child pornography

Remove all ads!

This is a very emotional, frustrating, anger filled issue so I expect to hear some of that.

My question is:

How do we reconcile the issue of free speech, the issue of freedom to live, and the issue of freedom to pursue happiness when it comes to predators such as pedophiles?

The dividing line often is drawn at the point one person is invading or sacrificing anothers rights to these same freedoms.

But if there was a way I am sure we would try to intervene before any creep was able to realize his sick fantasy.
Is there a way to do that?

Can we allow pedophiles to circulate images of children, even if they have not hurt the child in the process?
Must parents be overly cautious about what kind of pictures they take: No pictures of Jack/Jane in the bath tub, lest somebody at the 1 hour photo place pass it on to their friends on e-bay?

How do we deal with privacy when it becomes an issue involving helpless and dependant beings?

I am a mom,
and there is no issue like this one to incite a desire for capital punishment,
and I do not support capitol punishment.
Damned if you wouldn't find me in court with a shot gun shooting down the bastard if he ever came within 6 inches of my daughter.

OK, so you ask 'what is the topic please?'
the topic is pedophilia,
the legal system and how can we maintain our rights and protect children at the same time?

 

I'll be pretty short with this.
This stuff available all over the internet is NOT the freedom of speach or something, but abuse in the worst shape.
The exchange of child pornography on the Internet should be under special international law that would sentence the people who do that with death penalty.

 

If someone becomes aroused looking at a child, there's something wrong in their head lets face it. As for our rights? I'm a big believer in the individual, and this individual thinks that people like that have no rights except to a few weeks holiday to the world of pain and suffering before they have a release from it and that would only be when their bodies gave up from the pain . Am I being a little extreme there?
There is no excuse for that sort of stuff. It isn't freedom of speech and pursuit of happiness. If you want an example why, my pursuit of happiness involves bloody vengence and mass murder for peace of mind. Murder is illegal however, so does that impede on my rights?
The only way to 100% sure your children are safe is to be with them every second of their life IMO, and if thats not possible, which it obviously isn't then kepping them informed and giving them sound advice and a personal alarm is the best we can do under the law here.
From here however rises the question, at what age does a child become an adult? All over the world there are different ages of consent. Would an international law such as Extremeist mentioned being implemented cause a lot of arguments about whose age of consent is correct?

 

Pedophiles are people too. Sick people with twisted interests, but people nonetheless. They should have a right the basic rights granted by their nation (for most of us, that's basically freedom, liberty, saying what you wanna say, etc.). Of course, these rights stop - and in this case, should stop like a screeching brake - when they're abusing a child.

A child is a minor. It should be nowhere near adult things. A minor has no say whether he or she wants people ogling him or her. Therefore, that minor cannot say that he/she wants to be ogled. If a person were not a minor, I would say it is perfectly legal (but immoral nonetheless) to have others using him or her as a sexual object - material or otherwise.

A child cannot decide (legally, that is) whether he or she wants to be treated as what pedophiles view him or her as. Pedophilia is immoral and is not consistent with most nations' laws.

There's one problem: how to control it. You can't invade people's privacy unless you have something beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have child pornography. That's wrong. Just like invading a child's privacy by taking naked pictures of him or her is wrong. There should be some way to regulate - but it's exceedingly hard to. That is the dilemma. We can infringe on people's rights (like I said, pedophiles are still people) to stop them infringing on other people's rights. We can do something morally right, but in turn would be hypocritical.

However, if a person is found with child pornography, he or she should be tried and receive a harsh sentence.

(And happy 4000th, Extremist)

[ December 27, 2002, 03:41: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

What's left to say? everyone else has voiced one asspect of my opinion or another. Any child pornography rather it be "real children" or "computer generated" should be banned, period! The previous post expresses my views on why this should perfectly. However, there are some things I do not agree with, I believe the law is called "Megan's Law" or something like that. It's something about when an ex-convict is released not only does the police department of whatever town get informed of their crime but the neighbors of the ex-convict. I don't have a problem with the police knowing, in fact it's their job to know and keep track of that sort of thing but the neighborhood? I don't think so. That encourages a mob mentality in people.

