Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is watching child porn illegal? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    Because there's a risk that, by watching child pornography, you're funding the continued activity of criminals if they're exploiting and forcing the children to do this. Even if the pornography is on a 'free' website, you're still funding its activity through ad exposure.
    People are raping children to make money off adverts?

    I don't even think child pornography exists much on websites, considering the host can be easily traced and shut down. What about torrents, TOR and the "deep net"? Who's selling ad space there.

    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    It doesn't matter, sure people can be aroused by images of children, but it doesn't mean they delight in viewing it. If given a choice, they would avoid it, in all likelihood.
    In a modern society where the prostitution of children is utterly wrong, we have to take all steps to make it a totally unprofitable venture, so that criminals move onto different sources of revenue.
    For example, if you purchase a rhino horn, then you're giving criminals incentive to continue poaching rhino, because there is an available market. If no-one bought it, no-one would supply it.

    The risk of funding child prostitution is far too great and horrific for anyone to justify watching child porn. And that's why it's illegal. A broad brush must be applied, else it'll be exploited.
    I'm sure they probably would avoid it, i'm sure the combination of violation of cultural taboos and sexual arousal would cause an unpleasant cognitive dissonance. Much like how homosexuals might feel guilt and shame over being aroused by images of people of the same sex.

    Whilst I might agree, if you consider children under 18 having sex as being completely wrong, to effectively police this you might do anything possible to reduce this activity. I'm just arguing the act in of itself is unlikely to directly contribute to harm. In fact, I would argue it directly reduces harm by sating the urges of closeted paedophiles instead of repressing their sexuality to the point where they feel they must abuse a child.

    I would still argue that looking at images secretly in the privacy of your own bedroom in the general scheme of things isn't really harming anyone. We argue about paedophiles possibly contributing to the manufacture of videos of children having sex through advertisement revenue, however we don't as a society spend time asking ourselves whether we should pay taxes funding bombs dropped on children.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why would you even think of this question? Some people are seriously sick in the head..
    • Offline

      16
      Haven't read the rest of the thread, but my opinions boil down to two crucial points:

      1) Children are children and the creation of porn involving children is wrong and any video of it is considered on the same level as an illegal drug. It's an illegal item and therefore anyone watching it is breaking the law because they're willingly using something which is illegal.

      2) More importantly, if you watch it you are indirectly promoting it. Even if you got it for free you are giving the makers an audience. If there's an audience they'll continue making it and breaking the law, which means more children will suffer. The only reason the supply of child porn exists is because of demand. Cut off both the source and the audience and you help reduce the amount of abuse.
      Offline

      11
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Genocidal)

      2) More importantly, if you watch it you are indirectly promoting it. Even if you got it for free you are giving the makers an audience. If there's an audience they'll continue making it and breaking the law, which means more children will suffer. The only reason the supply of child porn exists is because of demand. Cut off both the source and the audience and you help reduce the amount of abuse.
      Pretty much this. Making it illegal puts people off making it. It is for this reason that videos which depict child porn without real people are legal (at least in many countries with laws against child porn) because no children are harmed in the production. Being a pedophile isn't illegal as long as you don't act on it.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Architecture-er)
      Because what you're watching is real..?
      Are the videos we've all watched that were taken on 11th September, 2001, not of a real mass murder?

      Plus it highlights you as someone who gets off on this sort of thing, which makes you a potential child rapist yourself.
      Assuming we can agree that any rape is bad, this argument has the same strength as that of the argument of, 'Straight men are attracted to women, therefore they are potential rapists'.
      There is simply no correlation - as far as I'm aware - between the people to whom you are attracted, and your chance of being a rapist.
      Even if there was, that wouldn't justify your argument.

      (Original post by jreid1994)
      Because, child pornography is watched and performed by pedophiles
      I don't believe paedophiles should be shunned by the rest of society. They are naturally attracted to children just as I am naturally attracted to women; I cannot help it, and they cannot help it. People shouldn't be discriminated against based on who they are, but on what they do. Any society trying to cast away people who are naturally X, is doing (admittedly to a lesser punishment) what Hitler did: ethnic cleansing, or in this case sexual cleansing.

