77. elliot803 - July 8, 1997 - 9:02 AM PST
alistairconnor: "I suppose that everyone here is in favour of banning paedophile pornography (if anyone wants to present the opposing view, then I suppose that would be interesting)."
I oppose banning pedophile pornography. What is your argument for such a ban?
78. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 9:06 AM PST
Elliot
I think most people support banning paedophile pornography because children cannot be considered capacitated to give informed consent.
What is your reason for opposing a ban?
79. elliot803 - July 8, 1997 - 9:26 AM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "I think most people support banning paedophile pornography because children cannot be considered capacitated to give informed consent."
So what? If it's okay to ban child pornography because the child involved didn't consent to the behavior depicted, why isn't it okay to ban any other visual image of children engaged in behavior they didn't consent to? In fact, if the issue is consent, why isn't it therefore okay to ban any visual depiction of acts involving non-consenting participants, child or adult? And what about child pornography that doesn't involve any real people (drawings, art work, photo-composites, etc.)? Since consent is not an issue in such material, does this mean it's permissible?
"What is your reason for opposing a ban?"
Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the First Amendment, and all that.
80. KurtMondaugen - July 8, 1997 - 9:38 AM PST
perry: Interesting outlook in your above post. I can agree w/ your point about 'non-consenting participants' quite readily (don't forget animals, either), and, of course, artworks, photo-montages, etc that do not involve any criminal acts in their creation should obviously not be banned. To elaborate a little further, another problem is the implicit acceptance of exploitative images within mass-media (those damn Zest commercials, again). Let's use a couple of films featuring Jodie Foster as an example. In 1976, much controversy was raised over Foster's portrayal of a 12-year old prostitue and "Taxi Driver". The film dealt w/ the issue of child-prostitution honestly and was in no way suggestive or exploitative. The protagonist held a critical view of Foster's character's position in the film, so I suppose the 'message' of the film was morally acceptable (though the vigilantism issue is a bit sticky). Now, in that same year, "Bugsey Malone" featured Foster extravagantly dressed and made-up as a woman 30 years her senior, vamping and suggestively coming-on in a tasteless impression of Marlene Deitrich, through various Weimar Republic styled musical numbers. Which film is more offensive? Now, before anyone chimes in w/ a "but 'Bugsey Malone' is innocuous fun" type comment, I suggest you try to tell that to JonBennet Ramsey. Any comments?
81. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 10:35 AM PST
Elliot (Message #79)
What a silly post this is. You exemplify the adage that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of foolish minds.
"If it's okay to ban child pornography because the child involved didn't consent to the behavior depicted, why isn't it okay to ban any other visual image of children engaged in behavior they didn't consent to?"
Because the extent of the issue is not consent. It's also harm, as well as consent to harm. Children can't give consent to undergoing harm. I don't see much difference between child pornography involving real children and, say, snuff films. Finally, there's basic repugnance. Most people think child pornography is repugnant.
"And what about child pornography that doesn't involve any real people (drawings, art work, photo-composites, etc.)? Since consent is not an issue in such material, does this mean it's permissible?"
I have no problem with that.
Of course you might, in the logical fiddlestick mode you're so enamored of, ask me about parents who make children model in TV commercials or force them to overachieve in schools. Could that not be construed to cause harm in some children, at least sometime? And I would say that society probably doesn't create enough redress for such problems, inasmuch as they are real problems. But the order of magnitude of harm is simply different.
94. KurtMondaugen - July 8, 1997 - 11:34 AM PST
PE: I have not defended child pornography in any of my posts, nor would I. And, yes, I would compare 'commercial exploitation' of children w/ pornography, as the intents are inherently the same. I admit, my above post was somewhat crudely put, but I was merely trying to illustrate that there is a fine line between child porn and something like, say, Spielberg's "Hook". One is explicit, criminal and damaging. The other is implicit, accepted and damaging. A few years ago (I don't recall the exact date) an editorial appeared in the NY Times calling for stricter laws against child pornography. The same day, on another page, an advertisment for a clothing company was run featuring a child model of approx. 7 years of age imitating the Marylin Monroe air-vent-pose complete w/ stiletto heels, panties and ridiculous make-up job....what's wrong w/ this picture?
95. elliot803 - July 8, 1997 - 11:36 AM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "Because the extent of the issue is not consent. It's also harm, as well as consent to harm. Children can't give consent to undergoing harm."
Well, the justification you *gave* was lack of consent. Now, apparently, it's lack of consent plus harm. If this is grounds for banning something, why should we not ban films or pictures showing children (or adults) being tortured or killed or in some other way seriously harmed? Isn't killing a child just as bad as sexually molesting her? Should we ban, say, a commercial videotape called "Images of War" that shows real people being shot or blown up in Bosnia? What principled difference is there between a ban on such a product and a ban on kiddy porn?
"I have no problem with [drawings, art work, photo montages, etc., of child pornography]."
This seems a strange position. It's okay to ban child pornography created with real children, but not child pornography created with images from an artist's mind? With modern computer generated imagery, it's possible to create fake "photographs" that are virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Child pornography could also be created using adult actors who look like children. How will you distinguish these cases from pornography created using actual minors? If you can't reliably distinguish "fake" child porn from "real" child porn, how will you enforce your ban? Even if you could enforce a ban on genuine child porn without also banning the fake stuff that you "have no problem with," your "harm" argument doesn't really make sense anyway in view of your acceptance of the fake porn. If it's the image itself that you believe to be harmful, you should ban both real and fake. If it's the act of creating the image that produces the harm, then it is the creation of "real" child porn that should be banned (as, of course, it is), not the image itself.
96. ansond - July 8, 1997 - 11:37 AM PST
ansond has a point, but you can hardly see it if he combs his/her hair the right way. . .
PE: If Elliot finds scenes of live torture enlightening, stimulating, and/or arousing then by all means, give that kid a cum shot in the face! (ouch! I'd hate to think that little ol me could give "Christian neandethals" some rationale for imposing their morality on you. I'm sure you can handle your own morality, right?)
99. BettyV - July 8, 1997 - 11:41 AM PST
ansond and elliot803-
okay, so i'm a real let everyone have free speech so we know who the stupid and dangerous ones are but i really have to say you are both off on the child porn thing. Child Porn is infrequently if ever done with anytype of consent by the child. Most often the children are raped, kidnapped, and abused. Even if child pornography were decriminalized, the subjects of such films and pictures would endure the same kind of treatment. your positions are indefensible and morally bankrupt.
Adult pornography has been banned in a number of places and times yet it has always found willing participants. Infrequently have women had to be raped or physically forced into pornography. there has always been a supply. This is not the case with child porn. you are talking about something which is harmful to these children and entirely against their wills. there maybe a few exceptions, but i assure you, it is not pleasant for the children involved.
are drawings, etc okay, yes fine, no one is starving the children, telling them they will never see their mommy and daddy again, tieing them up, and then shooting them.
100. coralreef - July 8, 1997 - 11:47 AM PST
elliot803 - is not child pornography, and I mean the real thing and not some graphical imitation, evidence of the commision of a crime? And should not such evidence be confiscated?
101. ansond - July 8, 1997 - 11:47 AM PST
BettyV: Thanks for your well-reasoned and thoughtful input. I find little about which to quibble. Suffice to say that Moondoggie's post about the NYTimes advertisement draws attention to the blurry line which defines all exploitation--of children and ALL people--of which no one can rightly be in favor.
102. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 11:52 AM PST
Mondaugen
The intents of the 'commercial exploitation' of children and child pornography are inherently the same? That's preposterous. Even your 7-year-old Marily Monroe doesn't strike me as particularly akin to child pornography in any way. I don't agree that there is a fine line between the two. The line is blurry only for those who want to see it as blurry, like Elliot and you. What is difficult is coming up with a set of words to describe a foolproof principle against child pornography to serve as a law which would smoothly adjudicate all disputes in real life.
103. MrCranky - July 8, 1997 - 11:53 AM PST
Pseudoerasmus #81 -- "Basic repugnance" is a rather slender reed, I think, on which to base a ban on child pornography. Not long ago (25 years, say), "basic repugnance" would probably characterize most people's reaction to homosexuality. It no longer does (if you believe the polls). Mores and attitudes change...I'm not sure there is anything inherently repugnant about child pornography. Such pornography is certainly abhorrent on both a social and cultural level, but it's impossible to say how instinctive that disgust is. I agree with you, however, that there is no basis, in our society, for lifting the ban on child pornography.
104. BettyV - July 8, 1997 - 11:54 AM PST
perry-
"Isn't killing a child just as bad as sexually molesting her?"
No, it's not. Perhaps you do not knowing anyone who has been through the whole sexual molestation thing but i know several...A great many of them would have been a lot better off had they just been shot instead of tortured and allowed to live.
People who have been victims of sexual molestation repeat the abuse over and over upon themselves. They have a higher likelyhood of being raped, abused by their spouse, and killing themselves. They generally suffer from chronic depression, and have much higher rates of (fill in the blank) mental illness than their non-molested counterparts. If you would like to sit in on a group therapy session sometime let me know and i will put you in contact with some one in your area.
106. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 12:04 PM PST
Elliot (Message #95)
"Well, the justification you *gave* was lack of consent. Now, apparently, it's lack of consent plus harm."
--- Well, personally, I don't really give a shit what justification there is for banning child pornography. It's a matter of common sense, as far as I'm concerned, and most people wouldn't disagree with me. I just replied to you on the fly, and I see no reason why I should spend any time thinking hard about an issue which is not a matter of debate, except for you and a few others.
"Should be ban, say, a commercial videotape called "Images of War" that shows real people being shot or blown up in Bosnia?
--- The rest of your post is just dumb, the perennial grasping-at-straws of the mindless relativist. Of course documentary footage needn't be banned.
"What principled difference is there between a ban on such a product and a ban on kiddy porn?"
--- Well, I suppose the principle is intent. The producers of the documentary film or news footage didn't hire or force the kids to appear in the footage. They were capturing an event they didn't bring into existence....But even if you struck down this principle of intent, I just couldn't care. There might not be a principled difference. Who cares? No principle is foolproof anyway.
"It's okay to ban child pornography created with real children, but not child pornography created with images from an artist's mind?"
--- Precisely. Real children aren't involved in imaginary reproduction.
"If you can't reliably distinguish "fake" child porn from 'real' child porn, how will you enforce your ban?"
--- I have no idea. This is a practical problem of enforcement of a law, not of whether the law is justified. But I suspect such problems are not very numerous.
107. coralreef - July 8, 1997 - 12:05 PM PST
MrSocko - I think The Economist and The European have the right idea, which is to offer part of their newspaper or magazine online and require an actual subscription to get the whole thing online. Alternatively, Entertainment Weekly's site only offers a sampling of their magazine. Either of these ways seems sound from a business point of view although as a consumer I like the free Sunday Times and free Time of course!
108. BettyV - July 8, 1997 - 12:08 PM PST
PE-
can you do me a favor and e-mail me at purpler@rocketmail.com
i'm kinda interested in the sufi mystical tradition and am looking for some introductory texts...if you want or you can ignore me...
109. KurtMondaugen - July 8, 1997 - 12:08 PM PST
PE: My comment about the 'intent' being the same was an overstatement for the purpose of discussion. And I wouldn't necessarily call the NY Times ad 'pornographic' but I do find it equally as inappropriate, offensive and repulsive as I find the pornography industry. Ansond got my point, in that exploitation is exploitation no matter how its presented. Equating my attitude w/ Elliot's statement of 'opposing a ban on child pornography' is wildly off the mark and a gross misinterpretation of my posts. But, back to the case of the "Tin Drum", I don't feel that the scene which has led to this discussion was exploitative. My posts were intended to illustrate my view that the OCAF and Oklahoma police are perhaps neglecting some of the more important issues at stake here, not necessarily to defend any particular action. Which is why I can say I wholly agree w/ the final sentence of your post number 102.
112. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 12:13 PM PST
Elliot
"Even if you could enforce a ban on genuine child porn without also banning the fake stuff that you "have no problem with," your "harm" argument doesn't really make sense anyway in view of your acceptance of the fake porn. If it's the image itself that you believe to be harmful, you should ban both real and fake. If it's the act of creating the image that produces the harm, then it is the creation of "real" child porn that should be banned (as, of course, it is), not the image itself."
Well, I don't think the availability per se of the image does much harm. It's the act of creating the images with live children which is both harmful and offensive.
MrCranky (Message #103)
" 'Basic repugnance' is a rather slender reed, I think, on which to base a ban on child pornography."
Well, I'm not a principled person, so I happen to think 'principle' is just as slender a reed to hang anything on. Adherence to principle is itself based on mores and attitudes which change over time. So there it is. I'm pretty sure that mores wouldn't ever change so much that most people would ever agree with Elliot, but if they do, there isn't much the dissenters could do about it, is there now?
114. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 12:18 PM PST
BettyV
Sufi mystical tradition? What the hell are you talking about? Please don't address creepy posts to me.
121. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 12:44 PM PST
BettyV
For future reference, here are a few people and things I dislike and usually deride:
Vegetarians, socialists, libertarians, 'post-modernists', religious people, anti-vivisectionists, Trekkies, right-wingers, atonal music, X-filers, Eastern religion, mysticism of any kind, but especially Native American mysticism, animal rights activists, abstract art, American multiculturalists, modern architecture and 'Greens'.
124. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 2:52 PM PST
Elliot
Whether it's abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action or child pornography, my ethics is entirely ad hoc. That is, I don't have any 'higher principle' about justice or equality or freedom I appeal to in order to justify something. Principles, especially legal ones, are modi operandi. But since laws can't be ad hoc and must apply in a variety of cases, we have to construct some rough-and-ready principles. How? One identifies those things you want the law to ban or permit or regulate and construct the principles around them. Hence, all the stuff about consent and harm and whatever else is necessary to ban child pornography under the semblance of principle. But in the end, with child pornography, all that's left is sheer repugnance.
126. elliot803 - July 8, 1997 - 3:37 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "But in the end, with child pornography, all that's left is sheer repugnance."
