Legal issues with Child Pornography

[Soupcat]

So in relation to a recent Black Mirror episode, I came into a debate with my girlfriend when it comes down to viewing child pornography.

While I agree on the fact that any form of material where actual people get harmed, should be avoided and is morally wrong. I'm not sure if viewing it contributes to some kind of "market" or if one should even be prosecuted for it.
So I'm wondering what the Newgrounds community thinks on the matter.
Should any form of interaction with illegal material be prosecuted? Or is it not as black and white and it should be viewed on a case to case basis? And if so, what would the parameters be of such a situation, how big is the difference between creating the content and viewing the content?
Anyway I think I'm making things too complicated...

AS a sidenote; Is there such a thing as unharmful child pornography (pictures where children don't get harmed) ? Or is the whole thing taboo and children pictures should stay off the internet and wear burkas? Where lies the middle ground? Does masturbating to children on facebook count as illegal behavior? Hw do we control this? Is all this too complicated to sum up in one thread? Or is it very clear and simple?

My girlfriend seems to be very set in her mind, which is understandable, but don't you think it should be open for debate? Or am I filthy pervert for even considering it?

[Soupcat]

At 12/3/16 07:09 AM, Sekhem wrote:

At 12/3/16 07:03 AM, Soupcat wrote: Is there such a thing as unharmful child pornography (pictures where children don't get harmed)?

no, you goddamn fucking idiot

children can't consent so, by legal definition, it is always harmful

But what if it is a family picture, should children be covered up at all times?
There was a case where a women posted her child half naked on Facebook and got persecuted for it, is this morally just?

When do pictures of children stop being pornography and become just pictures? Aren't we making things worse by making a taboo out of this?

[Soupcat]

At 12/3/16 07:34 AM, INDINDIND wrote: The legal issue with kid porn is that it is illegal

What would you consider kid porn?

[Soupcat]

At 12/3/16 07:51 AM, hyperrobotz16 wrote: The real problem here is you're watching black mirror and its gone over your head

It just sparked a debate about child pornography. I was just creating context.

[Soupcat]

At 12/3/16 07:51 AM, hyperrobotz16 wrote: The real problem here is you're watching black mirror and its gone over your head

It just sparked a debate about child pornography. I was just creating context. Please elaborate on how it went over my head, I feel like that episode was making several points.

[Gimmick]

At 12/3/16 07:09 AM, Sekhem wrote:

At 12/3/16 07:03 AM, Soupcat wrote: Is there such a thing as unharmful child pornography (pictures where children don't get harmed)?

no, you goddamn fucking idiot

children can't consent so, by legal definition, it is always harmful

what about drawings? Are those illegal too? (In some countries yes, but not by this logic)

[Soupcat]

At 12/3/16 08:06 AM, hyperrobotz16 wrote:

At 12/3/16 07:59 AM, Soupcat wrote:

At 12/3/16 07:51 AM, hyperrobotz16 wrote: The real problem here is you're watching black mirror and its gone over your head

It just sparked a debate about child pornography. I was just creating context. Please elaborate on how it went over my head, I feel like that episode was making several points.

I reccomend watching star wars or some basic sci fi before you get into the serious stuff

And I recommend you take an English class before you start using words on the internet. Stop using ad hominem fallacies friendo.

[Soupcat]

At 12/3/16 08:06 AM, Gimmick wrote:

At 12/3/16 07:09 AM, Sekhem wrote:

At 12/3/16 07:03 AM, Soupcat wrote: Is there such a thing as unharmful child pornography (pictures where children don't get harmed)?

no, you goddamn fucking idiot

children can't consent so, by legal definition, it is always harmful

what about drawings? Are those illegal too? (In some countries yes, but not by this logic)

Technically drawings cant consent either. Neither can birds or dogs, or can they? What if my dog fucks my 4 year old, is that harmful and should be persecuted?

[Soupcat]

At 12/3/16 08:21 AM, Sekhem wrote:

At 12/3/16 08:06 AM, Gimmick wrote: what about drawings? Are those illegal too? (In some countries yes, but not by this logic)

that doesn't meet the legal definition of child pornography, federally, in the u.s. so it doesn't matter

Legally speaking, homosexuality was illegal for a long time, does that mean the rules on child pornography can change just like they did with homosexuality?