      (Original post by Aoide)
      It is for this reason that videos which depict child porn without real people are legal (at least in many countries with laws against child porn) because no children are harmed in the production. Being a pedophile isn't illegal as long as you don't act on it.
      That's illegal here in the UK, as it is in most western countries. (I can't speak for the rest of the world, as I don't know.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_s...United_Kingdom

      (Original post by TurboCretin)
      The reason it's illegal to watch child porn is a policy reason: if there is no market for it, then it will cease to be profitable. The act of watching child porn itself harms no-one, but it perpetuates a practice which does: producing it.
      I agree that if the act of watching child porn funded the production of it, then it would be a good thing to disallow people from doing so. But I'm not convinced that this is what actually happens. Conciousness has made most of the points I was going to make, but I will repeat that the vast majority of "child porn" is not produced as a result of abuse. Most of it is from teenagers taking pictures of themselves, or videoing themselves having sex. This, obviously, is not a market, as no one makes any money.

      The question for me would be whether the minority's effects can warrant a ban on the majority. A more sensible solution seems, to me, to be disallowing websites for child porn, but allowing people to view content that is not money-making, as this does not increase the amount of abuse done. This is how the reality is at the moment (except for the legality, of course), so nothing would have to change.

      Other reasons at play include public intolerance of paedophilia - it isn't a practice which society is prepared to condone. I'm afraid* this is based on the same sorts of visceral (rather than cerebral) reactions to the issue which you have asked people to put aside, but the fact is that the public's gut holds sway over a good deal of policymaking, and lawmaking by implication.
      This is probably the real reason for it. I suppose my idealistic view of the government actually having reasons for the things they do is not realistic. That's not to say that there are no compelling arguments in their defense, but this is, one would suspect, the reality. That's one of the problems in a democracy - if enough people want something, it can happen regardless of whether it is justified.

      (Original post by Theflyingbarney)
      You could draw a parallel between child pornography and drugs offences by seeing it as an illegal product - it's illegal to make or distribute it, but also illegal (though perhaps less serious) to consume it.
      That probably isn't the best parallel for me as I support total legalisation of drugs*, but I take your point in the context of the marketplace.

      *Total legalisation but with restrictions in exceptional, justified circumstances
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Genocidal)
      Haven't read the rest of the thread, but my opinions boil down to two crucial points:

      1) Children are children and the creation of porn involving children is wrong and any video of it is considered on the same level as an illegal drug. It's an illegal item and therefore anyone watching it is breaking the law because they're willingly using something which is illegal.
      So its illegal because its illegal?l

      (Original post by Genocidal)
      2) More importantly, if you watch it you are indirectly promoting it. Even if you got it for free you are giving the makers an audience. If there's an audience they'll continue making it and breaking the law, which means more children will suffer. The only reason the supply of child porn exists is because of demand. Cut off both the source and the audience and you help reduce the amount of abuse.
      What pornography or soft porn made by the child themselves. Or if the child actively supplies the pornography. I'm speaking specifically of web cam websites where children strip on camera for either gifts or just fun. This is just one example, but I'm sure other situations apply.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Because child porn works by supply and demand,the more who watch it the more it's made.

      People are still going to die in Chinese road accidents or bleed from an open neck wound on the streets of Syria,banning it wont achieve anything.

      Interestingly the Canadian vid of the murder,dismemberment,necrophilia and cannibalism was removed from the net quite quickly.
      Offline

      11
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by k_bourne)

      That's illegal here in the UK, as it is in most western countries. (I can't speak for the rest of the world, as I don't know.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_s...United_Kingdom
      My mistake, I was unaware of the change in law.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Conciousness)
      People are raping children to make money off adverts?

      I don't even think child pornography exists much on websites, considering the host can be easily traced and shut down. What about torrents, TOR and the "deep net"? Who's selling ad space there.
      Exactly. Child porn does not exist on websites currently because they will shortly get shut down; it exists almost entirely in the smartphone net and torrent net. There simply isn't a market. It doesn't exist.

      But the point is that if it were legalised, the market would appear. And it might do - though we have little evidence - but I am not sure if people would risk committing one of the most appalling crimes in order to make money. They certainly don't do it at the moment, when there is no money in it.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AhmedAli95)
      Real pornography has the consent of the actors where as in child pornography there is no consent as the child is not mentally or sexually mature
      That's not an argument, that's just a definition of child abuse, which isn't relevant in this discussion.

