Hahaha. No.
I don't understand you. Obviously with an avatar like yours one would naturally assume that you by definition are against freedom yet to a certain extent you advocate & undertone the notion that you uphold the idea of individual liberty.
Now, lets get back on topic.
we have two issues here.
1. The child being raped by person A.
2. Person B watching the child being raped by person A on a PC.
These are both different issues.
Since sex is in its own unique way a private aspect of an individuals life, in should be of no interest or tolerable act that the government regulate or legislate any sort of sexual behaviour. Now, lets look at the issue of the girl being raped. Violent act such as this, of course are classed as crime because an act of violence and non-consensual sex has been performed on another person. A clear violation of this girls natural rights.
Lets begin to look at the issue of watching this crime.
Your position tends to hold that watching the child being raped is a crime because its degrading and immoral and all that yada yada and therefore should be outlawed. Yet you don't even deal with the crucial point: that the good, bad, or indifferent consequences of watching this clip, while perhaps an interesting problem in its own right, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not it should be outlawed. Person B has in no way advocated, been part of raping this girl.
It is not the business of any bureaucrat or anyone in position of power to uphold what is morally correct of incorrect.This is for each individual to decide for himself.
If the governmnet must protect the rights of the individuals involved it is the rights of the girl. Her rights have been violated, her body was raped, and therefore person A will be punished because of the above.
I miss worded that sentence.
Why should the rights of society supersede the rights of an individual? This is an error in social theory where you treat society as if its an actually existing entity. In fact, why is society even treated as a superior figure with overriding rights of its own? epic failure.
see above.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the whole basis of your argument is working on the belief that we have a right to 'Freedom of information'.
I am also wondering if you see prohibiting the use of child porn as an issue that is restrictive to the point of being oppressive and somewhat totalitarian?
I have to say, that while I see your point, and the angle from which you are approaching this issue, I do not agree with it. Even though I would do so perhaps not so enthusiastically, I would never advocate the banning of normal, consensual 'adult porn', because I believe that that would be a breach of our right to freedom of information.
When it comes to child porn however, I believe laws should be in place to prohibit usage. The reason for this is because by viewing the material, a person is knowingly with little concern or care, breaching someone else's right to privacy, dignity, respect and development.
Ask yourself this:
Should it be a crime to sit and watch (in person) someone rape a person, or worse still, a child?
Wouldn't that in theory be classified as 'sexual assault in the second degree'. Aren't you an accessory, then? Don't you have a responsibility - both morally and legally - to report that crime? And, if you sit and watch it and get off on it, isn't that considered sexual abuse too? It's certainly an 'unwanted act of a sexual nature that includes; inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor'. It is, by definition, sexual assault and, most specifically, perversion.
AND, how is that different to watching someone do this to a child (or any person) via a different medium?
By casting your eyes upon child porn, and thus the carrying out of sexual assault - whether it be rape, inappropriate touching, etc - you are committing an offence. You are depriving a child of their right to be protected, of their right to develop in a wholesome way, of their right to privacy, of their right to be treated with dignity and respect, as well as numerous other rights.
It is most certainly NOT a victimless crime either. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that downloading child porn does not stimulate and support the child porn industry. It clearly does, and you must be living under a rock if you attempt to deny that.
This is a very serious crime.
These laws are not about depriving us of our right to freedom of information, nor are they oppressing us or controlling us to a degree that is unnecessary, they are simply working towards a goal, and that goal is to shut down the child porn industry. Or, at the least cause it to experience a steady decline. The closure of the child porn industry is about stopping serious criminal offences against children from being supported, encouraged, funded and made worse by a greater invasion of a child's rights.
Those suggesting that it should be legal are not looking at the bigger picture. They are being insensitive and not taking into consideration the rights of people or children to be safe, respected and, to be awarded dignity, respect and privacy.
I urge those people to look at this issue with a little more compassion and humanness.
