0
6

[–] Sosacms 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I'm a believer in 'no victim, no crime' and only violent crimes get jail time. So I'd accept animated, adult by young looking, and innocent pictures that are no more sexualized than what we see in public.

Although, i am still on the fence about little girl fashion. It bothers me how a passing (not trying to look) glance gives me too much detail of their bodies. Plus the argument about overly exposed bodies leading to valueing the body over the personality. But that's another topic all together.

0
2

[–] tazmanian 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Since the want for such forms of pornography exists and will, most likely, always exist I have to agree that CGI child porn being legal would minimize the need for "the real deal" and would probably diminish the child abuse numbers. As with most things prohibited by law, there is no logical thinking behind it just social prejudice.

This approach has at least one draw back, in my opinion. If this kind of entertainment becomes legal wouldn't there be a danger that in the future it would be considered normal and more and more rights would be attributed to it? I can see this evolving into, well since realistic movies are legal why not child porn if the child is older than 12? Or, strip clubs with children... I mean, no one is touching them so there is no harm.

I know this examples are an exaggeration, but our society has shown over the course of it's history that we are a species prone to exaggeration.

0
2

[–] greycloud [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

i think exaggeration is why it is illegal in the first place. look at the first amendment, does it mention there are exceptions to free speech? does it imply that very unpopular speech should be excluded from its protections? the only reason i can support it being illegal is to prevent an economic perverse incentive. if it was legal, a demand market could create a situation in which a person would be payed to rape children. that is the only reason i oppose it being fully legal. otherwise on a free speech ground i would say it should be completely legal. for the exact same reason i think that any other video genre that shows violent crime and is backed by an economic demand to create more violent crime should be illegal. but just like fictional events of such crimes are legal, i think fictional CP should be legal. cg and body doubles have been used to replicate sex with adult models in movies, i wouldn't be opposed to such methods being used to create CP.

i also wouldn't be opposed to sex robots in all forms. such things are not people and could also fill in a demand to create fewer real victims.

0
1

[–] tazmanian 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I am confused. You say that viewing all child porn should be legal? And you justify this by saying that it falls under the category of free speech? What about making child porn?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] greycloud [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

i think CGI would be best, and is legal where i live, i also think self posted selfies are not a problem and i don't like that teenagers get in legal trouble for that. i think nude posing should be decriminalized but that there shouldn't be an economic demand to create it. but really i think CGI and drawn things are best since nobody is exploited and it has a measurable effect of reducing child sex abuse. i would not be opposed to legal adults retaining commercial rights on childhood pictures, but such things might open doors for bad actors so i am not so sure about that. i would say that "image of self" should be a legal defense against existing laws.

as for non-violent and age specifics i think it doesn't matter if its not real. if it is CGI or drawn than it is all fictional anyway. my point is that less people should be harmed, and that if this can be done by allowing unpopular artwork than such unpopular artwork should be perfectly legal.

0
0

[–] 273645546372 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That is a very provocative idea. I do not know how much pedophilia can be controlled by the afflicted individual. If it is something they cannot help, then this leniency is reasonable. If something like a cure can be found, then this will be unnecessary.

Assuming pedophilia cannot be reined in by the afflicted, I do think that if it is consistently shown that these forms of CP can minimize harm done to children, then it would be worth it to changes the laws to allow it. A good condition to tack on would be that the CP is selected under the careful discretion and monitoring of a mental health professional.