 

Possession of child pornography photos that you did not take is still illegal. I think computer generated child porn should be illegal as well and subject to the same penalties as possessing the real thing.

Having sexual fantasies involving children is wrong, no ands ifs or buts. That it was done in Photoshop instead of emotionally scarring young kids for life doesn't make a difference, it's still wrong. It adds fuel to the fire by allowing these sick fantasies to continue because they're "not real". What happens when a pedophile, used to "safe" computer generated images, decides to prey on a young family member or a neighbor's child? They are a menace to children and should not be allowed to be near them. If you just turn your back on them and allow them to "placate" themselves with computer generated images, you are not solving the problem, you are attempting to apply a band aid to a severed limb.

Should pedophiles have rights? Yes, I don't think anyone should be deprived of basic human rights. But they are dangerous and should not have freedom to do as they please. I know our jails are overcrowded already, but these people need to be kept seperate from the general populace under guard. From what I understand, pedophiles are unable to stop, even after they are caught repeatedly.

Is there a way to weed out child molesters and prevent them from preying on children? Not to my knowledge. If there was, I would support it, even if it meant a loss of privacy on the part of the accused. Whatever it takes to protect our kids.

 

Granted. Pedophilia is altogether sick and deserving of just about the cruelest form of punishment there is. Still I don't want to see a world where every day is like the one I laughed at with my friends about six months ago when I was in swimming hall.

I saw a group of young children (around 8-10 years old) jumping to the pool from the platform doing all sorts of spirals and loops in the air. Because this was to me extremely fascinating that children so young could manage what even I could not, I stayed watching them for awhile. I was about 50m away in another pool leaning on the side. And after about 3-5mins of watching I get this creepy feeling that everyone is watching at me. In fact, many of the people there were. As I wondered for a while what was going on, I suddely realized what it was about. Nobody told me about it so I would know for sure. But I gather it's a pretty good guess that those angry looking parents and seniles took me for some sick pedophile getting the kicks out of watching their children in swimsuits. Sighs... Makes me sick just thinking about it. Afterwards I thought this quite amusing.

Thing is, it's hard to say where the line goes. As with every other matter for that part. I've known folks who are so low on self-esteem and so afraid of being thought of as pedophiles that they dare not even play with children when it requires physical contact.

I *can* in fact see an exceptionally pretty looking 10 year-old girl as quite attractive, not just cute in the childish sort of way. Though not in the same sense as an adult either of course. I cannot see a let's say under 8 year-old in the same way. They are only cute in a strictly child-like fashion. Still, I require a mentally developed companion for my life and a child (as in, under 17 to say the least) is not that. In addition, I'm no rapist or manipulatist, and I clearly see that getting involved in underaged people in any that sort of way is wrong. But certainly there is no "switch" for when you physically feel another as attractive, and when you do not. I'm sure nobody can just *feel* things so that a 16-years old might be sexually attractive whilst a day younger would be nothing but a child invoking no reaction whatsoever (this is one reason why we have laws, to tell tyou what you cannot yourself be sure of and give out rules of things you might not consider yourself). So since this scale is relative to each, then it would seem quite obvious that some people, even though in every other way normal, have this scale of theirs below the average age. Meaning that they would find 10-years old very attractive still. Possibly even 6-8 -years old. Possibly, even much younger, though this thought gives out thoughts of vomiting for sure.

A sickening thought. But realistic. And that would lead to the conclusion that a pedophile is indeed only the type who actively makes his/her thoughts true. There are pedophiles who do get sick sexual pleasure by touching young children whilst for example playing with them. But these "pedophiles" might never go further than this, in effect making them harmless.