That does not seem to me a sound basis for a ban. If we should ban child porn because it's repugnant, why shouldn't we ban other forms of speech we find repugnant? Why shouldn't we ban pictures of people being killed and maimed? Why shouldn't we ban the kinkier varieties of adult pornography? Why shouldn't we ban anti-semitic literature, or KKK marches? The whole point of free speech and the First Amendment is that it protects the vilest, most repugnant kinds of speech as well as the speech we all agree with. Only if there is a truly compelling reason should the right be infringed.
127. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 4:03 PM PST
Elliot (Message #126)
You seem to have missed the point. I don't use 'repugnance' as a basis for banning anything -- I merely cite it as the ultimate motivation behind why the vast majority of people support the ban. Reread my Message #124.
"If we should ban child porn because it's repugnant, why shouldn't we ban other forms of speech we find repugnant?"
I don't know. I guess most people have decided that speech, except in the rarest of circumstances, shouldn't be banned. Courts have established some standard for those rare circumstances. I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea on what basis child pornography is actually banned by the law. But I really don't care whether you could show that the ban is consistent with the first amendment or not.
"Only if there is a truly compelling reason should the right be infringed."
I agree, although I see nothing particularly sacred about any right and I certainly don't see why child pornography is a right. And I think virtually everybody would agree with me that there is indeed a compelling reason to infringe upon this 'right' - harm to the child.
By the way, according to you, whose rights are being abridged when you ban child pornography? What do you think about pederasty and paedophilia? Do you think it's OK for adults and children to have sex, even if children give 'consent'?
128. elliot803 - July 8, 1997 - 4:13 PM PST
Re:#100 (coralreef): "elliot803 - is not child pornography, and I mean the real thing and not some graphical imitation, evidence of the commision of a crime? And should not such evidence be confiscated?"
Probably. What about copies of an original child pornography photograph/videotape/film? What about a photorealistic rendering by a computer artist of an original kiddie porn photo? Are such copies and derivations of actual child porn merely "graphical imitations" of the real thing (and therefore, presumably, permissible), or are they the real thing itself? What about child porn produced in a country where it is legal and then imported into the U.S.? If the reason for confiscating the material is because it is evidence of a crime, then that reason would not exist in such cases.
129. thomasd - July 8, 1997 - 4:20 PM PST
The undesirability of certain types of pornography, such as child pornography, can be debated as a balance of the pornography's criminality, violation of the rights of the child, artistic license or merit (if any), effect on society, and so on. However, the unfairness and unworkability of most possible bans is an overriding consideration, IMO. After all, the only thing to be judged in this way is usually the resultant film or video footage, which may bear no necessary relationship to reality. I think that this makes it nearly impossible to impose a uniform standard for a ban on child pornography. The only types of pornography that I personally think may deserve to be banned, as opposed to being restricted, would include mutilation and loss of life. Criminal statutes can be applied to limit the ongoing production of most other objectionable pornography, such as determined by prevailing standards.
130. CharlieL - July 8, 1997 - 4:27 PM PST
PE, you don't like "Greens?" Does that mean you're giving up your membership in the NAACP (The National Association for the Advancement of Collard People)?
131. elliot803 - July 8, 1997 - 4:43 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "You seem to have missed the point. I don't use 'repugnance' as a basis for banning anything -- I merely cite it as the ultimate motivation behind why the vast majority of people support the ban. Reread my Message #124."
So if repugnance is not a sound basis for banning something, the majority is wrong, isn't it? I confess to being at a loss to understand your own incoherent reasons for supporting a ban on child porn. One minute it's lack of consent, then it's harm, then it's repugnance, then it's just "common sense." Maybe you could give a clear, definitive explanation of just why you want to ban this material and then we can examine it.
"And I think virtually everybody would agree with me that there is indeed a compelling reason to infringe upon this 'right' - harm to the child."
What harm? The harm is caused by creating the material, not by viewing it.
"By the way, according to you, whose rights are being abridged when you ban child pornography?"
The rights of those who wish to view it.
"What do you think about pederasty and paedophilia?"
I think they're bad and should be illegal.
"Do you think it's OK for adults and children to have sex, even if children give 'consent'?"
Not really. It depends what you mean by "child" and "sex." I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for a 17-year-old girl to have sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend. I don't think the apparently long-standing practise in Asian countries of mothers soothing their babies by rubbing their genitals is necessarily a bad thing. I don't think movies like "The Tin Drum" are a bad thing.
132. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 5:15 PM PST
Elliot (Message #131)
"So if repugnance is not a sound basis for banning something, the majority is wrong, isn't it?"
Well, if the majority felt that the right to free speech should be banned, I would think they were wrong, but then who am I? The vast majority, including myself, feel that child pornography is vile and reprehensible, so there it is. There is nothing correct or incorrect about it.
"I confess to being at a loss to understand your own incoherent reasons for supporting a ban on child porn. One minute it's lack of consent, then it's harm, then it's repugnance, then it's just 'common sense'. Maybe you could give a clear, definitive explanation of just why you want to ban this material and then we can examine it."
You see, you're a silly person. There is nothing to examine. It's quite simple. Some people feel that torture is wrong, others feel that child pornography is wrong. What is right and what is wrong are completely arbitrary. I said at the very beginning of this exchange in Message #78: "I think most people support banning paedophile pornography because children cannot be considered capacitated to give informed consent." I was giving you what most people would see as sufficient justification. I don't care what principled justifications there might be. I just want child pornography banned. If consent + harm + whatever else works, then so be it. Name the legal legerdemain, and I'll use it.
"What harm? The harm is caused by creating the material, not by viewing it."
Precisely, the harm caused in creating the material, i.e., the involvement of children in pornography.
" 'By the way, according to you, whose rights are being abridged when you ban child pornography?' --- The rights of those who wish to view it."
I don't see that they have any such rights.
133. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 5:21 PM PST
Elliot (Message #131)
I fail to see your position clearly. I can't even figure out what you support and what you oppose. You seem to acknowledge that harm exists in creating child pornography. Yet you talk about the right to view child pornography. What is it, you support the existence of computer-generated material but not the footage or photographs of the real thing?
And when you say the right to view child pornography, what does that mean? As I said before, as far as I am concerned, child pornography is not different from snuff films. We ban snuff films because they capture illegal acts. The standard here is that we ban the record of the illegal acts as well as the acts themselves. Whether it's good law to ban the record is a matter of feasibility and enforcement, probably. I'm not sure.
134. Pseudoerasmus - July 8, 1997 - 11:27 PM PST
Hahaha.
I just stumbled across a gigantesque pile - a zillion pages - of old printouts of the Fray. By accident, I came across a few remarks by one MJN Elliot, who on November 4, 1996 said in post #178 of the Bill of Rights thread:
"Perhaps the best test of whether an alleged right truly is a right is how many people consider it to be one, and how strongly they hold that belief."
That's really not too different from what I'm arguing. My personal preference and that of the vast majority of the people in the world is that child pornography should not be permitted. Whether this preference constitutes a sound basis for banning pornography is irrelevant. The legal principle is fashioned to suit the preference.
135. bomboo - July 9, 1997 - 3:36 PM PST
bombolurina
Pseudoerasmus - FYI
Yesterday you posted an ignorant comment about native Americans that could easily be construed as racist, and probably will be if you elaborate your point. You may never meet a native American, but again, you may be conducting important business with one without knowning you are. A lot of half-breeds look and act just like white people. You may make someone determined to hurt you without ever realizing you have.
The problem with saying that you dislike native American "mysticism", or religion, is that you are saying you dislike native Americans. Religion isn't part of native American culture, religion is native American culture. Every single act in a native American's life is a religious act. You may not understand that, or believe it, but it's true. (Take another look at those awful poems.) A native American you are speaking to may never have said a word you've heard about religion, yet be deeply offended by your casual racism against his culture and his family when you deride their beliefs.
136. KurtMondaugen - July 9, 1997 - 3:44 PM PST
and this coming from the person who would walk up to a Sikh and ask "Why do you have that thingy on your head?"
137. bomboo - July 9, 1997 - 4:07 PM PST
Well, OK, but I am curious about the head-thingy. They seem to have a little "under thingy" under the thingy, also, that you see Sikh guys wearing when they are out mowing the lawn on Saturday. They look kind of Muslim, but they buy lots of alcohol.
138. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 4:28 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "You seem to acknowledge that harm exists in creating child pornography. Yet you talk about the right to view child pornography."
Right. Is it really so hard to understand the difference between doing something harmful and viewing a record of that act? I don't believe there is a right to rob a 7-Eleven. I do believe there is a right to view a videotape of a 7-Eleven robbery. See the difference?
"What is it, you support the existence of computer-generated material but not the footage or photographs of the real thing?"
I don't know what you mean by "support the existence." I think there is a free speech right to view any kind of material about anything. If the government is going to abridge that right, it must have a compelling reason. I do not see such a reason in the case of child pornography. I find child porn (as I understand it--not "The Tin Drum," etc.) utterly repugnant. But I find lots of things utterly repugnant. I don't believe that simple repugnance justifies a free speech ban, no matter how strongly it is felt.
"We ban snuff films because they capture illegal acts. The standard here is that we ban the record of the illegal acts as well as the acts themselves."
But we don't apply that standard consistently. There are lots of records of illegal acts that we don't ban. If we don't ban, say, "Real Stories of the Highway Patrol," why should we ban snuff films? Is there a good reason? As far as I can tell, there isn't a good reason. Can you give me one?
139. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 4:29 PM PST
Bomba
Well, I can't help it. Not only can I not interest myself in anything 'Native American' (in the North American sense), I positively dislike anything to do with its culture, especially the mysticism.
I see, those Sikhs 'kind of' looked Muslim, eh? The remark certainly doesn't qualify as racist, but it's certainly stupid and ignorant. Please tell me exactly how a Muslim is supposed to look. Is it anything like the way Jews are supposed to have certain 'Jewish looks'? Do Christians look like anything in particular?
140. KurtMondaugen - July 9, 1997 - 4:33 PM PST
Bombo: Just so's you know, the 'thingy' on their heads is called a Dastar. It is a symbol of dignity for Khalsa (devout) Sikh men (it is mandatory for men, optional for women) and is worn as one of the physical articles of faith (such as the Kirpan, Kesh, etc.). Guru Gobind Singh transformed the cultural symbol into a religious requirement. It differentiates Sikhs from other religious followers who keep long hair (Kesh) but wear caps or keep matted hair. It cannot be covered by other headgear or replaced by a cap or a hat.
141. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 4:44 PM PST
Elliot (Message #138)
"Right. Is it really so hard to understand the difference between doing something harmful and viewing a record of that act?"
No, now that you've clearly stated your position. So you are saying, essentially, ban the acts but not the record of the acts. Well, as far as I'm concerned, banning the record of the acts in addition to the acts themselves is a matter of practical enforcement, because doing the one but not the other would be like outlawing the production of certain drugs but not the consumption of them. Or like saying it's illegal to kill elephants to get at their ivory, but if you've already done it, well, what the hell, it's OK, the ivory is perfectly legal. One side of the ban / policy works against the other.
" 'We ban snuff films because they capture illegal acts. The standard here is that we ban the record of the illegal acts as well as the acts themselves.' --- But we don't apply that standard consistently."
You may be right. But consistency doesn't interest me too much. I say that child pornography could be banned under the same standard as that under which snuff films are banned. That's all.
"There are lots of records of illegal acts that we don't ban. If we don't ban, say, 'Real Stories of the Highway Patrol', why should we ban snuff films? Is there a good reason? As far as I can tell, there isn't a good reason. Can you give me one?"
I might be able to give you one as soon as you tell me what 'Real Stories of the Highway Patrol' is and what happens in it, or if you give me an example I would know about. But if this is some kind of documentary or news footage, like that of carnage in Bosnia or Rwanda, I think the difference is obvious to everyone and I mentioned it earlier.
142. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 5:09 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "Well, as far as I'm concerned, banning the record of the acts in addition to the acts themselves is a matter of practical enforcement, because doing the one but not the other would be like outlawing the production of certain drugs but not the consumption of them."
You can't be serious. The differences are obvious. We ban the consumption of illegal drugs because we have determined that that activity is demonstrably harmful to the individual and the community. But we don't ban pictures of people taking illegal drugs. So why should we ban child porn, even though the production of child porn is demonstrably harmful? You keep avoiding this fundamental question.
"I say that child pornography could be banned under the same standard as that under which snuff films are banned."
But what is the justification for the standard in either case? And if we ban child porn and snuff films, why shouldn't we also ban pictures and movies showing other harmful things?
"But if this is some kind of documentary or news footage, like that of carnage in Bosnia or Rwanda, I think the difference is obvious to everyone and I mentioned it earlier."
What are the differences? That child porn is initiated by the pornographer but a Bosnia documentary showing people being blown to bits is just a record of an event that was not caused by the filmmaker? If that's the justification for banning one and permitting the other, you should have no problem with, say, a piece of investigative television journalism that shows the production of a child porn movie in graphic detail. Would you ban that, too? What about someone who accidently sees and then tapes his neighbor molesting a child? Isn't that just like someone with a video camera in Bosnia taping what they see? Why should one be banned and not the other?
143. 21349mcla - July 9, 1997 - 5:19 PM PST
Viewing child pornography or snuff films encourages the producer to make such things. The viewer is usually the end financer of the act and its representation.
144. bomboo - July 9, 1997 - 6:01 PM PST
Re: Pseudoerasmus Message #139
Thanks. An admitted and straighforward racist is a lot easier to deal with. I do hope you get a chance to screw yourself badly with your narrow mindedness about American Indians. I wish I could be there when it happens.
(Sikhs look "kind of Muslim" to me be because of their clothing, particulary women's clothing. I was just making friendly conversation with the comment, and inviting anyone with particular knowledge of Sikh culture to join in. That's not close to as stupid as your small-minded hatefullness.)
145. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 6:02 PM PST
Elliot (Message #142)
"You can't be serious. The differences are obvious. We ban the consumption of illegal drugs because we have determined that that activity is demonstrably harmful to the individual and the community."
Yes, I agree, but you are not faithful to the analogy I was making. I was not likening the rationale for banning the consumption of drugs to the rationale for banning [the consumption of] child pornography. What I was arguing was that decoupling the consumption side from the production side would have the practical effect of undermining the ban on production. As MCLA says in Message #143, the consumer finances the producer. But the drugs analogy was a poor choice, too full of connotations unrelated to our issue. It obviously confused a hypertrophied mind such as yourself. But there remains the fairly pristine analogy of ivory. The consumption of ivory carvings in itself is not awful -- no one is harmed. Nonetheless, permitting the consumption of ivory carvings very much encourages their production. So we ban not only the production of ivory (if it involves killing elephants) and the consumption of (ill-gotten) ivory.