[Blounty]

At 12/3/16 08:06 AM, hyperrobotz16 wrote:

At 12/3/16 07:59 AM, Soupcat wrote:

At 12/3/16 07:51 AM, hyperrobotz16 wrote: The real problem here is you're watching black mirror and its gone over your head

It just sparked a debate about child pornography. I was just creating context. Please elaborate on how it went over my head, I feel like that episode was making several points.

I reccomend watching star wars or some basic sci fi before you get into the serious stuff

Haha the fact you think black mirror is serious and see yourself as some kind of intellectual for "understanding" it just shows how much of a moron you are.

[beakerboy]

don't listen to the trolls on NG, OP
they are in a mid-life crisis coz they fail school and fail at life
you sound like you have an open mind
so, right or WRONG, we need more people like you.

[Gimmick]

At 12/3/16 08:14 AM, Soupcat wrote:

At 12/3/16 08:06 AM, Gimmick wrote:

At 12/3/16 07:09 AM, Sekhem wrote:

At 12/3/16 07:03 AM, Soupcat wrote: Is there such a thing as unharmful child pornography (pictures where children don't get harmed)?

no, you goddamn fucking idiot

children can't consent so, by legal definition, it is always harmful

what about drawings? Are those illegal too? (In some countries yes, but not by this logic)

Technically drawings cant consent either. Neither can birds or dogs, or can they? What if my dog fucks my 4 year old, is that harmful and should be persecuted?

Drawings are inanimate and are not recognized by the law, otherwise you'd have a tremendous shitfest on your hands. Are burning effigies legal? Yes, but with this recognition, you are "harming" the effigy, which is nuts, and you'd be jailed. So...no, drawings are OK. There's a further avenue that it can enable people's fantasies, but that's another discussion entirely.

Animals cannot consent...that being said, larger animals like dogs, horses, tigers, camels, gorillas (rip harambe) etcetcetc can all certainly do grievous damage to you if they don't consent...so legally they can't consent but physically they can. In either case, though, you'd get screwed by the law if you're caught, because bestiality's illegal in most places (except in 14 US states, where it's more like there are no laws against it)

And if your dog fucks your 4 year old, then, well, idk. You can very well put it down, but I'm not sure dogs have the capacity to understand cause and effect. Neuter them, I guess? I'm not a pet guy.

[Soupcat]

At 12/3/16 08:31 AM, Gimmick wrote: Drawings are inanimate and are not recognized by the law, otherwise you'd have a tremendous shitfest on your hands. Are burning effigies legal? Yes, but with this recognition, you are "harming" the effigy, which is nuts, and you'd be jailed. So...no, drawings are OK. There's a further avenue that it can enable people's fantasies, but that's another discussion entirely.

Books are inanimate as well, can it be illegal to burn those?

Animals cannot consent...that being said, larger animals like dogs, horses, tigers, camels, gorillas (rip harambe) etcetcetc can all certainly do grievous damage to you if they don't consent...so legally they can't consent but physically they can. In either case, though, you'd get screwed by the law if you're caught, because bestiality's illegal in most places (except in 14 US states, where it's more like there are no laws against it)

Bringing up harambe makes things even more complicated, because in a sense theyre are very close to humans in therms of their cognition. By law they are animals, but naturally speaking, so are we. What seperates man from beast. Why do apes get a different judicial protocol than a human with the same intellect?
What if an ape masturbates to child pornography? Could we debate it has no sense of right and wrong and should therefor be excused? So if a human has no sense of right or wrong, should they be excused? Do psychopaths have a broken moral compass and if yes, can we fix them?

[Soupcat]

At 12/3/16 09:28 AM, kanef wrote: whats the point of saying anything in this thread if one side of the arguments breaks the last "big one" rule and risks a 10 year ban

I wasn't trying to defend pedophilia, I was simply discussing the legal implications of it. But as you mention this, I think its safe to say this thread can be locked to avoid breaking the rules.
Thanks for the chat guys, it was very informative.

ouch censorship

[Klaudesin]

At 12/3/16 09:48 AM, Soupcat wrote:

ouch censorship

I wouldn't call it censorship, I would call it Common sense...

[aviewaskewed]

At 12/3/16 07:03 AM, Soupcat wrote: but don't you think it should be open for debate?

Nope, it shouldn't. Children can't consent or understand what it is their doing, and are usually being forced to do. It causes them intense psychological harm, oh and this is pretty close to the "don't discuss pedophilia" rule, or other illegal activity rule we have here so....yeah, this should really go away me thinks.