There are many sick things out there. And here. And we have over 6 billion potential wrongdoers. That gives us a whole lot of variation. Enough so to make it impossible to draw a logical line for everything that is criminal and everything that's not. Because of this, far too often the crime that was seen coming could not be prevented beforehand. That is why the punishment should be all the more brutal and lasting. And above all, effective, of course.

[ December 27, 2002, 08:53: Message edited by: Forashi ]

 

A brave and honest post, Forashi. It takes courage not to say the "politically correct" thing and I commend you.

This topic overall seems to be blurred between child pornography and paedophilia, so it's very hard to answer. I think we need a clear definition of both before we can proceed to state our opinions. Are we talking about banning Nabokov's Lolita, Anne Rice's Belinda, Victorian erotic stories about 10 year old girls spanking the butler, maybe even Romeo and Juliet on the grounds that they did have sex and they were about 14? Are we talking about fantasies written in a private diary? There are people who want to do so for all of the above, and I'd be more frightened of a government that punished the creation of such books than I would with the authors, and given that I was physically sick to my stomach trying to read Lolita, that's saying something.

No to censorship of works of the imagination. No to subpoenas of private journals and sketchbooks. No matter what is in them. There are some lines we cannot cross, to avoid becoming monsters ourselves and to avoid turning our government and police force into the Gestapo.

The other element is that it's very hard to identify pornography objectively. The best definition is "I know it when I see it", and that's a terrible basis for any law. Some dirty-minded people see parents' pictures of their kids in the bathtub as kinky, while others find artistic merit in any kind of violent filth.

The only fair and effective way to control this legislatively is to say "no second chances" for anyone who actually uses a child sexually, and to make child pornography punishable only when it is evidence that a crime has been committed (e.g photographs). Anyone who chooses to view or own that pornography becomes an accessory to the crime and punished accordingly. Then lock 'em up and throw away the key. The other prisoners will take care of them for us.

Full and fair disclosure: this is another of the issues that hits home for me so I tend not to be fully objective about it. Some of my Sunday-school students were used in the making of child pornography by a senior official in my former church. He was horribly mutilated in prison and will probably never use his hands again. Wish I could say I had an ounce of sympathy for what happened to him, but I don't. To view this kind of crime in the same category as erotic literature about children seems to me to minimise the horror of what he did.

 

Analogously, I take it that you would say that pornography such as Playboy and Hustler goad some men into raping women and therefore should be illegal? (Note, for anyone else, this is with regards to computer generated material.)

 

People here are thinking that every phedophile is a kiddyraper, if you want to lock up every person in the world who gets high on naked children, based on their twisted thoughts (there is a freedom of thinking in this "free" world right??) then you should arrest every straight and gay guy/girl because there potentail rapers as well..
Why not arrest every person on the globe with dangerous thoughts as well then, "commies", "muslims", etc

The cause of hate against phedophiles is fear, people are afraid that someone will do something icky with their children, thats what causing all these whole anti-pedo-actions.

IMO, pedo´s should be arrested, locked up, and maybe brainwashed when they commit crimes, like rapes, watching pornography, etc, etc. Not when there having twisted thoughts about children

But I got a clearer point of view since I don´t have children myself, and don´t believe in the forces of "good" and "evil"

 

Simply put..ANYONE who is a pedophiliac should be locked away for good. They gave up their rights when they approach any child in a chatroom with lewd and obscene comments.

Two years ago I've volunteered some time ago in making some citizen's arrests of some internet predators. The feeling of approaching the awaiting pervert and informing them they are under arrest is a thrill. They stammer and whine about their rights but they know it's all futile. They've made their graves and will be buried in it.

Here is something for everything to think of: abusive Catholic priests. Everything that has happened so far (reshuffling of priests, coverups etc) has left me as anagnostic. I used to be relatively loyal to my faith but all of this is just plain evil. A man of the cloth, trusted and admired by everyone, abuses young children. They should be given a very harsh and swift punishment and thoroughly humiliated.

ANYONE who sees the need to abuse children in ANY form is a mental deviant and should be treated as one.