"But we don't ban pictures of people taking illegal drugs."
Are you being willfully obtuse?
"What are the differences between [child pron and footage of carnage in Bosnia]? That child porn is initiated by the pornographer but a Bosnia documentary showing people being blown to bits is just a record of an event that was not caused by the filmmaker?"
Yes. There is a vast difference. The filmmaker is in essence a disinterested observer.
146. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 6:03 PM PST
Elliot (continued)
"If that's the justification for banning one and permitting the other, you should have no problem with, say, a piece of investigative television journalism that shows the production of a child porn movie in graphic detail."
Technically, no, but this isn't a pristine example, because other considerations come into play. The reporter would be required by law to report the crime, although he is not obliged to stop it. And, under current law, his television station is not free to air the footage uncensored.
147. kaptnkaos - July 9, 1997 - 6:34 PM PST
elliot803
"Right. Is it really so hard to understand the difference between doing something harmful and viewing a record of that act? I don't believe there is a right to rob a 7-Eleven. I do believe there is a right to view a videotape of a 7-Eleven robbery. See the difference?"
This is the silliest thing I've seen you post. If there were suddenly a strong enough market demand for real, live 7-11 robbery videos, and the conditions for production were controllable enough for the producers to assure delivery of product, then a penchant for viewing 7-11 robbery videos might indeed give impetus to the production of more such videos. This might theoretically lead to more 7-11 robberies. As it is, the videos are a dispassionate document, just like a news photo. There is no direct relationship between production and viewer demand. The cameras are set up so that any crime committed will be captured on tape, but no one's encouraging a crime to take place (and hopefully, the presence of the cameras works as a *deterrent* to crime, not as an incentive).
Child pornographers, on the other hand, produce their wares under more or less controlled circumstances for the explicit purpose of selling the "document" of the act. So there is a direct relationship between viewer demand and the production process.
Do you not see this, or are you just being deliberately provocative?
148. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 6:50 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: " What I was arguing was that decoupling the consumption side from the production side would have the practical effect of undermining the ban on production. As MCLA says in Message #143, the consumer finances the producer."
But you would allow "fake" child porn that, as I pointed out, can be indistinguishable from the real thing. Why would allowing this kind of material not undermine the ban on production of real child porn just as much as allowing the real stuff? As for financial incentives, if this is a substantive reason for a ban, then since it doesn't apply to child porn that is produced at the expense of the pornographer and distributed freely, it cannot be a reason for banning such material. In any case, your arguments can be made with respect to other kinds of repugnant images that we do not ban. If it's okay to ban child porn because allowing such material undermines the ban on producing it, why is it not also okay to ban violent adult images, sexual or otherwise? If this stuff is allowed, and people are willing to pay for it, doesn't this encourage its production?
You rely upon slender, and arguably non-existent, differences between child porn and other types of freely-available material to justify your position of a blanket ban. If child porn were legal, and if legalizing it really did encourage people to produce it and thus to abuse children, would this really create a bigger problem than, say, all the thousands of images of graphic violence to which everyone is exposed in our culture, and which are perfectly legal? I don't think so. In any case, I think the burden rests with the advocate of a ban to establish the link, and I don't see that this has been done.
149. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 7:07 PM PST
kaptnkaos: "Child pornographers, on the other hand, produce their wares under more or less controlled circumstances for the explicit purpose of selling the "document" of the act. So there is a direct relationship between viewer demand and the production process."
Let's say we have a bunch of kiddie porn pictures: one is an original photo of a sexual act involving a minor. Another is an extremely good copy of that image. A third picture is a photorealistic composite of the same kind of act, but it's fictional, not a depiction of an actual event. Another picture is a good artist's charcoal figure drawing produced from the first photo. The first three images are all so lifelike that most people would not be able to tell that any of them are "fake." The fourth image is not photorealistic, but it does depict an actual act of child molestation. All are created entirely at the producer's expense and given away for free.
Which of these do you think should be banned, and why?
150. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 7:16 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "The reporter would be required by law to report the crime, although he is not obliged to stop it. And, under current law, his television station is not free to air the footage uncensored."
Fine. The reporter reports the crime as required by law. His TV station cannot show the tape under current law. Should his videotape be banned? If your answer is yes, why shouldn't videotapes showing other kinds of severe abuse or violence or exploitation also be banned? If your answer is no, why shouldn't other videotapes of child porn be allowed?
151. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 8:09 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #148)
"But you would allow 'fake' child porn that, as I pointed out, can be indistinguishable from the real thing. Why would allowing this kind of material not undermine the ban on production of real child porn just as much as allowing the real stuff?"
It may, but I don't know. That's an empirical question. If the availability of fake child porn did in fact undermine the ban on production of real child porn, then we might have to ban the fake kind too. If it didn't, then we wouldn't have to ban the fake stuff.
Some irrelevant theoretical speculation: The degree of substitutability of the fake stuff for the real stuff must be an important variable in whether the production of the former would undermine the ban on the production of the latter. If the fake stuff were to be truly indistinguishable (I really doubt this) from the real stuff, why would there be much production of the real stuff? Another important variable would be the legal consequences. If the penalty for producing the real stuff were severe enough, AND if the fake stuff were indistinguishable from the real stuff, why should anyone go through the bother and the risk of making the real stuff? Of course, I've ignored cost completely as a variable, which further complicates the theoretical picture. If the cost of producing the fake stuff were cheaper, there would be even less reason to produce the real stuff. But again, the combined effect of these variables is impossible to gauge theoretically. That's why I said it's an empirical question.
152. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 8:10 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #148)
[continued]
"As for financial incentives, if this is a substantive reason for a ban, then since it doesn't apply to child porn that is produced at the expense of the pornographer and distributed freely, it cannot be a reason for banning such material."
No, but it's not strictly a question of financial incentive. It's a question of demand (or, more accurately from an economic point of view, consumption). If it exists, there would be supply. So you crush the demand.
"In any case, your arguments can be made with respect to other kinds of repugnant images that we do not ban. If it's okay to ban child porn because allowing such material undermines the ban on producing it, why is it not also okay to ban violent adult images, sexual or otherwise? If this stuff is allowed, and people are willing to pay for it, doesn't this encourage its production?"
Sure. It's because people buy adult porn that adult porn is supplied at all. So what? There is nothing wrong with 'violent adult images' per se. Can't you see the difference between snuff films and the movie Robocop? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
153. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 8:11 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #148)
[continued]
"If child porn were legal, and if legalizing it really did encourage people to produce it and thus to abuse children, would this really create a bigger problem than, say, all the thousands of images of graphic violence to which everyone is exposed in our culture, and which are perfectly legal?"
I don't understand the question. What is your point about these thousands of images of graphic violence? I think the free and legal availability of real child pornography would create more problems than, say, the movie Robocop. Children must have been abused for the former to exist. Nothing serious has happened just because the latter exists.
"I don't think so. In any case, I think the burden rests with the advocate of a ban to establish the link, and I don't see that this has been done."
Hahahaha. You're lucky that there is actually someone like me to entertain your silly arguments. Most people would just laugh and dismiss you.
"Should [the reporter's] videotape be banned?"
Well, I think the TV station has the right to own it as a matter of record, but any commercial distribution of it should be prohibited. Why? For the same reason as before: it would undermine the ban on production. I'm sure there must be other goods reason, like privacy, but I can't think of any off-hand.
154. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 8:11 PM PST
kaptnkaos: "This is the silliest thing I've seen you post. If there were suddenly a strong enough market demand for real, live 7-11 robbery videos, ..."
This is what's known as taking a statement out of context. As I discovered some time ago, you seem completely incapable of following even the most elementary argument or reasoning. The point of the example, as you would know if you had taken the time to read and think about the post more carefully, is that we already make distinctions in law between illegal acts and legal visual records of those acts, not to argue that there's a commercial market for videotapes of convenience store robberies. So the simple fact that producing child porn is and should be illegal is not a justification for banning it once it has been created.
155. 21349mcla - July 9, 1997 - 8:14 PM PST
Let's all spend the night reading LOLITA. I see no harm in that.
156. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 8:35 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "It may, but I don't know. That's an empirical question. If the availability of fake child porn did in fact undermine the ban on production of real child porn, then we might have to ban the fake kind too. If it didn't, then we wouldn't have to ban the fake stuff."
But unless you have some reasonable estimate of the effect of legal fake kiddie porn on the production of real kiddie porn, then if you're going to ban the real stuff because allowing it fosters production, why not ban the fake stuff too? Conversely, if you allow the fake material, why not also allow the real stuff? I suspect you have no reasonable basis for making any claims about the effect the legal availability of either fake or real kiddie porn has on the actual incidence of child sexual abuse, compared with a ban on each type of material. And of course, there is the problem of distinguishing between them. Is that actor really 12 years old, or is he a very young looking 18 year old? Is that a real photo of an actual event, or was it fabricated on a PC with a graphics program? You seem to dismiss the issue of enforcement as a trivial aside, but it's central to the rationality and justice of any law.
157. 21349mcla - July 9, 1997 - 8:43 PM PST
Both Traci Lords and Shana McCollough (SP?) made dozens of pornographic films looking very young. No legal action resulted, but the moment it became known that both were underage their films disappeared from every porno movie rental store in America. As far as I know, that happened in both cases without anyone being indicted. (Correct me if I am wrong on this, anyone.)
158. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 8:50 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "No, but it's not strictly a question of financial incentive. It's a question of demand (or, more accurately from an economic point of view, consumption). If it exists, there would be supply. So you crush the demand."
Has criminalizing the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs crushed the demand for them? Did Prohibition crush the demand for alcohol? You have an unrealistic view of the impact of law on human behavior. Perhaps legalizing child porn that has already been produced, and giving it wider circulation, would reduce the demand for new material.
" Can't you see the difference between snuff films and the movie Robocop? Are you being deliberately obtuse?"
No. Are you? If snuff films were legal, how many more actual homicides would that legalization cause? Suppose all violent TV shows, movies, books, video games, etc. were banned. How much would that reduce violence compared to current levels? What level of reduction would be necessary to justify the ban? And how does that compare to the level of reduction in homicides that is produced by banning snuff movies?
Don't you think we should have some kind of reasonable basis for making claims about the effect on violent behavior before banning anything?
159. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 9:00 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: " I think the free and legal availability of real child pornography would create more problems than, say, the movie Robocop. Children must have been abused for the former to exist. Nothing serious has happened just because the latter exists."
Yes, I agree that the free and legal availability of real child porn would create more problems than a single violent movie. But it's far from clear to me that the legalization of kiddie porn would create more violence and exploitation and suffering of children than is caused by the huge mass of violent images that pervade our culture and that are already perfectly legal. Surely America's astronomical rates of violent crime have at least some link to the pervasiveness of violence in American popular culture. I think most people probably believe this, but I also think they would be very hesitant to ban all violent entertainment. And yes, a child must have been abused for real child porn to exist, but the legalization of child pornography itself does not cause anyone to be abused.
160. 21349mcla - July 9, 1997 - 9:12 PM PST
Hell, let's decriminalize murder. After all, it has been illegal for centuries, and people still murder.
161. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 9:12 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "Well, I think the TV station has the right to own it as a matter of record, but any commercial distribution of it should be prohibited. Why? For the same reason as before: it would undermine the ban on production. I'm sure there must be other goods reason, like privacy, but I can't think of any off-hand."
If the TV station has the right to own a tape containing scenes of child pornography, why doesn't any other private citizen or organization have right to own similar material? You're against commercial distribution, but what if the TV station--whose right to own the material you just acknowledged--decided to duplicate and distribute the tape free of charge? See my earlier posts for comments on your argument about undermining the ban on production.
162. elliot803 - July 9, 1997 - 9:17 PM PST
21349mcla: "Hell, let's decriminalize murder. After all, it has been illegal for centuries, and people still murder."
Hell, let's ban pictures of murder. After all, murder is wrong, just like molesting children is wrong, so we should ban images of both of them.
163. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 10:02 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #156)
"But unless you have some reasonable estimate of the effect of legal fake kiddie porn on the production of real kiddie porn, then if you're going to ban the real stuff because allowing it fosters production, why not ban the fake stuff too?"
Having no reasonable estimate simply denotes the lack of full information. For me, it's really neither here nor there if the fake stuff were banned too, but as I said, if someone could show that the fake stuff wouldn't undermine the ban on the real stuff, I would be for making the fake stuff available.
Nonetheless, I think, given a well structured ban on the real stuff, the undermining needn't happen. Again, if the fake stuff were indistinguishable from the real stuff, if the penalty for making the real stuff were severe and if the fake stuff were cheaper to make than the real stuff, why shouldn't the production of real stuff decline anyway?
By the way, in your opinion, must the existence of a legal ersatz contribute to the production of the illegal real thing? Would fake ivory increase the demand for real ivory? I don't know, but I doubt it.
164. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 10:05 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #156) [continued]
"Conversely, if you allow the fake material, why not also allow the real stuff? I suspect you have no reasonable basis for making any claims about the effect the legal availability of either fake or real kiddie porn has on the actual incidence of child sexual abuse, compared with a ban on each type of material."
I don't know what would be a reasonable basis. I don't have any empirical evidence, if that's what you mean. But I've already given you a standard: if the availability of the fake stuff undermines the ban on the real stuff, then go ahead and ban the fake stuff. If not, then don't ban. The decision depends on the empirical evidence.
But I thought the effect the legal availability of real kiddie porn would have on the incidence of child sexual abuse was rather obvious. How else do you produce the real stuff without producing incidence of child sexual abuse?
"there is the problem of distinguishing between them. Is that actor really 12 years old, or is he a very young looking 18 year old?...You seem to dismiss the issue of enforcement as a trivial aside..."