      Interestingly, violent porn made by consenting adults is illegal in this country, so the idea of consent does not always come into it.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by k_bourne)
      Exactly. Child porn does not exist on websites currently because they will shortly get shut down; it exists almost entirely in the smartphone net and torrent net. There simply isn't a market. It doesn't exist.

      But the point is that if it were legalised, the market would appear. And it might do - though we have little evidence - but I am not sure if people would risk committing one of the most appalling crimes in order to make money. They certainly don't do it at the moment, when there is no money in it.
      No. You're making claims based on a completely unsubstantiated assumption.

      "One of the most popular methods of accessing and trading abusive images on the Internet is through Internet Bulletin Board Systems. In this process images are uploaded to servers under a specific newsgroup heading, making them available to other users of that newsgroup worldwide.

      [...]

      Belanger et al. (1984) described social organizational aspects of child molestation rings that also appear to be applicable to pedophile communities that have developed on the Internet. The description of their syndicated ring describes a well-structured group with various managerial processes involving the ‘recruitment’ of victims, the production and distribution of pornography, and the establishment of an extensive network of ‘customers’, although abusive images are often traded or exchanged between pedophiles rather than sold (Estes, 2001). Such components are also observed in Internet pedophile networks, including a currency of trade (i.e., pictures, videos, and children themselves), systems of trade, an organized mechanism of circulation (i.e., newsgroups, email etc.), and self-regulatory mechanisms for the inclusion and exclusion of members (such as the 10,000+ image entry level for the W0nderland Club).

      Jenkins (2001) quotes a number of posts to bulletin boards of users who describe their relief, and even awe, at finding solace in these communities
      " (Beech et al., 2008).

      "Individuals with sexual interests that are considered outside of societal norms are often driven into the virtual world where they may operate in relative anonymity without fear of shame or stigma (Rosenmann & Safir, 2006). Sexual minorities can identify a wide range of resources, such as newsgroups, Web forums, and list serves, where individuals can exchange all sorts of information almost instantaneously (DiMarco & DiMarco, 2002). Online spaces also allow individuals to find others who share their interests, creating supportive communities where individuals feel “they are part of a group, from which validation can be drawn, and sexual scripts exchanged” (Rosenmann & Safir, 2006, p. 77)" (Holt et al., 2010).

      Supplying these images benefits them by:
      • increasing the size of the community of paedophiles, which helps to legitimise and justify their behaviour to themselves
      • positioning them as a dominant, 'respected' member of the community, which I would consider to be equivalent to the various warez scene groups like Skidrow and Reloaded.

      Why take the time and effort to distribute something if nobody is receiving it? They clearly derive something (whether that be money, online status, a 'feel-good factor', comfort knowing that there are other paedophiles out there, etc.) from the consumption of this material (or the knowledge that it is being consumed), which is why they continue to upload it.
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by W-Three)
        So its illegal because its illegal?l



        What pornography or soft porn made by the child themselves. Or if the child actively supplies the pornography. I'm speaking specifically of web cam websites where children strip on camera for either gifts or just fun. This is just one example, but I'm sure other situations apply.
        Well I didn't think I needed to explain exactly why it's illegal and why using children is wrong. It's pretty obvious.

        Well stripping for gifts would surely be taking advantage? It's still illegal, though, because it increases the supply and feeds the demand. Anything which stimulates the industry is going to get you locked up.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        whyumadtho - what is your point there? All you are doing is giving them sympathy.
        And you further strengthen my point that they are traded and spread around paedophile communities, rather than being on a porn website. (Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my phrasing of "smartphone net".) In other words, it's not a market.
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        I don't think it should be legal to watch.


        I kinda see your point about other things being legal to watch BUT child porn is real, the child is being abused. Whilst horror movies show murders etc, the person isn't actually being murdered, it's special effects and dummies etc. And on the news you don't actually see such violent crimes, you might see cctv of the criminal before/after but the worst they'll actually show in detail is someone being beaten up.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by k_bourne)
        whyumadtho - what is your point there? All you are doing is giving them sympathy.
        And you further strengthen my point that they are traded and spread around paedophile communities, rather than being on a porn website. (Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my phrasing of "smartphone net".) In other words, it's not a market.
        How am I giving them sympathy? :confused: What do you mean it isn't a market? There is supply and demand. The suppliers gain monetarily (people may pay for the images), socially (they have increased online status) and/or emotionally (strength in numbers) and the buyers gain emotionally (sexual relief and strength in numbers). As an illegal activity, it will obviously not be distributed the same way as legal pornography is (an open website accessible via Google, for instance), but it doesn't mean the underlying structures of supply and demand (particularly, the perpetuation of supply via the existence of demand) do not exist. It need not be monetary.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Genocidal)
        Well I didn't think I needed to explain exactly why it's illegal and why using children is wrong. It's pretty obvious.
        Is it? Forcing a child to perform in pornography is and should obviously be illegal, as the same applies to the adult. But if we take slightly more hazy areas, such as a 16 year old who willingly takes part?

