Just because you find it repulsive, that doesn’t mean you should ban it. After all, most straight people would find gay (male) porn repulsive too (although without any associated moral outrage, in most cases), and many people find BDSM disgusting, but that doesn’t mean you should ban them, so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

Personally I don’t know whether there’s really a link. I’ve heard plenty of complaints about violent videogames corrupting children, and attempts to have those games banned. I’m not sure about TV…

But there’s a whole whackload of violent TV shows. Look at CSI, which depicts quite an array of different kinds of murders. Look at all the war movies that glorify the war on Arabs. Even cartoons are filled with violence. And then there’s the NEWS full of terrorism (of the middle-east variety or the NATO Empire variety).

But Mike avoided that particular line of arguement. Mike, do you want to ban the majority of TV and videogame content? Do you want to ban the news perhaps?

As Joccoaa says, it’s useless to censor in the first place. Don’t murder, don’t rape, don’t molest, don’t steal. Those things are already illegal.

Banning the thought/idea of a crime is more like pretending it isn’t there. It’s like Politically Correct speech rules. Nobody’s old. Nobody’s dead. Nobody’s black. Nobody’s got shell shock. All because we refuse to say the words! If we refuse to show Abu Ghraib photos on the news, does it mean Americans aren’t torturing Arabs?

Punish the crime itself, don’t punish the knowledge that the crime exists. Controlling information promotes fascism by giving politicians the option of removing inconvenient information from the public view. Don’t just sit there and allow it to happen by listening to the paedophile argument! (which is a lot like the anti-Semite arguement, whereby if you disagree with Israel you must hate Jews)

My concern is why do we as a people of Australia need more rules/censorship, when we just need to enforce the rules we already have? The issues debated are already covered legally.

Do not censor the information, as i do not believe censorship will stop individuals committing crimes. The internet is only a tool, perhaps a very good one, however not a reason for individuals actions in committing a crime.

It seems outrageous to ‘go there’ because of the cultural milieu we live in. The very idea of anyone deriving sexual pleasure in any manner from a child is regarded as repulsive. It is the subject of shock and horror; humane, rational thought tends to fly out the window.

There are a number of conceivable reasons why someone might seek to view ‘child porn’ (that is, images of children engaged in sexual activity).

They might be censors. They might be police. They might be religious leaders, searching to see what is available on the Internet to bolster their anti-censorship case. They might be curious members of the general public, wondering what all the fuss is about and looking for themselves to see what’s available on the web. They might be people who obtain sexual pleasure from looking at these images.

All these cases are possible – and more. I imagine everyone would agree that they should not all be dealt with, by the legal system, in an identical way. Some cases, clearly, could not be prohibited by law – even if the images are considered illegal.

Of all those cases, only the last one is really controversial. There’s a feeling that someone should not obtain sexual pleasure in this manner. There’s also a concern that they should not be encouraged, stimulated or incited in any way to commit real life sexual acts with children.

Here, I think, is where this is very broad agreement. No one I know in the anti-censorship campaign justifies or seeks to minimize the crime of pedophilia. Children must be protected from predatory adults. (There are, however, genuine ‘boundary issues’, such as sex between under-age consenting juveniles).

So, we’re left with the case of people who enjoy viewing ‘child porn’ (images of children engaged in sexual acts or depicted in a highly sexualized manner).

This ‘seems’ to be ‘clearly’ a crime… and perhaps should be regarded a crime? But surely those who insist it MUST be treated as a crime should at least explain why.

I’m not away of solid evidence that viewing ‘child porn’ leads to the commission of depraved acts. The evidence may exist – but I haven’t seen it. I could imagine a case being made that the opposite is true – that is, people with a pornographic release for their fantasies are less likely to commit the acts real life. It’s at least worth considering that possibility, isn’t it?

What harm is done by viewing images? I agree with Alex that images of child death are arguably even ‘worse’. Why is this society so tolerant of violence and so petrified of sexuality?

I have NO expertise in the relevant psychological/sociological literature. It may be that a clear ‘link’ between viewing child porn and actively perpetrating acts of child abuse is well established. If so, perhaps this information could be shared. All too often, it seems to me, such a link is merely inferred.

We know from history and ethnography that sexual morality is highly diverse between cultures. We know from the mass media that people are very diverse in our own times. Some people like being tied up. Others enjoy copulating in groups. Some men have a ‘thing’ about older women. Etc etc.