No, I don't dismiss the issue of enforcement -- I thought that's what I had been belabouring. All the same, there was an actual case involving the problem of distinguishing between real and fake. Do you recall the pseudo-documentary fiction film Kids? I -- as well as many others, including the NY district attorney's office -- found it difficult to believe that the actors were of legal age to enact the scenes contained in the film. So the NY DA's office investigated, and apparently everybody checked out. If there is ever a problem of distinguishing real and fake, then each such case could be treated ad hoc. On whom the burden proof should lie, I don't really care. I prefer that it be on the producer of the allegedly fake article.
165. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 10:09 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #158)
"Has criminalizing the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs crushed the demand for them? You have an unrealistic view of the impact of law on human behavior.
This is not exactly an apt comparison. Everything is different the one from the other. The sheer volume of transactions. The cost & benefit structure of criminalisation of each 'industry'. The fact that, whereas the consumption of child porn is illegalised in order to help kill the production side, it's the reverse with drugs - you illegalise production in order to help kill consumption. The harms are also difficult to compare. The consumers must also differ in kind.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. I support a limited, highly regulated legalisation of most currently illegal drugs. But I must stress that the reason I support legalising the one but oppose the other has nothing to do with principle -- it's got to do with practical effects.
"Perhaps legalizing child porn that has already been produced, and giving it wider circulation, would reduce the demand for new material."
Yes, it might. So, if you could show that legalising child porn that has already been produced would reduce the demand for new material (i.e., fewer new material would be produced), then I would support lifting the ban. That would be what a rational utilitarian like me would abide by.
But I can't imagine why legalisation should result in lower demand for new material. Hundreds of new, cheap adult porn titles are produced every year, despite the free and legal availability of the old stuff. Why should child pornography be any different? Because the acts underlying it would remain illegal? I don't see how, all else equal, merely legalising consumption of the real stuff could reduce demand for it.
166. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 10:11 PM PST
Elliot803 (Re: Message #158)
"Suppose all violent TV shows, movies, books, video games, etc. were banned. How much would that reduce violence compared to current levels?"
I don't think you appreciate my arguments at all. I don't allege that snuff films influence people to commit violent acts. I certainly don't believe that violent movies and TV shows cause people to be more violent. By simple presupposition, I believe that the violence in the media reflect the violence rather than cause it. (Or maybe imaginary violence in the media fulfills people's savage appetites in the same way bear-baiting, cock-fighting or gladiatorial combat used to, and it may even prevent actual violence!)
"If snuff films were legal, how many more actual homicides would that legalization cause?"
The number of homicides prevented by a ban on snuff films would be directly proportional to the number of new snuff film production prevented. Isn't that obvious? If you are talking about preexisting snuff films, then see above.
Re: Message #159 Much of this post is irrelevant, since you are arguing against a phantom. I have never argued that the availability of child pornography would induce more people to abuse children outside the context of making more kiddie porn. The same with snuff films.
"...but the legalization of child pornography itself does not cause anyone to be abused."
I agree that preexisting kiddie porn or snuff films can't really harm anyone. But this takes us back to the question of banning consumption in order to help kill production.
167. kaptnkaos - July 9, 1997 - 10:15 PM PST
re: Message #154 elliot803
Forgive my inability to follow a simple argument. It must be due to all those beatings I took from my first wife.
Take away the demand, and you take away the incentive to produce and distribute child porn, or even distribute existing child porn, regardless of whether it is distributed for free or at a price. Your argument about the forms of representation in the matter that's distributed is irrelevant, because if you allow any one to exist you risk legitimizing the demand for production, which in turn means that children will be exploited.
Your comparison of child porn with violent films is ridiculous. The point is not the impact on the audience (I gave up Hollywood in part because of my dismay over the violence), but the link between demand, production, and distribution. Actors in a movie consent to depicting violent acts in ways that pose very little if any risk of real harm to them. What's more, their likenesses are then licensed for distribution, even when released only for publicity purposes. A child whose image is exploited for porn has no such authority over the use of his/her image, nor is the child able to consent to the depiction of the act.
What's more interesting is to explore the implications of depictions of child molestation in artistically valid films, such as the scene which takes place at the end of Jiri Menzel's "Skylarks on a String". Should reproductions of this scene be banned as kiddie porn? I don't know the answer to that. But alas, I'm quite tired now, and perhaps we can pick this up tomorrow.
168. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 10:17 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #161)
"If the TV station has the right to own a tape containing scenes of child pornography, why doesn't any other private citizen or organization have right to own similar material?"
Because the TV news station is deemed to have made the footage in the compelling public interest - in order to expose illegal acts. If a private citizen in the mode of vigilante did something similar, perhaps he could be allowed to keep the video as well - as a matter of record. I don't know.
"You're against commercial distribution, but what if the TV station--whose right to own the material you just acknowledged--decided to duplicate and distribute the tape free of charge?"
OK, I would oppose any distribution, or perhaps unregulated distribution. For example, if the authorities required that copies of the tape be made and distributed in order provide evidence or to educate a DA's task force in child pornography, then I suppose that would be allowed.
169. Pseudoerasmus - July 9, 1997 - 10:27 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #149)
1) "...an original photo of a sexual act involving a minor."
Banned, in order to maintain the integrity of the ban on production.
2) "Another is an extremely good copy of that image."
Banned, under the same principle as above. A grainy black-and-white photocopy of the original image, as long as the images are minimally discernable, would also be banned.
3) "...a photorealistic composite of the same kind of act, but it's fictional, not a depiction of an actual event."
May or may not be banned, depending on whether fakes undermine the integrity of the ban on the real stuff.
4) "Another picture is a good artist's charcoal figure drawing produced from the first photo."
The picture would not be banned, but the artist would be prosecuted for owning the first photo.
170. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 9:59 AM PST
Pseudoerasmus: So, if I can distill your position, it is as follows: You would ban all real child porn and all copies, even bad ones, of real child porn photos, tapes, etc. Your justification is that allowing this material would "undermine the ban on producing it," i.e., allowing real child porn to be legally available will cause more children to be sexually abused than would be the case under a ban.
By this reasoning, if allowing graphic violence in TV, movies, video games, etc. increases the rate of violence in our society, then a ban on all images of graphic violence in our popular culture is justified. Does this seem reasonable to you? You claim that there is no causal connection at all between exposure to violent images and acts of violence. If I presented empirical evidence that this connection does in fact exist, would you then advocate a ban on violence in popular culture? If the argument you make regarding child porn is sincere, I don't see how you could do otherwise.
171. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 10:16 AM PST
Re:#169 (Pseudoerasmus): This is another area where your argument leads to absurdities: You would ban a grainy black-and-white copy of a photograph of an actual act of child sexual abuse on the grounds that allowing such an image undermines the ban on child molestation, without any hard evidence to support that claim. But you would not ban a glossy, photorealistic, fake image of the same kind of act, indistinguishable from the real thing, unless you had hard evidence that it undermines the ban. Again, does that really seem reasonable to you? Why would allowing a poor quality copy of a photo of a real criminal act undermine the ban on that act more than allowing a fake, but highly realistic, image of the same thing? If the fake high-quality image looked more like the real thing than the real poor-quality image, then applying your argument, surely it is the fake that should be banned, not the real thing.
172. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 10:30 AM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "Re: Message #159 Much of this post is irrelevant, since you are arguing against a phantom. I have never argued that the availability of child pornography would induce more people to abuse children outside the context of making more kiddie porn. The same with snuff films."
Yes, I know that. But your argument is that allowing child porn fosters the production of child porn which involves harm to children, so in the interests of preventing harm to children child porn should be banned. Again, why does argument not also apply to images of graphic violence? You say there is no link between violent images and violent acts. I think the overwhelming majority of people would disagree. Don't we restrict the availability of violent images to kids, in part at least, because we feel they may desensitize kids to real acts of violence, because we're worried that kids might act out the things they see on the movie or TV screen? And if that effect exists for kids, surely it is not completely absent from the adult population.
173. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 10:47 AM PST
kaptnkaos: "Your comparison of child porn with violent films is ridiculous. The point is not the impact on the audience (I gave up Hollywood in part because of my dismay over the violence), but the link between demand, production, and distribution."
But this argument makes no sense. Why do you want to prevent the production of child porn? Because it causes *harm*. So the real issue is the link between allowing certain visual material and harm. So if allowing violent images causes as much or more additional harm as allowing child porn, then if a ban on child porn is justified because of the harm that is caused by not banning it, why isn't a ban on violent images justified for the same reason? I think you need to examine your motives more carefully.
174. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 11:16 AM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "If there is ever a problem of distinguishing real and fake, then each such case could be treated as ad hoc. On whom the burden proof should lie, I don't really care. I prefer that it be on the producer of the allegedly fake article."
I fail to see how this addresses the problem. If it's difficult or impossible to reliably distinguish between fake and real child porn, then it's going to be difficult or impossible to reliably enforce a law that bans real porn but not fake porn. Some producers of the real stuff will go free, while some producers of the fake stuff will be prosecuted. That is a miscarriage of justice. It causes harm. That harm must be weighed against the benefits, if any, of the law. You offer no substantive basis for the claim that the benefits are greater than the costs.
175. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 11:39 AM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "But I can't imagine why legalisation should result in lower demand for new material. Hundreds of new, cheap adult porn titles are produced every year, despite the free and legal availability of the old stuff. Why should child pornography be any different? Because the acts underlying it would remain illegal? I don't see how, all else equal, merely legalising consumption of the real stuff could reduce demand for it."
I think it is quite plausible to believe that if child porn were legal, it could be more widely distributed, so consumers would have more material available to them than they do now, so there would be less pressure to create new material.
Similarly, if adult porn were illegal, and each movie, magazine, etc., received a much smaller distribution than it does now, it seems highly plausible to me that this would cause an increase in production. I don't believe that criminalizing it would do much to reduce demand, but it would reduce the distribution of each piece of material, so more material would be necessary to satisfy the demand.
I'm not saying this is certain; I'm saying that it's plausible. It's plausible that banning child porn actually causes more of it to be produced than would otherwise be the case. So again, if our committment to free speech means that no kind of material should be banned without a compelling reason, I don't see how a ban on child porn can be justified in the absence of solid evidence that allowing it actually does increase production.
177. FreeToChoose - July 10, 1997 - 12:24 PM PST
In Message #172 elliot803 states:
> But your argument is that allowing child porn
> fosters the production of child porn which involves
> harm to children, so in the interests of preventing
> harm to children child porn should be banned
> Again, why does argument not also apply to
> images of graphic violence?
I read the exchanges between you and PE, and I marvel that you are not able to follow PE's clear and well-stated point. I frankly don't know how to say it any clearer, but I will try.
Here's a hint. When Arnold Schwarzenegger shoots someone in a movie, the other person doesn't ACTUALLY die! I predict you will tell me that you know this, but your posts only make sense if we presume you are unaware of this fact.
Argue as long as you want whether the DEPICTION of violence in films causes more or less real-life violence, but this is NOT the issue. The violence IN the films doesn't really occur (with the important exception of snuff films) Similarly, the issue with child porn films is NOT whether it induces others to do anything, but the actual acts in the film.
One more prediction. I predict you STILL won't understand.
178. FreeToChoose - July 10, 1997 - 12:42 PM PST
In Message #176 JadeGold points us to an article purportedly written by Gore Vidal.
I, for one, thank-you for including this link. While reading this article was quite depressing, it helps me understand why regular readers of The Nation are so screwed up.
It is tempting to comment on the article itself, but there are so many absurd statements in it, I hardly know where to start.
BTW, I used the term "purportedly", because I am holding out the hope that Vidal is the victim of a cruel hoax. Perhaps this vituperation was penned by someone who hates him. If, in fact, he did write it, then I feel sorry for him. I had no idea he had sunk so low.
179. JadeGold - July 10, 1997 - 12:52 PM PST
Message #178 As usual, FTC, you are incorrect. Vidal hiits the nail on the head: there is a movement in this country to establish a theocracy. And, quite plainly, the Repugs are spearheading this effort. You cannot deny the evidence. Witness the Repug Presidential Campaign, each candidate virtually ran each and every press release through the Coathanger Coalition. Note the naked attempts of the Repugs to blur and eliminate the separation of church and state.
And the WSJ is the hymnal of this new theocracy.
180. BettyV - July 10, 1997 - 1:06 PM PST
Elliot803-
I think you are making an ass of yourself. Listen tiddley-wink brain; Raping, kidnapping, and murdering children are all illegal acts. All child porn films are made utilizing these uhhh...techniques. These children are being tortured specifically for the production of such films. Consequently, the production of such films are illegal and are inexcusable. People are not actually being murdered in a movie which graphically depicts violence and death. There is the difference.
Again, my offer to put you in contact with women who have been raped in Kiddie porn movies still stands. perhaps you would like to explain to those people how their rape and torment was allowable under freedom of speech.
Your arguement is based in theroretical belief that everything is permissable. it is when we are dealing with consenting individuals, however we are not. Your arguement is devoid of any logic and any reasoning. If you are really this stupid we need to shoot you for the good of humanity.
181. KurtMondaugen - July 10, 1997 - 1:12 PM PST
BV: I agree w/ the crux of your post, with one small clarification. Your statement that 'all' child porn films involve the rape, kidnapping, and murder of children is more than likely somewhat inaccurate. Though some, I would imagine, do on occasion, it's my guess that the majority of the films and publications are more of the standard 'exploitative' variety (not that this reduces their degree of criminality or reprehensibility any). Carry on.
182. BettyV - July 10, 1997 - 1:16 PM PST
Mon-
actually, when i say child porn, i mean PORN. I mean, well, i think you understand...i'm not talking some guy took pictures of a naked little girl, i'm talking stuff that can't be mistaken for art or innocent.
183. BettyV - July 10, 1997 - 1:17 PM PST
i am also talking kids...no sexual development
184. KurtMondaugen - July 10, 1997 - 1:18 PM PST
BV: I understand that when you said porn you meant porn (and I would say those 'pictures' that some guy took of a naked little girl would fall into the porn category, were he to distribute them). Again, 'all' porn does not involve rape, kidnapping, and murder. Though, I'll agree that none of it is entirely 'innocent' either.
185. BettyV - July 10, 1997 - 1:31 PM PST
Mon-
(re: pictures some guy took) well then we get into the issue of the picture that i keep of my little brother peeing (when he was about 2 or 3 yrs. old) as being porn. look if he didn't lay a hand on the kid, i don't care...touch the kid in a sexual way and that's rape in my book.