        (Original post by Genocidal)
        Well stripping for gifts would surely be taking advantage? It's still illegal, though, because it increases the supply and feeds the demand. Anything which stimulates the industry is going to get you locked up.
        If the child is the one initiating it (which they are) how is it taking advantage? It increases the supply, but the act involves no sex, and is with the (underage) consent of the child. Its a very different industry.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by anony.mouse)
        I don't think it should be legal to watch.


        I kinda see your point about other things being legal to watch BUT child porn is real, the child is being abused. Whilst horror movies show murders etc, the person isn't actually being murdered, it's special effects and dummies etc. And on the news you don't actually see such violent crimes, you might see cctv of the criminal before/after but the worst they'll actually show in detail is someone being beaten up.
        I wasn't referring to movies, although the law is the same there - it's illegal to depict child abuse in a movie, even when it doesn't involve actual children.

        And is it not illegal to beat someone up? The crime, I agree, is not necessarily as bad as child abuse, but it's a crime nevertheless.

        Real murders are watched, and they usually aren't shown on the news for their sheer atrocity, rather than for any other reason. I've seen several real murders on television/on the Internet, perfectly legally. (I don't enjoy watching them, it should be said...)
        Offline

        19
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Swanbow)
        Edit add on: It's okay to watch violence, because we know that in those Hollywood films nobody really dies, at the end of the day the stuntmen and actors pack up and leave to live a normal life. But in child pornography the abuse is real, and even by watching such scenes you are indirectly condoning and facilitating real life child abuse which can ruin people's lives. I can understand the what the OP is trying to argue, but it doesn't hold credit.
        Reply to add on: OP is not talking about film violence.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        It's because children are used in the making. Watching child porn isn't actually illegal or else no-one would ever be able to tell if it was child porn in order to prosecute. It is possession that is illegal. This is because by possessing it you are supporting the industry and abuse of children.

        Films of murders and robberies are usually unintentional i.e it would have still taken place regardless of the market for it so you are not supporting murders by watching someone accidentally being killed. As for deliberate killings for media profit these are snuff films and possession of them is indeed illegal.

        I have noticed two interesting things. Firstly that upon thinking about it it is far more socially unacceptable to be caught with child porn than with a snuff film. Is child abuse being seen as worse than murder? Secondly a lot of people posting in this thread are saying things like "omg you sicko! how can you even ask?" or "don't even go there". We should not go the way of organised religion where if something is banned then it just is and is not up for discussion ever. We should always endeavour to embrace questions and educate others on the perils of child abuse.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by whyumadtho)
        How am I giving them sympathy? :confused:
        "Online spaces also allow individuals to find others who share their interests, creating supportive communities where individuals feel “they are part of a group, from which validation can be drawn, and sexual scripts exchanged"
        What you quoted seems to me to be giving sympathy to the paedophiles. Allowing them to have supportive communities where they aren't hated against is a good thing to me, but I realise now that you don't think they should be. In other words, I see it as being a positive thing and you see it as a negative thing, so I see it as sympathy. You don't.

        What do you mean it isn't a market? There is supply and demand. The suppliers gain monetarily (people may pay for the images)
        But the people trading these images to each other are not the ones creating them. They didn't create the pornography to make money, they got hold of it because it was leaked somewhere.

        socially (they have increased online status) and/or emotionally (strength in numbers) and the buyers gain emotionally (sexual relief and strength in numbers).
        Good for them, I say. They're feeling more human than society usually allows them to be. I hardly see that as a bad thing. As I said before, I would like, eventually (though it won't happen), the taboo of paedophilia to disappear.

        (Original post by S.R)
        We should not go the way of organised religion
        Precisely! Thankfully, the rise of New Atheism has reduced the taboo of being critical of religion, but it's still there. I hope the disgust of paedophilia goes the same way as religion is going at the moment - down.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.