CJ & Suzeonline

>> ...I agree that he (Rstuart) is intransigent on this subject and that there is little point in continuing this argument with him. Mind you, if he is in the habit of putting his odious ideas into practice, I sincerely hope that he is apprehended and charged as soon as possible, for the sake of the kids who are exploited by him and other consumers of child porn. <<

The reason, further back on this thread, I asked others to comment on this spurious justification of child porn by Rstuart and another regular poster to OLO, was to make clear that such views are not acceptable by the majority of people - for the bleeding obvious reason that the production of porn is harmful to children - let alone the existence of such creating greater demand and the entire issue of paedophilia and illegal porn growing exponentially.

Rstuart, you again, are digging yourself into an untenable position, adding personal insults does you no service. That there are men like you who claim not to be paedophiles but have no issue with child pornography is reprehensible.

You have nothing to add that is of any worth regarding this issue.

I shall not waste any more time with the likes of you.

I get the impression you three have to given up trying to debate whether looking at child porn actually harms anybody. Yes, I know you continue insist that it must somehow cause more children to be molested, but equally I guess difficult to sustain that while knowing harms to kids have dropped as the availability has gone up.

It is understandable you find it impossible to put aside the feelings of disgust this issue fills you with, but nonetheless at this point I am dammed glad I live in Australia. In a society less tolerant of free speech I am sure some of you would be petitioning to have me locked away for the sake of the children, and would have a fair chance of achieving it. After all, I can remember the time not more than a few decades ago when, right here in Australian, when locking someone away because their sexual preference was "considered unacceptable in our society", as CJ put it, was very much a reality.

@suzeonline: We are talking about child PORNOGRAPHY. It is now, and will always be, illegal in all it's forms.

I guess it will come as no surprise I disagree. I expect that within my lifetime drawn child porn, such as the Simpson cartoons will become legal. That will be the start of a slippery slope. Once you do that, you have implicitly acknowledged, as CJ already has, that looking at pictures of children being molested shouldn't be a crime. (Way to go CJ!) At that point I would hope all pictures where children aren't actually being harmed will become legal.

I agree it is unlikely I will see pictures of real kids being sexually molested will remain illegal for the foreseeable future. The feelings of disgust it raises in the current crop of grandma's and granddad's is just too high. But I expect that too will pass, as historically the outrage you express here mirrors the outrage your great grandparents expressed during other moral panics. Fortunately it seems such outrage is hard to sustain when it is all built on sand.

@CJ Morgan: he would be charged with offences that the community takes very seriously indeed

Since you have all promised to go away and yield the last word to me, I guess I can feel safe in saying that not quite correct. If the sentences imposed by judges reflects how seriously the community takes viewing child porn, then it isn't that serious. Jail terms are rare. It was a bit of a weakness in my argument, as I was almost arguing for status quo. The very case this article is discussing illustrates this.

As a final postscript, it looks to me like the right balance will probably be a small variation on the one I mentioned above. Any trafficing for money of images where serious harms were inflicted in order to make it saleable should be illegal. These men pictures pictures of themselves molesting their children is just one of the example. Snuff films are another. At the other end of the scale, you have these Jackass films. It is a pity you lot could not bring yourself to comment on that, actually.

@rstuart: Snuff films are another.

Turns out I am guilty of propagating a myth. Snuff films don't exist:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp

So much for my "common sense" leading me to think that because there is a proven market for films and movies depicting violence, someone somewhere must have made snuff film's to supply the extreme end of that market.

Quotes from the link:

"All the fretting about it aside, not so much as one snuff film has been found. Time and again, what is originally decried in the press as a film of a murder turns out, upon further investigation, to be a fake. Police on three continents routinely investigate films brought to them, and so far this has always been their verdict. No snuff films.
...
Capturing a murder on film would be foolhardy at best. Only the most deranged would consider preserving for a jury a perfect video record of a crime he could go to the executioner for. Even if he stays completely out of the camera's way, too much of who the killer is, how the murder was carried out, and where it took place would be part of such a film, and these details would quickly lead police to the right door."

Apparently, some paedophiles aren't as smart as murderers.

rstuart: <"If the sentences imposed by judges reflects how seriously the community takes viewing child porn, then it isn't that serious. Jail terms are rare.">

- and that's a social disgrace; indicative of the low regard in which children and their human rights are held.

As to whether or not child porn results in greater abuse. I already provided evidence that most child abusers view child pornography. It is also one of the grooming tools used by child abusers to introduce children to an experience of abuse; supposedly to persuade them that abuse is normal.

At any rate you choose to ignore all of that, so consider this instead: If someone is hungry - do you think their appetite is increased or decreased by looking at pictures of food and/or being surrounded by food even if they are not supposed to have it ?

If someone is thirsty - pictures; sights and sounds of water - increase or decrease their thirst?

Someone addicted to nicotine - does seeing someone smoking increase or decrease their craving?

Alcohol - someone craving a cold beer. Is watching a clip of someone downing a nice cold crownie likely to help them resist beer?

So, if the opportunity comes up for someone to use a child for sex, do you think that someone who finds clips or pics of children being used in such ways sexually titillating is more or less likely to make those fantasies a reality?

Anyone who finds pictures of children or youngsters sexually exciting is a loose cannon.

I imagine that rstuart would think that this creep has been hardly done by:

<< Pedophile jailed over pic of naked girl at South Bank

April 15, 2010 12:10PM

A DANGEROUS child sex predator caught photographing a naked four-year-old girl swimming at Brisbane's South Bank Parklands while on a restrictive court-issued supervision order after raping three girls could be returned into the community in five months time.

Convicted child rapist Graeme Paul Hancock, 25, was today jailed for 18 months after pleading guilty in the Brisbane District Court to one court of indecent treatment of a child under 12 and two of breaching a supervision order.

The court was told Hancock, from Southport on the Gold Coast, had only been out of jail four months for raping and molesting three young girls and was under a Supreme Court-issued supervision order when he was caught photographing the naked child at South Bank in June last year. >>

http://tiny.cc/ubo56

I mean, the 4-year old kid wasn't harmed, was she? It's a travesty of justice!