(maybe i'm a bit reactionary on this subject but there is no excuse for adults exploiting children, most especially not sexually. If you get turned on by it, if you can't control it, do society a favor and kill yourself.)
regarding your comments about Jodie Foster, the ad with the 8 yr. old Marilyn...I totally agree, that is kiddie porn. it is sexualizing the image of a child. it's gross, disgusting, and indefensible. Assigning adult qualities to children that young is reprehensible. I really can't deal with the objectification of children. It's gross, unfortunately, it is more accepted if they keep their clothes on.
186. KurtMondaugen - July 10, 1997 - 1:42 PM PST
BV: Obviously the picture you have of your brother does not fall into either the exploitative or pornographic categories being discussed here. However, were someone to reproduce that picture and distribute it w/ for purposes of arousal, that would be a different story. Also, there are certain certain periodicals that are unfortunately rather available through various private publishing houses which feature either no pictures or photographs (or, if they do, they are co-opted from the mass-media images like the ones I've mentioned and that you refer to), but only fictional texts outlining various sadistic pederastic fantasies. These are distributed for purposes of arousal, as well, and I would argue that they fall under the category of child pornography, just as much as an photograph or film would. I agree wholeheardetly that there is no excuse for adults exploiting children in any context (as I stated in MSG 109). Elliot803 can quibble about what 'contitutes' child-pornography until he's blue, but he's completely missing the point.
187. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 1:50 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #170)
Your summary of my position ignores the various decision criteria I've incorporated into it ("if this, then that...." type of provisos). As I said, if someone could show that the decriminalisation of the visual record -- as opposed to the acts that the visual record captures -- would actually depress demand for new visual records of those acts, then I would support it. But you would have to show that the availability of preexisting child pornography does not encourage the production of new child pornography. A tall order. And don't give me any shit about who has the burden of proof -- you do. Anyone who wants to change the status quo has that burden, especially when it doesn't occur to the overwhelming majority of people to even question that status quo.
"By this reasoning, if allowing graphic violence in TV, movies, video games, etc. increases the rate of violence in our society, then a ban on all images of graphic violence in our popular culture is justified."
You keep on making this strange extrapolation. As I have said over and over again, the harm of producing real child pornography is the production itself, for it must by definition involve the abuse of children. And the harm of permitting preexisting material is to undermine the integrity of the ban on production, i.e., the old material encourages the production of the new.
So I don't see how you make the leap from this to utter that the harm I outline above is comparable to the kind graphic violence in the media is supposed by many people to produce. I don't think viewing child pornography induces people to go out and molest children, just as I don't think TV violence makes people more violent. The harm of child pornography is *not* in any implicit incitement to action -- it's in the acts that are captured.
188. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 1:51 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #170) [continued]
"You claim that there is no causal connection at all between exposure to violent images and acts of violence. If I presented empirical evidence that this connection does in fact exist, would you then advocate a ban on violence in popular culture? If the argument you make regarding child porn is sincere, I don't see how you could do otherwise."
Well, I don't claim anything. I just doubt that there is a causal connection. But my opinion is always subject to change. If empirical evidence suggested that violent images in the media increased rates of violence in the country, then I think some regulation of such images would be justified but it only *might* be in order. Whether they should be regulated, and how much, and in what way, would depend on: 1) the magnitude of the effect in question; 2) how the effect comes about; 3) the costs of regulation versus its benefits; 4) who or what is affected; and 5) the feasibility and efficacy of these regulations.
189. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 1:53 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #171)
"You would ban a grainy black-and-white copy of a photograph of an actual act of child sexual abuse on the grounds that allowing such an image undermines the ban on child molestation, without any hard evidence to support that claim."
But as I keep on telling you, if you provided hard evidence against the claim, I would let that go.
"Why would allowing a poor quality copy of a photo of a real criminal act undermine the ban on that act more than allowing a fake, but highly realistic, image of the same thing?"
The presumption here -- reasonable or not, empirically true or not -- is that the free availability of the discernable copies of the real thing induces demand for the real thing. According to the same presumption, the fake stuff doesn't induce demand for the real thing. And I think the presumption is far from unreasonable in light of my reasoning in Message #163, which I repeat:
--- If the fake stuff were indistinguishable from the real stuff, if the penalty for making the real stuff were severe and if the fake stuff were cheaper to make than the real stuff, why shouldn't the production of real stuff decline anyway? ---
190. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 1:54 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #171)
[continued]
"But you would not ban a glossy, photorealistic, fake image of the same kind of act, indistinguishable from the real thing, unless you had hard evidence that it undermines the ban."
Well, maybe you misunderstood #3 of my Message #169. I don't know whether the law should really ban the fake stuff, only because I don't know whether the fake stuff undermines the ban on the real stuff. So, instead of saying what the law should do, I gave you a conditional statement, a decision criterion: if the undermining did exist, then the law should ban the fake stuff. My *assumption* is that the fake stuff doesn't undermine the ban on the real stuff.
191. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 2:01 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #171) [cont'd]
"If the fake high-quality image looked more like the real thing than the real poor-quality image, then applying your argument, surely it is the fake that should be banned, not the real thing."
Why? That would be true only if the fake must also induce additional demand for the real thing. Now, in economics, a good can have complements and substitutes. Left shoes and right shoes are complements: it's safe to assume that demand for the former moves in lockstep with the demand for the latter. On the other hand, the demand for a good falls (all else equal) if adequate substitutes for the good are available. How much demand is affected depends on the degree of substitutability of the good in question.
And you are telling me that your hypothetical fake child porn is indistinguishable from the real thing. So what you have here is a near perfect substitute. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that in the presence of near-perfect substitutes, the demand for the real stuff would fall (all things equal). If you were to argue that the presence of verisimilitudinous fakes introduced an element of uncertainty which might 'accidentally' induce extra demand for the real stuff, then you would, in reality, be speculating about the supply-side. And, unless producing real child porn has a major cost advantage over producing the fake kind (a variable which the penalty of law would affect), the supply of real child porn falls. But you might counter that the creation of life-fakes are an expensive business, involving Hollywood-type special effects, like morphing. If that's true, then the fakes wouldn't present such a large problem now, would they?
192. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 2:03 PM PST
Elliot803
Re: Message #171
conclusion of the post in Message #191.
Although I have no empirical evidence, I have a lot of sound a priori reasoning on my side. You, Elliot803, on the other hand, are whirling around an imaginary axis in hot pursuit of your own tail.
Re: Message #172 and Message #173)
These posts are once again not relevant. It is not pertinent to our discussion whether TV violence induces the audience to commit acts of violence. Simply because the standard for illegalising child pornography is not (or the set of standards....does not include) harm from incitement to action. The harm that I allege exists in child pornography is much less broad than the one you're trying to foist on me. So the pain of consistency you're trying to inflict here is logically fallacious.
193. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 2:06 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #174)
"If it's difficult or impossible to reliably distinguish between fake and real child porn, then it's going to be difficult or impossible to reliably enforce a law that bans real porn but not fake porn."
Well, this would all depend on how widespread and serious the problem of indistinguishability between real and fake might be. I doubt the problem is so great as to pose the enforcement conundrums you so eagerly fantasise about. Do you have any empirical evidence? But I'm not sure how great the problem can really ever be, given my theoretical speculations in the economics passages of my Message #191.
"Some producers of the real stuff will go free, while some producers of the fake stuff will be prosecuted. That is a miscarriage of justice."
Well, I don't see why the genuine cases of indistinguishability between real and fake -- which are bound to be few and to exist primarily on the margins -- could not be adjudicated ad hoc, in the manner I described with the film Kids.
"[The possible miscarriage of justice] causes harm. That harm must be weighed against the benefits, if any, of the law."
I agree, but for reasons already given, I don't think the miscarriage of justice would be greater than that caused by any law, including ones you presumably support.
"You offer no substantive basis for the claim that the benefits are greater than the costs."
If, by 'substantive basis', you mean empirical evidence, no, I haven't offered one. That's not my responsibility. But as I have said many times, given relevant empirical evidence, I would change my mind about anything.
194. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 2:09 PM PST
Elliot803 (Message #175)
This post merely contains a mindless assertion that something is plausible, rather than a sound argument that it is plausible.
"I think it is quite plausible to believe that if child porn were legal, it could be more widely distributed, so consumers would have more material available to them than they do now, so there would be less pressure to create new material."
This argument would be plausible only if the indirect and analogous empirical evidence about adult porn didn't work against it. You assume that consumers of child pornography would be forever content with a *fixed* supply of preexisting child porn. That is, prima facie, an unreasonable assumption; it becomes all the more unreasonable for the fact that hundreds of new adult porn titles are issued every year, despite the legality of adult porn.
"I don't believe that criminalizing it would do much to reduce demand, but it would reduce the distribution of each piece of material, so more material would be necessary to satisfy the demand."
There are several fallacies in the reasoning here, but I will only attack the most obvious one, one which betrays your need to go take Economics 101. Let's say that demand (i.e., the demand schedule) for the good doesn't change but that criminalisation reduces the supply. What is the new equilibrium? The price is higher and output is lower.
195. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 2:17 PM PST
Re:#177 (FreeToChoose): "Argue as long as you want whether the DEPICTION of violence in films causes more or less real-life violence, but this is NOT the issue. The violence IN the films doesn't really occur (with the important exception of snuff films) Similarly, the issue with child porn films is NOT whether it induces others to do anything, but the actual acts in the film.
One more prediction. I predict you STILL won't understand."
I think it's you who doesn't understand. You are confusing the act of producing child pornography with the act of viewing images of child pornography. Do you understand the difference? The former demonstrably causes harm to the child involved and has been defended by no one; the latter in itself does not cause harm to anyone. You say "the issue with child porn films is NOT whether it induces others to do anything" but that is *precisely* the argument Pseudoerasmus is making to justify a ban on child pornography. He claims that making images of child porn legal induces people to produce more of them, and thus to cause more harm to children; therefore images of child porn should not be made legal. But if making images of graphic violence legal causes more violence (and thus harm) to occur, then images of graphic violence should be made illegal for the same reason. What's the difference?
In the spirit of your "predictions," I predict that if you read this post carefully, you will understand that you missed the point in #177, but your ego will not allow you to admit it publicly.
196. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 2:36 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "Well, I don't claim anything. I just doubt that there is a causal connection. But my opinion is always subject to change. If empirical evidence suggested that violent images in the media increased rates of violence in the country, then I think some regulation of such images would be justified but it only *might* be in order. Whether they should be regulated, and how much, and in what way, would depend on: 1) the magnitude of the effect in question; 2) how the effect comes about; 3) the costs of regulation versus its benefits; 4) who or what is affected; and 5) the feasibility and efficacy of these regulations."
Exactly. And exactly the same considerations apply with regard to child porn. Does making images of child porn illegal cause less child porn to be produced? What is the magnitude of that effect? How does it come about? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Is the law rationally and justly enforceable?
You seem to accept that these types of question need to be addressed before a ban on images of graphic violence could be justified, but for images of child porn, you apparently consider the questions irrelevant, or feel so confident that you already have reliable answers that a ban is a matter of "common sense" or is "obvious." But you provide no substantive support for this position. You have no reliable answers. So how can you justify a ban?
197. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 2:55 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "But you would have to show that the availability of preexisting child pornography does not encourage the production of new child pornography. A tall order. And don't give me any shit about who has the burden of proof -- you do. Anyone who wants to change the status quo has that burden, especially when it doesn't occur to the overwhelming majority of people to even question that status quo."
Of course you have the burden of proof. The burden is *always* on those who favor restricting other people's freedom to show why that restriction is justified. This is *especially* true with respect to government restrictions on the freedom of people to choose what kind of written or printed material (or movies, artwork, etc.) they wish to view. The reason freedom of speech, the freedom for each of us as individuals to decide for ourselves what kind of material to read and look at, is the *First* Amendment is because we as a society deem this freedom to be so important. And consequently, any restriction on that freedom--let alone a blanket ban of the kind you are advocating--must be held to the highest standards of scrutiny. I do not see that your arguments for a ban on child porn material meet that standard.
198. MariaGleason - July 10, 1997 - 2:57 PM PST
The July 14th edition of The New Yorker contains a review of "The Anatomy of Disgust" by William Ian Miller which sheds some light onto the topic of child pornography. Professor Miller traces the history of disgust and finds it to be the history of human development. As the reviewer notes, "(O)ne of the marks of one's own civilization ... is the number of removes at which one can place oneself from the disgusting."
In line with PE's Message #124, the theme that runs through Professor Miller's study is the social function served by this most visceral of emotions. "If you were casually to enumerate the norms and values, aesthetic and moral, whose breach prompts disgust, you would see how crucial the emotion is to keeping us in line and minimally presentable," writes Professor Miller.
The discussion which has followed Message #124 regarding the differences between 'real' and 'simulated' child pornography and 'real' and 'simulated' violence has generated many posts, but little else. The question remains the same: why treat child pornography differantly? Because as humans we define and rank tolerable and intolerable in a way that cuts across all social orderings. The difference is in degree, and we put all social, moral, and legal conventions through this process.
199. FreeToChoose - July 10, 1997 - 2:58 PM PST
In Message #195 elliot803 states:
> I think it's you who doesn't understand. You > are confusing the act of producing child pornography
> with the act of viewing images of child pornography.
> Do you understand the difference? The former > demonstrably causes harm to the child involved > and has been defended by no one; the latter > in itself does not cause harm to anyone.
This is absolutely amazing. You DO understand the difference. Thus, I must conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse. If I hadn't seen you do this before, I would have considered it impossible.
Think about this for a second. When virtually EVERYONE is claiming you are wrong, do you stop to consider the possibility that perhaps YOU are wrong, as opposed to everyone else? (please don't bore with the examples in history of people who have been right in the face of general opposition - you do not qualify.)
Second hint. Actually READ the posts of PE, as opposed to assuming you know what he is saying.
200. FreeToChoose - July 10, 1997 - 3:05 PM PST
BettyV
I don't know whether you followed the thread in which elliot803 argued that affirmative action in the sense of trying to interview people who might not traditionally be aware of job opportunities actually constituted racism. He spent dozens of posts pushing this absurd notion, in spite of many dozens of posts by several Fraygrants trying to point out his error. This most recent incident falls into the same category. I am not sure whether elliot803 is merely the most obtuse individual on the face of the planet or is deliberately being idiotic, but in either case, it rapidly resembles talking to a wall. Good luck if you are willing - I cannot believe that PE can find the time to waste.
