outlet, make one want to follow their urges on actual kids?

NOT THAT THAT WOULD BE AN EXCUSE! THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSING CHILDREN!

Technology went from a sketchbook, to computer graphics to realistically rendered cartoons and I do not think legislation is following these changes or even that people doing the legislation understand the technology itself. I can see a future where we have holodeck technology a la Star Trek. Should we be able to get a Jack the Ripper program where we play the Ripper and slash out prostitutes, because you can't murder photons? But not be able to ask the computer to render a random 10 year old we'd like to molest? (There would be rules about using the image of actual people, as both TNG and Babylon5 addressed in their shows, but this is another subject entirely).

I think this situation should not happen, you either ban everything illegal, even if no actual crime was committed or you shape your laws to protect the vulnerable and the victims and leave the people who haven't actually victimized anyone who has rights alone. I would rather have the second scenario. We're far from holodeck technology, but the principle is the same for cartoons or sketch drawings.

I am reminded of a website that publishes The Simpsons porn cartoons (explicit porn at the link): You can find nearly any character in explicit sexual situations with nearly any other character. In the past, they've have take down requests on the "Bart does Edna Krabappel on the desk"and other "Milhouse services Marge on the couch" types of images, because they fall under child pornography rules. They were able to fight it and keep the drawings up, but they are still technically illegal in Canada and the U.S.A. (There might be other trade mark rules being infringed here, but that is a rant for another post!) This is an extreme example, but it shows how I think the legislation falls short of making sense.

And one more time:

I DO NOT have any personal interest in this! I do no draw kiddy porn! Or are interested in watching it! This is a question about legislation, morals, and victim protection....

Here endeth my rant.

Some useful links:

  • The Evolution of Pornography Law in Canada

  • SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION et al.

  • 'Virtual' Child Pornography Ban Overturned

  • Online Art Rights: Laws, Cases, and Other Resources



    Tags:

    Is This Thing On?

    If I were to rant here from time to time, would there be anyone around to throw rocks at me?

    Latest Month

    January 2015
    S M T W T F S
        123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728293031

    Syndicate

    RSS Atom
    Powered by LiveJournal.com
    Designed by Lilia Ahner