Pedophiliacs, child molestors and rapists should have NO RIGHTS at all.

Gabriel

 

This is a dangerous aspect, same could be with computer games like 3d shooters. When does a player go prey on the real with a gun and starting a massacre?

Real vs Fiction is a hard nut to crack. Child abuse is wicked by the state of mind in the western society (since I dont know the rest of the world, I dare not take a statement there) as it is seen in our laws. This is probably because that children symbolize innocence, the future etc. I think that all our opinions are created from our cultural roots including symbolism, religion and morale values.

Personally, I think child abuse is a bad thing, but not worse than so many others like killing. Ill intent, in the sense of harming another being is a bad thing in my mind. In what form isn't that important to me.

As to how we could protect our children, through education I'd say. The law usually only protects the victim, not the soon-to-be victim, and when we have a victim, it's kinda too late isn't it?

[ December 27, 2002, 20:59: Message edited by: Lokken ]

 

It's a thin, thin line. Are all people who look at child pornography pedophilias? My knee-jerk reaction is to say yes, since I have children, and I'm hard-pressed to see the other side of the picture. I think the greatest argument against any form of child pornography is that if someone is looking at a naked picture of a child becuase they are sexually aroused by children, then what's to stop them from acting on those desires? Especially if the picture is taken in a way to suggest that a child would get pleasure from the act. It's the same basic argument for pornography in general, except that a child cannot and should not be expected to understand what a sexual act is or means. But does everyone who looks at naked pictures of children do it because they derive sexual pleasure from it? That truly depends on the picture---I think pictures of your kids in the tub are taking it too far on that front. But most pornographic pictures of children circulating around are specifically for a sexual purpose, and this is very very disturbing. Very.

 

I have nothing else to say about this topic than BLEH!
I think I am going to be sick.

 

yes eilonwy, it is a disgusting, frightful topic. I started it then basically left because of the challenges involved.
Once again I find many people have insightful things to say. And I would like to echo Sprites compliments to Forashi for his honesty and straightforwardness on a topic that is challenging.
I too have felt the same weirdness he described about observing the children at the pool, only for me it was taking pictures of my daughter. I have taken some of her in underwear and cowboy boots then felt awkward about having done so. There are the concerns some sicko will see a pic being developed and copy it, or some scared person will think you were a sicko and call the cops. I believe art has already been censored to a degree because of the political tone and sentiment surrounding the protection of our innocents.

Lokken touches upon this concept, daring to introduce an unpopular perspective. Many cultures of the past have say married 8 yr old girls to 23 yr old kings.

Sprite's comments about Lolita and other artistic expressions involving children bring up the question of art as well. A whole topic in itself really.

The most difficult topics always seem to embrace many other topics at the same time, no doubt this is why they are so difficult to grapple with.

 

It starts with the pictures and then we all know what happens next. My german friend told me her father was in prison over there for murder and there was a paedophile brought in. The other prisoners nailed him to a table by his testicles. The guards pretended not to see and the only reason they intervened was because the guy was bleeding to death. This shows you how they are looked down on even by other criminals.

 

I risked reading this topic and now feel I have to reply.

In my last school a teacher was fired because of what he did to the girls there. He used to try and tuck their shirts in and straighten their ties, he used to play with their hair and sit next to them in lessons. He was finally mad to leave after the parents came aware of this. None of the other pupils know what i know though. I used to help the teachers instead of doing PE and I found a document when I was in the staff room saying that they had found a picture in his desk. This must have been what made the Head finally fire him as he denied it before when it was just the parents and pupils .

In my school before there was a man that lived near the school. One day I saw him in the tree in his garden looking into the classroom where the girls got changed, he nearly got away with it saying he was bird watching but the day after he dropped the camera and one of the brats in my class took it, when he got the pictures back the man was made to move away and was fined.

 

We had a teacher who used to pretend to drop pencils on the floor so he could look up our skirts. I wore trousers after our first class.