201. FreeToChoose - July 10, 1997 - 3:09 PM PST
In Message #179 JadeGold states:
> Vidal hiits the nail on the head: there is a > movement in this country to establish a theocracy > . … You cannot deny the evidence.
Deny it? I can't find it. Your thesis would be laughable if I didn't think you took it seriously.
Nyahhh, I don't think you do. As wrong as you usually are, I don't think you are this gullible.
202. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 3:10 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "So I don't see how you make the leap from this to utter that the harm I outline above is comparable to the kind graphic violence in the media is supposed by many people to produce. I don't think viewing child pornography induces people to go out and molest children, just as I don't think TV violence makes people more violent. The harm of child pornography is *not* in any implicit incitement to action -- it's in the acts that are captured."
Yes, I understand your argument. You don't have to keep repeating it. You're saying that child porn images should be banned not because they induce people who view them to molest children but because not banning them causes more of them to be produced--and so causes more children to be molested in that way. But you provide no more support for this claim than do those who seek to ban adult porn that viewing adult porn causes men to go out and rape women. You provide no more support for your claim than do those who wish to ban violent movies that viewing violent movies causes people to go out and commit violent acts. In fact, I would suggest that there is far more empirical support for those two latter claims than there is for the one you are making, yet you are not advocating a ban on adult porn or violent movies.
203. Prometheus - July 10, 1997 - 3:12 PM PST
PE: Making child pornography illegal does not necessarily cause the supply to go down. IN fact, it may have the abscene effect of causing more ot be produced. How?
well, there is well-known study (that of course I don't have the reference for. Although it is referenced in Varian's Intermediate Microeconomics textbook). It is about the effects of making it illegal to import and own exotic birds. The effect of making it illegal was birds were dead in transit, due to the conplicitous nature necessary for their transport and of course may were confiscated. Therefore, to get X amount in the country, X+e were needed. It is a bit more complicated than all that. The result, however, - more dead parrots.
Now, I am not making any claims as to the same effect taking place in child pornography. I am just pointing out the perverse effects that can happen.
I did not read the Whole dialogue, so this may completely irrelevant, although it seems to have something to do with what was being discussed. Again, I emphasize I am not saying this is the effect, just that the economic argument is not so clear.
207. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 3:42 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "This argument would be plausible only if the indirect and analogous empirical evidence about adult porn didn't work against it. You assume that consumers of child pornography would be forever content with a *fixed* supply of preexisting child porn."
Nonsense. The argument is not that legalizing child porn images may stop all new production of child porn but that it may *reduce* the production as compared with current rates. Again, if each piece of child porn material gets wider distribution, then less will be needed to satisfy a given demand. Maybe legalizing it would increase demand so much that it would offset that effect; then again, maybe not. But isn't this the kind of question we need to answer, at least roughly, before a ban can be justified?
"That is, prima facie, an unreasonable assumption; it becomes all the more unreasonable for the fact that hundreds of new adult porn titles are issued every year, despite the legality of adult porn."
But, again, that fact isn't very relevant. The question is: how many new adult porn titles would be produced if adult porn were illegal? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? If adult porn were illegal, instead of a few major producers each creating a few dozen new titles a year (or whatever it is) and distributing them nationally, maybe we would get thousands of people making amateur, illegal porn videos in their garages and distributing them to a few dozen people each. I do not see why it is implausible to believe that a similar effect may exist with regard to kiddie porn.
209. labarjare - July 10, 1997 - 3:52 PM PST
I commend to everyone Maria's 198, suggest that further discussion take off from the thoughts expressed and referred to there, and in conjunction therewith then recommend that the current merry-go-round just stop. Only one comment (and yes I know that this floats in and out of many of the posts) - how can you justify the production and use (ie, distribution) of anything like "real" kiddie porn that involves - and necessarily must involve - a number of criminal acts against and involving children (and leaving aside a number of other objections that are apt, who by definition cannot provide a consent to the activities in which they are "involved"). To call this free speach is to make a mockery of free speach and to condone it on any grounds makes a mockery of any sense of a reasoned system of law.
211. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 4:03 PM PST
Prometheus / Oliver David (Message #203)
In this vast and exhausting exchange, I guess I did not read the following remarks of Elliot803 in Message #175 carefully enough:
"Similarly, if adult porn were illegal, and each movie, magazine, etc., received a much smaller distribution than it does now, it seems highly plausible to me that this would cause an increase in production. I don't believe that criminalizing it would do much to reduce demand, but it would reduce the distribution of each piece of material, so more material would be necessary to satisfy the demand."
For some reason, I interpreted the above to mean that Elliot803 was arguing that although somehow supply would decline, output would nonetheless increase. But on second reading, it appears that Elliot803 was saying what you were saying: that while the quantity demanded remains fixed at X, because X + e would be supplied in order to make up for seizures, destruction, etc.
I too have heard of the exotic bird study, though I've never read it. I assume the citation is in Varian's 3rd (and latest) edition? I can't find it in my 2nd edition.
Anyway, I'm a little tired of this exchange. I must take a rest. I will be back to reply to everything else later.
212. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 4:11 PM PST
Maria Gleason (Message #198) Labarjare (Message #209)
I agree completely with Maria that, as far as I and the vast majority of people are concerned, repugnance is sufficient personal justification to ban child pornography and to have these preferences & norms reflected in our laws. And it's up to the minority to change these preferences -- the way gays have been trying to do about gay marriage, etc. Nonetheless, there remains the real burden of fashioning good laws about child pornography, and, for this reason, the merry-go-round about real and simulated is not just nugatory nitpicking blather. After all, I agree with Elliot803 on one point: it is the acts recorded in child pornography that are directly harmful, not the record itself. But I think the record should be banned too, because, IMO, legalising the record undermines the ban on the criminal acts themselves. Hence, again, the merry-go-around.
213. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 4:11 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "Well, maybe you misunderstood #3 of my Message #169. I don't know whether the law should really ban the fake stuff, only because I don't know whether the fake stuff undermines the ban on the real stuff. So, instead of saying what the law should do, I gave you a conditional statement, a decision criterion: if the undermining did exist, then the law should ban the fake stuff. My *assumption* is that the fake stuff doesn't undermine the ban on the real stuff."
I don't think you appreciate the problem. Let's say the police recover several pictures of child porn from a few men. Some are "real" photos, or copies of real photos, or artist's renditions of real photos, of actual acts of child sexual abuse. The rest are "fake" photos, or copies of such fakes, or pictures based on fakes. The police cannot reliably distinguish between the real stuff and the fake stuff. How can they justly enforce the law you advocate in such a situation?
The men who possess the images probably don't know whether they're real photos, or derived from real photos, either. They just want to get off, and the pictures look real enough to them. So how is banning real images and allowing fake images likely to likely to reduce the production of the real stuff more than allowing both or banning both, when the people who create the demand for new porn can't even tell the difference between them?
By the way, I think you vastly underestimate the ease with which photorealistic fake porn can be created. All you need is a fairly inexpensive PC setup. And as technology improves, it will become even easier. Within 10 years or so it may be possible to produce a realistic porn movie (child or adult) on a home PC. Your law will become ever harder to enforce, and enforcing it will create ever greater risks of convicting innocent people.
214. Prometheus - July 10, 1997 - 4:14 PM PST
PE: Are you sure you are looking in his Undergraduate text titled _Intermdeiate Micoreconomics_ (I hope) and not Varian's Graduate level text "Microeconomic Analysis"? It is in the former and not the latter,(although which edition, I cannot say, I have the first edition).
215. FreeToChoose - July 10, 1997 - 4:20 PM PST
Prometheus
I agree that the parrot example is interesting. As you know, it requires some underlying assumptions that may not be true in practice. For example, it assumes that the demand for exotic birds is virtually unchanged as a result of criminalization (unless epsilon is very large). There actually are a large number of people who would change their desire to own an exotic bird upon learning it was illegal (as opposed to ill eagle). Nevertheless, I immediately concede that failure to understand the perverse effects of legislation can lead to unintended results.
As another example of how non-obvious consequences can occur, the study of the ivory trade is interesting. I can't quote the specific countries, but some African countries has banned the sale of ivory, while at least one has allowed it. The elephant herds in the country that allows the trade are doing better than where it is banned. Where it is banned, elephants are still killed by poachers who, not surprisingly, spend no money trying to save the herds. In the country allowing ivory harvest, people spend money protecting elephants to ensure a healthy supply.
So the decision to ban or not ban can have curious conclusions.
216. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 4:34 PM PST
Pseudoerasmus: "I agree completely with Maria that, as far as I and the vast majority of people are concerned, repugnance is sufficient personal justification to ban child pornography and to have these preferences & norms reflected in our laws."
Well, I think that's an extremely dangerous position. What you're saying is that you believe the state should have the power to prevent adult citizens from viewing a piece of paper with a certain image on it. Doesn't that trouble you at all? If repugnance is sufficient reason for a ban, why shouldn't we ban images of the Holocaust? Or racist or anti-semitic literature? Or, for that matter, "The Tin Drum?" Doesn't permitting a ban of visual material on the basis of repugnance alone open the door to all kinds of abuses that would be prevented if a higher standard were demanded? As I said before, the whole *point* of the First Amendment is that it protects the vilest, most depraved forms of speech as well as the speech we all agree with.
218. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 4:47 PM PST
labarjare: "Only one comment (and yes I know that this floats in and out of many of the posts) - how can you justify the production and use (ie, distribution) of anything like "real" kiddie porn that involves - and necessarily must involve - a number of criminal acts against and involving children"
I've been over this with Pseudoerasmus. For the umpteenth time, no one (as far as I know) has defended the *production* of kiddie porn. We all agree that it should be a criminal offense. But a ban on the possession or distribution of such material is a different matter. Presumably, you do not believe we should ban the possession or distribution of all images of all criminal acts against and involving children. So the fact that producing a "real" child porn image involved a criminal and immoral act cannot in itself be a justification for banning such material.
You're a lawyer, aren't you? You seem pretty liberal. Are you a member of the ACLU? My position on this issue is the same as theirs.
219. FreeToChoose - July 10, 1997 - 5:26 PM PST
In Message #217 bomboo states:.
> I got a blast of crap from Pseudoerasmus and 21349mcla > a few weeks ago for saying that the increasing > Christian influence in government is obvious. > I can see evidence of Christian encroachment > in public policy practically everywhere I look. > I'm puzzled that it isn't obvious to everyone.
If there is increasing Christian influence in government, I for one, will not be unhappy. (Lest you leap to unwarranted conclusions, I am an aetheist.) Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. I don't think it is so obvious that that we could accept it without some evidence. But, for the sake of argument, let's accept that there is an increase. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a modest increase in Christian influence is the same as establishing a theocracy, do you? The increase in influence consistent with a theocracy is orders of magnitude above what is plausibly happening at the outside.
Perhaps you will argue that you presented such evidence. Let's examine it.
> The new executive director of the Christian > Coalition, Randy Tate, is a former US congressman
Hmm, this sounds like an increase in political influence in Christian circles, not the reverse.
> Last November, Washinton's governor's race pitted > a fundamentalist Christian grandmother who dropped > out of community college against an experienced > urban planner with a law degree and an MS in > economics from Harvard, and the Christian grandmother > got about a third of the votes.
In other words, she lost badly. And public policy was changed in what way?
220. FreeToChoose - July 10, 1997 - 5:27 PM PST
(continued) > I don't think you could support an argument > that the political climate in Washington State > is significantly different that elsewhere in > the country.
I wouldn't want to. After all, they did throw Tom Foley out of office.
221. bomboo - July 10, 1997 - 6:56 PM PST
FreeToChoose -
The increase in Christian influence in government in the last decade or so doesn't seem modest to me. Vocal Christian politicians are becomming much more visible and much more extreme in their views. The fundamentalist Christian grandmother who lost the Washington gubenatorial race was utterly unqualified for the job. I was shocked that she was even nominated, and alarmed by the amount of support for her open agenda to create a "Godly" government. It's completely implasible that any rational person could have believed the woman could handle any part of the job. Yet hundreds of thousands of people voted for her, and against her highly qualified opponent, against reason and stricly on the basis of shared religious belief. She was by far the most extreme fundamentalist Christian candidate for a significant public office I have encountered, and she got a lot of very vocal support.
The lack of reason is frightening. Christian conservatives in Randy Tate's crowd here are advocating things like demolishing higher education (since no one needs to read anything but the Bible), abolishing government testing and regulation of food and drugs, and abandoning water quality to the forces of industry.
The determination to force everyone to conform to Christian values is frightening. Christians don't believe in live and let live. And I know that Christians don't like me at all. I'm certain I would not be allowed to exist in a Christian society. I consider them as serious a threat to me and mine as they think I am to them.
222. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 8:23 PM PST
Prometheus / Oliver David
Re: Message #203 & Message #214
I have both of Varian's textbooks, the undergraduate and the graduate. But my copy of _Intermediate Microeconomics_, is the 2nd edition. I still can't find the citation in question.
At any rate, can you find the citation? And if not, could you please elaborate on the conclusions of the study? Maybe you could be more specific about the comparative statics of the ban on these birds.
223. elliot803 - July 10, 1997 - 8:52 PM PST
Here is former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, in a dissenting obscenity case opinion:
"The standard of what offends 'the common conscience of the community' conflicts...with the command of the First Amendment... Any test that turns on what is offensive to the community's standards is too loose, too capricious, too destructive of freedom of expression to be squared with the First Amendment. Under that test, juries can censor, suppress and punish what they don't like, provided the matter relates to 'sexual impurity' or has a tendency to 'excite lustful thoughts.' This is community censorship in one of its worst forms... ...there are as many different definitions of obscenity as there are [human beings] and they are as unique to the individual as his dreams...Whatever obscenity is, it is immeasurable as a crime...It is entirely too subjective for legal sanction."
224. Msivorytower - July 10, 1997 - 9:07 PM PST
Damn, that's a good quote perry. I've always liked Douglas.