Increasingly, we accept that it’s silly to ban all ‘kinks’. But we do want to protect the young. I would extend that more generally to ‘protecting the powerless’ – and perhaps be more willing than some to make exceptions when adolescent power relations are not one-sided.

Even so, we need to guard against being panicked – through our natural acceptance of the need to protect children – into endorsing corollaries for which there is no real rational basis.

I have never met anyone who enjoys looking at child porn – or who told me so, at any rate. I don’t have a clear idea of the type of person they may be.

But I can at least imagine the possibility that a medical/humane approach to such people may be better all round that a prosecutorial/persecuting approach. What if they could see a psychiatrist or councilor without fear of being reported (Can they do this at present? I don’t know.) Is society as a whole really best off the way we currently handle this issue?

If someone’s only interest is to VIEW images, is any real harm being done – compared with very real harm likely to ensue if and when they become embroiled in the judicial/prison systems?

A photo is just a piece of visual information. No information should be illegal to be viewed or possessed.

Child porn is not a special case.

It does encourage similar behavior in regard to those who want to view it, those who want to view child pornography would already have ill thought about children.

“But glorified depictions of murder are quite common, maybe you even own some DVDs yourself?”

But no one is harmed from the creation of fiction glorification of murder, and generally doesn’t encourage like behavior. So it’s irrelevant.

“it doesn’t give law enforcement a license to search everybody in case they have child porn.”

No one here would think(I assume) that law enforcement should have that right.

It’s obvious that we are not going to agree about this.

Whether it’s paid for or not is meaningless. There is always a victim.

“You can’t prosecute people for thinking about committing child abuse.”

Thinking about it, no, but you can charge them for viewing it. As I said earlier, those who view child pornography are continuing the act — the crime. They are taking part in the abuse. It does not have to be directly, as in in the presence of the victim to be abuse.

@kyle the act of viewing the child porn does not harm anyone. Does it encourage similar behaviour? (meaning that a normal person, after viewing child porn, becomes more likely to commit child abuse) if that were the case then once they committed child abuse then they would have committed a crime, prior to that, they are only thinking about committing a crime.

Who is advocating viewing child abuse? Not me, I find the idea disgusting. If a person advocates child porn they would surely be heavily rebuked, and rightly so, but it wouldn’t be right to force them not to say such things. Everyone can clearly see that they are wrong, so in advocating child porn they harm nobody.

Regarding the point about murder. What about fictional murder? I’m sure that you would find glorified, fictional depictions of child abuse disgusting; so would I. But glorified depictions of murder are quite common, maybe you even own some DVDs yourself? My point is, photos of child abuse are not child abuse, photos of murder are not murder.

Your last comment may or may not be true, that people who view child porn also abuse children. As I said in my answer to Mike, that doesn’t make viewing child porn on its own a crime, and it doesn’t give law enforcement a license to search everybody in case they have child porn.

–
We constantly hear that child porn is absolutely unjustifiable. From a moral standpoint that is true, but it is not something the state should try to control. Yes, prosecute child abusers, and people who assist child abusers, but you can’t prosecute people for thinking about committing child abuse. The state can never prevent people having bad thoughts, so inevitably the come up with ridiculous ideas like mandatory internet filtering. But the heart of it is the notion that we can control people’s thoughts.

If we could stop people from fantasising about child abuse, it wouldn’t affect me, or 99% of other people, since most people don’t think fantasise about child porn. The fact is we can’t.

As Voltaire supposedly said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — well in this case there’s no need to defend the right of child abusers to think their evil thoughts, because nobody can ever prevent their thoughts. The point is to end the wasteful attempts to stop their thoughts. Instead, let’s focus on stopping their actions.

PS bravo to the editor for finally posting my comment, even with the disclaimer.

That’s such an idiotic argument, of course viewing child porn harms people. It harms the children that were used to create it. It also encourages similar behavior, saying that the behavior depicted in the images is acceptable.

“I guarantee you that there are people out there who find images of murder arousing. Should they be charged?”

If people are being murdered to create this material, absolutely and if the murder imagery is encouraging similar murderous behavior(unlikely). But depends why they find murder images arousing.

“Law enforcement might arrest a hundred persons with child porn on their harddrives, but how many children have they saved from abuse?”

Sometimes when news services report that law enforcement arrest people for possessing child pornography, they sometimes also report about children who are removed from situations as they suspect are being ‘groomed’ or abused.
Why is this? because people who view child pornography are often also those who sexually abuse children.