It does much to help explain the position you've taken here. However, I do disagree with you. My position is in line with Maria Gleason's. This is a question of degree, how repugnant an act is to the majority of the population, and the age of the participants.
Interestingly, we aren't really talking about taking away some vital personal freedom by restricting the actions of adults with children. How central is it to a well-balanced human being to be able to fantasize about sex with a child, or to actually be able to have sex with a child? What critical human right has been transgressed here?
Yes, I am a strong advocate of free speech and freedom of expression, but not this kind. I weigh the importance of protecting children against the importance of protecting an adult's freedom of sexual expression, and kids win every time for me.
225. 21349mcla - July 10, 1997 - 9:40 PM PST
DKT, isn't the fine line set between personal fantasy and what causes harm to children? I, as an adult male, may lust after a seventeen year old girl, but until I act on that impulse, am I guilty of any crime? Similarly, there is a difference between a photo of an adult having sex with a child and a drawing of an adult doing the same, presuming that there were no child models for the latter. I think government is most egregiously out of control when it tries to control fantasy or even random thoughts, to answer your question. One of our ideals has been to judge people by their actions and not their beliefs, fantasies, origins, etc.
Homosexual acts were (and probably still are) extremely repugnant to most Americans. Did this justify making them illegal?
226. Msivorytower - July 10, 1997 - 10:31 PM PST
MC
To answer your question about lust in the heart, no, you aren't guilty of any crime if you never act on it. Why would you think so? What did I say to imply that I thought so?
However, production of child pornography to fulfill your fantasies is certainly within the right of a community to regulate if they believe that harm will come to young children and underage girls as a result. My guiding principle is the age of the child under consideration, personally. I have no problems drawing a large black line against any pornography involving children, photos, real, or cartoons.
Once you get to teen years, the line becomes more difficult to find, primarily because we have only recently moved the age of marriage and consent up in society. It was not unusual for men to marry young girls before WW2, actually. So, here, I think, as a society, we are less sure of what is or isn't fully repugnant.
Anything between consenting adults is outside of my interest in terms of regulation. What consenting adults do, short of killing one another during sex, is not an area I find worth trying to regulate.
227. KurtMondaugen - July 10, 1997 - 10:48 PM PST
from "Aesthetic Terrorism", by Adam Parfrey
"It may come as a surprise to learn that a few artists are now producing work which finds itself classified as a thought crime, punishable by expulsion into a Siberia of non-distribution, and in a few cases by litigation and prison. "Pure" magazine, from Chicago, a xeroxed vehicle which extols child torture, murder, and extreme mysogyny, tweaked too many civic-minded noses, and its editor, Peter Sotos, was tailed for nine months until he was nailed with charges of reproducing child pornography (one quite disputable xerox) and possesion of child pornography (one magazine - 'Incest IV'). Sotos' case is the first uner a new Illinois law, an example of First Amendment Revisionism par excellence...Sotos' case takes a disquieting turn when one considers that prison is in the offing for the simple possesion of controversial material...At the time of writing, Sotos' case has been in and out of court for fourteen months, placing him under massive debt, not to mention the probability of jail time, simply for writings and graphics which present violence humorously, cruelly, and without a humanist gloss"
From "Pure" magazine: a double page spread of a photo-montage featuring multiple images of an ejaculating penis, superimposed w/ collage figures of police and public service announcements of missing children.
From an interview w/ Peter Sotos, publisher of "Pure" magazine, conducted by Paul Lemos: Q: Certainly, if you are personally involved with crime you could never divulge it, although I would like to know if you are a participant or a passive viewer and admirer. A: My sexual tastes stem from a full philosphy and weltanshauung and, I assure you, there are myriad ways and opportunites to enjoy their pleasures without getting my hands ostentatiously dirty. There is nothing passive about my tastes. Q: What is admirable about the rampant killer, and butc
228. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 10:51 PM PST
Msivorytower / DKT
I think you -- like everybody else who has interceded in this exchange between me and Elliot803 -- have misunderstood Elliot803's argument about child pornography. He asserts -- and apparently the law asserts -- a distinction between criminal acts and the record of those criminal acts. Elliot803 is arguing that while the acts should remain banned, the record should be legal. The crux of my argument has been that keeping the record legal undermines the integrity of the ban on the acts.
It's obvious that most of the intercessors into this tete-a-tete between me and Elliot803 have not really followed the thread of the arguments between us. Labarjare is a case in point. His dismissal of the 'merry-go-round' underscores the irrelevance of his own post -- irrelevant only because the thread of the argument has already incorporated the distinction between the criminal acts and the record of the criminal acts. I really think all these new posters who betray signs of not having followed this thread go ahead and read the thread before contributing, if only because it's tiresome to keep on repeating what has already been said.
I will return to replying to Elliot803 tomorrow.
229. Msivorytower - July 10, 1997 - 11:02 PM PST
Speak to me in smaller words PE....
So the dispute is about whether someone who keeps pornography around the house (the record of a criminal act) is just as culpable after the transaction as during the transaction (the criminal act). Is that the gist of it?
Again, I hold to my position. Production, distribution, purchases of child pornography can ethically be banned by a society finding the use of children as subjects fully repugnant. If someone possesses illegal pornography than that too can be punishable. Why not? We apply this policy to drugs, and other illegal substances, what is so different about pornography?
Kurts story has a million similar ones if you just supplant a gram of hash or marijuana in place of some pornographic materials. We have prosecuted those individuals without such a dilemma, I see no real problem here.
The problem for me is what then becomes defined as pornography. For me, I am comfortable defining any material, or medium, that uses children as subjects in sexual acts.
230. Msivorytower - July 10, 1997 - 11:03 PM PST
btw PE, I actually wasn't trying to intercede between you and perry. I was just putting my two cents worth in on the general topic itself.
231. Pseudoerasmus - July 10, 1997 - 11:11 PM PST
Msivorytower
Re: the analogy between drugs and child pornography
Elliot803 and I alredy covered this. See Message #141, 141 and 145.
232. KurtMondaugen - July 10, 1997 - 11:16 PM PST
cont: Q: what is admirable about the rampant killer, and butcher? A: I don't find everyone who kills, beats or rapes someone admirable. I'm interested and respectful of those who view and understand their instincts completely and correctly and then go about satisfying them. My tastes run very similar to those of Ian Brady and I enjoy his work because it is 100% honest and self-concerned. He fucked and tortured little Lesley Downey every way imaginable before smashing her tiny skull in half. I find fuck-ups like Charles Manson and Ed Gein terribly boring and laughable because they had no idea what they really wanted."
From: The People Of The State Of Illinois, plaintiff-appellant, No. 64466 v. Peter Sotos, Defendant-Appelee } Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook Cty., Illinois, Criminal Division, No. 86 CR 211 - The Honorable Themis N. Karnezis, Judge Presiding.
peter sotos
Again I ask, what is wrong with this picture? The issue is not about whether or not a ban on child pornography is a breach of 1st Ammendment rights. The question, I think, lies in our own moral acceptance of exploitative imagery and behavior in any context. This discussion was raised on that question and has since digressed. Elliot803, your arguments in favor of the existence of child-pornography are dubious and facile, at best. PE, your entertainment of these arguments is somewhat disturbing. I think the real issue lies, as others have pointed out, in our general acceptance that these situations exist, and will continue to exist (as PE pointed out in his Message #102. "The Tin Drum", and to use another example "Taxi Driver", or "Kids", I don't think fall into this category, as the issue is one of context (as has been posited before).
233. Msivorytower - July 10, 1997 - 11:23 PM PST
Well, I read the messages PE, and I don't see the issue. Elliot803 is talking in circles and drawing artificial distinctions, IMO.
The drug analogy is not a weak one, it is very similar. Many have argued what is the harm in growning and consuming marijuana in the privacy of your own home? Where is the consequences to the larger society? Yet we consistently prosecute those who engage in these activities regardless of how is is being consumed.
And who is to say that the consumption of child pornography isn't just as harmful as the production and distribution of it? The evidence of the effects on the behaviors of adults is just as weak as the evidence on the effects of some drugs that we now outlaw.
BTW, I accept your argument as laid out in 141, but I also have no problem with punishing the record of the criminal act based on the general repugnance society may have toward any expression of sexuality with children as subjects.
234. Pseudoerasmus - July 11, 1997 - 12:05 AM PST
MsIv (Message #233)
I have maintained that there are two standards of harm -- one due to production and another due to consumption. If you think that the consumption *per se* by adults of child pornography is not harmful, then the analogy between drugs and child pornography is weak.
235. Pseudoerasmus - July 11, 1997 - 12:17 AM PST
Mondaugen
I think you, Maria Gleason, Labarjare and others who are decying the exchange between me and Elliot803 confuse two things -- 1) the motivation behind the desire to ban child pornography (repugnance) and to enshrine certain social norms in the law; and 2) the need to fashion laws which largely meet the criteria of consistency, rationality, efficacy and justice.
Am I, the one who is actually sustaining this long dispute with Elliot803, the only person here who thinks he has made valid points?
236. Pseudoerasmus - July 11, 1997 - 12:18 AM PST
A few valid points, that is.
237. Pseudoerasmus - July 11, 1997 - 12:40 AM PST
Elliot803 (Message #196)
"Does making images of child porn illegal cause less child porn to be produced? What is the magnitude of that effect?....Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Is the law rationally and justly enforceable?.....You seem to accept that these types of question need to be addressed before a ban on images of graphic violence could be justified, but for images of child porn, you apparently consider the questions irrelevant, or feel so confident that you already have reliable answers...So how can you justify a ban?"
I don't think the questions are irrelevant, nor do I feel confident that I already have reliable answers. The difference between my requiring a good rationale for banning the one but not requiring for the other, is that while the one is currently not banned, the other is.
"But you provide no substantive support for this position. You have no reliable answers."
The basis for my supporting the ban is at least as substantive as the basis for your opposing it, i.e., the one is no more reliable empirically than the other.
"Of course you have the burden of proof[!] The burden is *always* on those who favor restricting other people's freedom to show why that restriction is justified."
OK, please keep on repeating this ad nauseam infinitam to the incomprehending masses of people who think *nothing* of banning child pornography. I mean, Jesus, even libertarians understand that the burden of proof is entirely on themselves, to show that the current restrictions on property rights are undue.
238. Pseudoerasmus - July 11, 1997 - 12:47 AM PST
Elliot803 (Message #207)
"The argument is not that legalizing child porn images may stop all new production of child porn but that it may *reduce* the production as compared with current rates."
OK, rephrased: the consumption of kiddie porn could be decriminalised if the decriminalisation were not to result in a net increase in production.
"Again, if each piece of child porn material gets wider distribution, then less will be needed to satisfy a given demand. Maybe legalizing it would increase demand so much that it would offset that effect; then again, maybe not."
The key phrase here is 'given demand'. You see, I cannot believe that the demand for kiddie porn is not affected by the illegality of the material. How can the existence of risks and penalities -- both legal and social -- of consuming kiddie porn not be depressing demand? Even advocates of decriminalisation of drugs insist that decriminalisation must be accompanied by regulation on consumption. The point is, unregulated, consumption of drugs would likely increase with decriminalisation. Also, price would probably fall with decriminalisation.
"The question is: how many new adult porn titles would be produced if adult porn were illegal? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?"
So your argument is that, if adult pornography were illegal, the epsilon in X + e *could* be quite large? I suspect there must be a way to approximately answer this question through historical research. How much pornography was actually produced 30 years ago? 40 years ago? In the 19th century? Do you think there were large quantities of what was considered pornographic material back when they were indeed banned? I doubt the epsilon factor could be very large.
239. Pseudoerasmus - July 11, 1997 - 12:51 AM PST
Elliot803 (Message #213)
"The police cannot reliably distinguish between the real stuff and the fake stuff. How can they justly enforce the law you advocate in such a situation?"
Well, if there is absolutely no way to establish what is real and what is fake, no matter what scientific test is used -- yet again something I doubt highly -- then I suppose the case could be dismissed. But the value of the law from an enforcement perspective would not be undermined unless this problem were widespread. If it were widespread, then we could ban both fake and real. But I can't imagine how it could possibly be widespread. See Message #191.
"By the way, I think you vastly underestimate the ease with which photorealistic fake porn can be created. All you need is a fairly inexpensive PC setup. And as technology improves, it will become even easier. Within 10 years or so it may be possible to produce a realistic porn movie (child or adult) on a home PC."
Please post a link to the best photorealistic image you can come up with. (And I recommend you make it non-pornographic.) All the same, the force of my argument in Message #191 about new production is the greater for your comments above.
240. Pseudoerasmus - July 11, 1997 - 12:53 AM PST
Elliot803 (Message #216)
"If repugnance is sufficient reason for a ban....Doesn't permitting a ban of visual material on the basis of repugnance alone open the door to all kinds of abuses that would be prevented if a higher standard were demanded?"
Oh please. We've been over this already. Reread my Message #124 and #127.
By the way, you never commented on my remarks about ivory, first brought up in Message #141 and reprised by FTC in Message #215. Would you or would you not ban the trade in ivory? If you wouldn't ban it, had you always believed that before we began this exchange?
Finally, Elliot803, I wished you had commented on my remarks about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the religion thread. Why didn't you?
241. Msivorytower - July 11, 1997 - 4:18 AM PST
PE re:234
Yes, I agree that consumption is harmful, but the EVIDENCE linking consumption of child pornography to acts of child molestation, rape or abuse is not solid here. My comparison of the weakness of the evidence to that of some types of drugs we've banned was meant to be further support for the legitimacy of punishing consumption, since we do so in other circumstances and with other types of products without such solid evidence.
Elliot803 had made an argument that while we can agree that the consumption of illegal drugs has bad consequences, we can't say that about the consumption of child pornography. I don't accept that argument, that's all.
I also don't understand what level of *proof* we need to have in order to justify trampling on this "freedom" of adults (the freedom to consume child pornography). We already have some weak evidence of the link between pornography and abuse of women, and some weak evidence on the link between child molestation and child pornography.
What exactly is necessary for us to know in order to justify a ban on consumption? How basic of a freedom is this that requires such strong protection under the first amendment?
242. Chairman - July 11, 1997 - 5:44 AM PST
Oh for those thrilling days of yesteryear, when the Fraymaster/mistress would step in and tell participants when they have allowed a discussion to go horribly too far. Perhaps as many as 100 posts ago, KurtMondaugen defended this specious series of arguments by pointing out that its post of origin, which he wrote, described an article in Variety. That post was what, 200 ago now, and the connections to Newspapers and Magazines that have been made since have been oblique and reaching at best. (Even that first post contained the writer's own caveat that the subject might better be moved to Movies & TV.)
Please, people, knock it off. There are many interesting topics that could be generated in a thread such as this (e.g., the death of newspapers, Tina Brown at The New Yorker, the online-vs-print discussion that briefly came and went), but none of them can flourish if visitors are bludgeoned upon their arrival by deadening back-and-forths of the "Are you intentionally dense?" variety.
On a more anal note, hyperlinks (and simple scrolling) have turned obsolete the need to reprint whole paragraphs of an opponent's argument just for the purpose of shooting that paragraph down. These aren't annotated research papers you're writing.
243. MrSocko - July 11, 1997 - 5:52 AM PST
Yeah, I wanna talk about the Internet and media revenues.
244. coralreef - July 11, 1997 - 6:07 AM PST
CHAIRMAN - Couldn't agree more. This is like the Libertarian thread all over again, a merry go round of reciprocal quoting.
BTW, Elliot803 agreed in Message #128 that most of the stuff should probably be confiscated by the government. End of debate, as far as I'm concerned. Not that there ever should have been a debate about this here at all.
245. ScotBillman - July 11, 1997 - 7:41 AM PST
This just in from the American Journal of Public Health: Owning a handgun may double one's chance of death by suicide or homicide.
246. JADEgold - July 11, 1997 - 7:54 AM PST
Message #245 Thanks for the link, Scot.
Yet more proof that owning a handgun poses a greater risk to the owner's household than any deterrence value. Look for the NRA to issue some bogus study asserting 2.5M "defensive gun uses."
247. MrSocko - July 11, 1997 - 7:59 AM PST
Wow, this has got to be the dumbest "media" thread in the history of the world.
248. MariaGleason - July 11, 1997 - 8:00 AM PST
PE, re: Message #235:
Elliot803 has made any number of significant points, and I don't decry your long exchange. As I said in Message #198, I entered the lists after reading a book review that caused me examine more closely the larger issue of child pornography itself and our reaction to it, rather than the narrower one of what precisely to ban, if anything. The larger point is of more interest to me, and if the narrower point is worth discussing (which I believe it to be), then the other is as well, because no consensus has been reached on this issue.
The WOD quote was the best thing to have appeared on the topic of pornography, and it too prompted me to think, in this case, about the basis for protecting pornography under the first amendment. This line of thinking led me to remember the once and future discussion in Religion regarding using the Bible as the indisputable foundation for moral law. This is no brilliant discovery, but it seems to me that the Constitution is turned into an immutable secular bible when the first amendment is used as a blanket to protect the images of child pornography without delving deeper into the issue of child pornography itself.
249. Prometheus - July 11, 1997 - 8:13 AM PST
ScotBilman: What's your point?
PE: Re: Varian. Unfortunately. my copy of the text is deep in a box in a nother state far away from my present location. If I were to guess I would guess it is in the chapter on elasticity.
250. Pseudoerasmus - July 11, 1997 - 8:18 AM PST
Msivorytower (Message #241)
"Yes, I agree that consumption is harmful, but the EVIDENCE linking consumption of child pornography to acts of child molestation, rape or abuse is not solid here."
Please read more carefully. I haven't said that the consumption per se of visual material is harmful. The consumption of drugs is banned under the rationale that it is harmful to the individual and to the community.
"Elliot803 had made an argument that while we can agree that the consumption of illegal drugs has bad consequences, we can't say that about the consumption of child pornography. I don't accept that argument, that's all."
He has made no such argument.
251. Msivorytower - July 11, 1997 - 8:21 AM PST
PE You are right, I misread his #142, he actually says the opposite.
252. kludzy - July 11, 1997 - 11:26 AM PST
....yet another news brief.....owning toothpicks in the home increases one's chances of having one stuck in yer gullett 530%....the most inane argument re anything i've ever heard.......
253. DontTread - July 11, 1997 - 12:21 PM PST
At the risk of starting a thread related to the Slate piece it's linked to...
The fact that the Brits who killed one and captured another Bosnian war crime suspect posed as Red Cross workers is extremely disturbing and, I would expect, injurious to the worldwide missions of the Red Cross.
Did they go along with this?
254. labarjare - July 11, 1997 - 12:31 PM PST
Well, a few more comments. PE-yes, I think perry has made a number of valid points which you and he have addressed very civilly and thoughtfully. I also feel those exchanges have become repetitive with little new meat or even material refinement. Thus, my merry-go-round comment and suggestion that we move on to the very interesting topics raised by Maria (and to those subsequently by Mondaugen). Perry-yes, I am a lawyer, very much a liberal, especially when it comes to free speach issues, and a member of the ACLU. But, I do not agree with it or you about protecting the distribution (and, yes, possession) of "real" kiddie porn. No, I do not believe that all images of all criminal acts against and involving children should be banned (say, photos of battered children in newspapers?) but to jump from there to say that the distribution of "kiddie" porn also should be protected is at best facile. To be brief, go to KT's eloquent recent posts for the rationale as to why differing treatments are apt.
255. fraymeister - July 11, 1997 - 8:19 PM PST
Geez, people. Could we please move on?? The Chairman posts for me... (and apologies for my benign neglect)
What's new in media?? Russell Baker and Tony Lewis down to one New York Times column a week, and Frank Rich is off till the end of the year finishing his memoir. Does anyone care?? Who's the best next-generation pundit??
256. kaptnkaos - July 11, 1997 - 8:35 PM PST
Fraymeister
If you must know, I don't give a rip about the Times' pundits. They are all so full of themselves as to be nauseating. Maureen Dowd makes me hate her more with each column of her self-indulgent babble.
The only columnist in this country who earns his paycheck is, IMO, Dave Barry.
257. SharonSchroeder - July 11, 1997 - 8:42 PM PST
Kapt; I agree regarding Dave Barry :-)
258. MrSocko - July 11, 1997 - 9:34 PM PST
If we really have finished discussing whether liberty-loving adults should be allowed to watch videos showing children being raped and tortured -- golly, isn't it *easy* to see who has children here and who hasn't -- it would be nice to move back into media-land.
About 100 posts back, I put in a question that is -- or ought to be -- of some interest to anyone who earns money from the news media or cares about its future. I mentioned an excellent piece that appeared in the British Sunday Times, written by David Hewson, who started off by recounting the circumstances of last year's aborted attempt by Slate to charge a subscription. Slate withdrew because there were too few people prepared to pay for an online magazine.
Slate, of course, can continue in its current format for a long time, chiefly because it is a vanity publication for publisher Gates. (I don't mean that to sound sneering, since it's a publication that I happen to also enjoy, but facts are facts....)
Hewson goes on from Slate to the fate on online publishing in general, noting that it is indeed stuck between a rock and a hard place, between readers who will not subscribe and advertisers who will not advertise. In 1996, for example, advertising revenues for the entire World Wide Web were less than $100m, and even that figure was riddled with caveats, such as barter ads and web promotions.
What then can the future possibly hold for electronic journalism? It's a question I'm wondering about, too.
259. kaptnkaos - July 11, 1997 - 9:54 PM PST
MrSocko
It's probably going to have to be rescued by the ad industry, like it or not. While I have not yet seen anything that I could call the "break-through" on-line advertisement, some of the stuff is getting more interesting. I almost clicked on a Smity-Barney ad at ABCNews.com, just because its graphic content was so clever (stacks of cash being strung out onto a laundry line). On-line magazines might (very soon) have to come to grips with trying something like what AOL does, which is to from time to time confront the browser with an advert or offer that they have to click off before continuing to enter the site.
260. davecook - July 11, 1997 - 9:55 PM PST
I thought that virtually all political opinion magazines were money losers and the vanity publication of some rich guy. Does the Nation make money? Don't Peretz, Buckley, and Murdoch each pay for NewRepublic, NationalReview, and WeeklyStandard? Its hard to believe that Slate could ever survive on its own.
261. thomasd - July 11, 1997 - 10:00 PM PST
The Chairman and Fraymeister ought to be happy with my single post, which presented my position on child pornography logically and succinctly. (I must be getting tired - too many typing mistakes.)
A Japanese post office recently called in a bomb squad and six police cars because a package was beeping and clicking. After the package was opened, fifteen 'electronic pets' were found inside. One was trying to call for assistance because its power source was running low.
It died.
- sniff -
262. 21349mcla - July 11, 1997 - 10:16 PM PST
I think child porn videos are good because...........otherwise we would all spend our time speculating about the future of magazines and advertising. Now there is a subject worthy of a very small fart.
263. Geezersaurus - July 11, 1997 - 10:20 PM PST
I cannot help noticing that Slate is back in style after a weeks absense. I am also wondering just who will replace or attempt to replace the fine journalism of Charles Kuralt? Having read many of his books, I believe his works in travelling America were very necessary, a bit utopian and definitely charming. He exuded a delightful sense of peace and down home style sure to please a lot of us older travelers. Any man who can eat his way across our vast country is tops in my book! He will be sorely missed!
264. MrSocko - July 12, 1997 - 7:52 AM PST
kaptnkaos (Message #259) and davecook (Message #260):
I don't see why this medium will eventually be "saved" by the ad business. The evidence appears to be that people don't care for on-line advertising, and the rates of return (usually on a per-click basis) are very low for the publisher. It will be surprising if conventional advertising gives way to online placements. It certainly isn't going to happen for a very long time.
In the meantime, then, what's going to become of these online publications that people read but won't pay for and advertisers have little interest in supporting? Will the next few years see a radical shake-down of the (4000-odd) free daily titles that currently publish on-line? Might America, say, end up with dozens of newspapers in a few years time rather than today's thousands?
One possibility is that the only publications that will continue to be with us in a decade's time will be those that are highly specialized, and have therefore the opportunity of creating very specific databanks of classified advertising *and* information that is essential to a particular industry or interest. In a sense, this is already happening, with specialist publications in business (Wall Street Journal), education (The Chronicle of Higher Education) and even porn (Playboy) having already managed to establish themselves as subscription-only online periodicals, which also appear to attract healthy online advertising.
265. bettyv - July 12, 1997 - 8:10 AM PST
DC-
"What then can the future possibly hold for electronic journalism?"
I think that, for the moment, the playing field has been leveled. anyone with a computer or access to a computer now has a press. As someone who has been involved with the underground press, i think this is wonderful! While my website does not have the same amount of exposure and the vast resources of a major corporations, to the average browser it's a pretty decent site and it has a fighting chance of getting looked at. However, my hardcopy magazine does not. It's not pretty, it's not big, it doesn't have any real distribution.
with "electronic" journalism, i have a bigger voice than i did before.
the explosion of the personal web page has been good with some side effects. the "market" is so saturated, that it's difficult to find what you want, and therefore, the larger presses have been dominating while the local presses are floundering. But! if one is willing to look, there are more resources to be found.
where does this leave the future of electronic journalism? hopefully in the hands of the people. It is my sincere desire to see profit oriented journalism abandon the internet. The anarchist, the army, and academia were the first people to really use the internet, i hope that the anarchists are not replaced by capitalists.
266. Philistine - July 12, 1997 - 8:29 AM PST
Betty
I think you are mistaken about the internet levelling the playing field between major corporate journalism and vanity journalism (perzonal websites, zines, etc.)
Websites are limited in their exposure to those with a computer and net access (or web TV), while free leaflet can reach anyone in a community. While it is true that a website can potentially be seen by people anywhere on the planet, the vast majority of those people lack the equipment neccesary to see it. On the other hand, the xeroxed leaflet can be seen and read by anybody who happens to find it (although the range of distribution is much smaller, the potential 'market penetration' is much greater.)
As profit oriented journalism on the net becomes flashier (ie: more like tv journalism) and internet accessbecomes more widespread (ie:more like tv) I expect print journalism to continue its steady decline in profitability, perhaps leaving only the free community papers put out by dedicated activists!
267. bettyv - July 12, 1997 - 8:49 AM PST
Austin-
Well, I have the two pronged attack...I use both!
Also, not all zines are vanity press, you should check out Brooklyn Metro Times. BMT publishes some hard hitting stuff that the New York Times won't touch. We are not talking propaganda, but exposure of Sweat Shops in Park Slope (Brooklyn), Union Busting, etc. It is a leftist publication, but they are journalists, many of them with "real" papers, and they send the cutting-edge and daring stuff to BMT. I think your assessment of zines as being Vanity Journalism is narrow. I guess it's not vain to write something that is easily swallowed by the status quo just so you can see your name in the New York Times.
Then now defunct "Lies of our Times" was an excellent magazine (published by Ed Herman) dedicated to exposing the half-truths and ommissions and out right lies that the NYT sold to millions of people everyday.
Austin, your comment was thoroughly offensive and really closed-minded. Attitudes like that keep the mainstream media in power and able to tell us lies.
268. kaptnkaos - July 12, 1997 - 9:05 AM PST
MrSocko
Well, gosh, if you already knew the answer, why did you ask for our opinion(s)?
I didn't mean for my comments to sound like the ad industry will be the sole saviour of on-line journalism, however I do believe that the ad industry has yet to develop the breakthrough technique for on-line advertising. Until it does so, it's likely that on-line publications will evolve along the lines you suggest.
279. FreeToChoose - July 13, 1997 - 1:44 PM PST
Perhaps we have moved on, but I wish to share my summary of the insight I received from the child porn discussion. While the distinction was fairly obvious, it wasn't until PE specifically discussed production versus consumption that several issues became clear. I submit that many disagreements arise because of a failure to distinguish the production of a controversial item from the consumption of it. I have grouped society's feelings into three categories - benign, where virtually all people agree that either the consumption OR the production of the item does not, in itself, cause material harm. Mixed, where there are strong opinions on both sides of the issue, and repugnant, where almost all rational people share a repugnance. I listed five areas below, and my opinion on how they should be categorized. I think it is interesting that in four of the five cases, society's response on the consumption side is materially different than the production side, emphasizing the point that one must be careful to define the subject of the argument.