What most people do not realize is that child pornography is per se illegal. Although some child pornography might fall under the legal definition of obscenity, it does not have to be analyzed under traditional First Amendment guidelines.
The critical underpinning of contemporary child pornography jurisprudence is that child pornography is illegal due to the adverse effects on the children used in the creation of the child pornography. It is not the mere viewing of the images that causes harm, but the production, distribution and possession of the images and videos.
The Court wisely realized that the very nature of the child pornography criminal enterprise -- where demand for ever new and more graphic images directly drives the sexual abuse of children -- is the real crime.
The crime of child pornography has nothing to do with speech, protected or otherwise. The crime is the relentless clamor for images in which children's bodies are the currency. Surprisingly, most child porn is not sold commercially but traded for new material. The most hard core pictures are held back with the expectation that you've got to make some of your own to get the good stuff. Some children are sexually abused just to create child pornography.
In fact the very term child "pornography" is a misnomer and in my opinion is an insult to pornography (no matter how you view that term and what it depicts). Again, the crime here is not the mere viewing of the images or even thinking about unspeakable acts with children. Juries view child pornography all the time. So do experts for criminal defendants and prosecutors. None of them have committed a crime.
The crime of child pornography gets committed when demand for images (resulting in possession) leads directly or indirectly to the criminal sexual abuse of children who are often abused solely to produce child pornography (production). "Child pornography" then is not merely about a visual image, but is a unbroken chain of acts (distribution) which originate in or lead to the sexual abuse of children.
This is why virtual child pornography is legal and, in my opinion, should remain legal. The focus must remain on the very real, if largely unidentified, victims of this horrible criminal enterprise.
Why then was the Court correct in banning the promotion of virtual child pornography while allowing the production, distribution and possession of virtual child porn to remain legal? The simple answer is that the pandering and solicitation of ANY child pornography, when seen as an essential aspect of the entire criminal enterprise which leads to the sexual exploitation of children, must remain illegal.
A bank robber is not innocent just because the gun was plastic. Whether the gun is real or not is irrelevant because the crime of bank robbery is not the mere brandishing of what appears to be a gun, but it is demanding and receiving money under threat.
Similarly, the crime of child pornography is not merely offering images of sexually abused children, but it is the entire trade in such images which itself is firmly rooted in the wholesale exploitation of children. The Court correctly realized that this trade thrives in a milieu in which the offer or demand for images, virtual or not, is an essential and direct contributor to the "real" crime which is child pornography.
The Court clearly held that:
"an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed.' Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography."
The Court struck a careful balance which fully appreciates the nature and scope of the crime which is child pornography.
Coming up next, an analysis of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's recent child porn initiatives and why they are largely irrelevant in the fight against child pornography and child sexual exploitation.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC from NPR's On The Media on 12-26-2008: Porn's Fine Lines "If no children were harmed in the making, is it still kiddie porn? Cartoon defender Charles Brownstein says it's a danger to artistic freedom to criminalize lines on paper, but child-safety advocate Mary Leary says allowing explicit drawings of children presents a threat to the safety of real-life kids."
Vices and evil of such frightful minue that to be hated needs but to be seen. But seen too often, familiar with her face, we soon endure, then embrace.
ReplyDelete-Alexander Poe, Essay on Man.
Child pornography, virtual or not, should be a crime. The reason is the very nature of pornography. Pornography affects the mind. Sex is more addictive than any drug, and is an addiction that can be nearly impossible to break.
If someone has a desire to view pornography of any sort, the fulfillment of that desire does not quench it. It simply fuels the desire. What may start as an occasional viewing may turn regular. The desire for the intensity of the porn can change. Perhaps it starts with a swimsuit model, something that most of our culture would not even classify as porn. Then the desire rises to see sensually posed swimsuit models. Then it is to see semi-nude women. Then it is to see fully nude women. Then sexual activity, then more exotic sexual activity. This can lead to all sorts of deviant views of sex, and desires for the viewing of that sex.
As the desire for these types of sex rise, the desire to participate also arises. I need not even cite sources to say how marriages have been destroyed through this, a spouse becoming addicted to pornography and then demanding more and more exotic sexual activity until their loved one is unable to satisfy the desire anymore, then comes divorce, and the addiction grows as the person involved in pornography further seeks to satisfy their lust.
Now, let's apply that to child porn. Do we really think that it matters whether it is real or virtual. It is true that the virtual porn has not been part of real child abuse. However, it feeds that same drive to lust, and the person tempted to view it will continue to degrade until they are unable to resist the urge any longer, and they seduce or rape a child.
What difference does the medium make if the end is the same? It is like dancing on the edge of a cliff, seeing how close we can get to the edge before we fall off. Eventually we get too close, and destruction strikes us. It is much better to dance 20 feet away from the edge of the cliff, where we do not run the risk of falling.
What does that mean? The implications of this are far more reaching than child porn alone. The pornography industry itself has created this beast, and we are the beast that is created. I want to be very clear as I say this, however. I do not mean simply the nude depictions of people engaging in sex, nor even just the nude pictures of people at all. The implications of this go to our TV commercials, our billboards, our clothing catalogues. It reaches into every part of society that now sells itself with sex.
Is this extreme? Perhaps. But more important than the extremity, is the truth. We cannot be afraid of taking an extreme stance simply because we will be labeled. If no one took such stances, America would still be under British rule. Slavery would still be legal. Women would still be considered little more than property. Minorities would not be allowed to vote.
Each of these movements and many more have been extreme and necessary for our society to be just. Those who took the stand were labeled as radicals, even bigots. That did not deter them, and nore should it us. This is a fight that must be fought if we are to stop child exploitation, human trafficking, and rape throughout not only America, but throughout our world. Will you fight for those abused? Or will you stand by and let the spiral continue its course.
My Boyfriend was originally arrested and served 2 years for possession of child pornography. Recently he told this to a couple with a child who he was friends with. One night the couple went out and their child started crying. The grandmother was passed out and didn't answer the child's cries. He wrapped the child in a blanket and took it outside to the couple. When they unwrapped the baby it was naked. The parents took it to be examined and there were no signs of sexual or physical abuse. Now he is serving six months in jail for "Attempting to Sexually assault a child under the age of 13." What I have cited is the only evidence against him. He will be on parole for 4 1/2 years and he will have to accept the plea bargain because the jury will be biased and he would get 5 to 10 years. Doesn't that seem wrong? After this he will be spending 2 years in federal prison for parole violation.
ReplyDeleteThere is so much propaganda. Friends have told me to stay away from him.They are convinced that he will molest a child.I told my daughter about his charge and she(12)was unconcerned because we love him and trust him and know him and what he's like. She never felt that he would be sexually inappropriate with her. He says that he knows he has this problem and he's tired of being ashamed of it. He doesn't know where the thoughts come from. He just vows to himself that he would never take advantage of a lesser individual. I had a problem with the internet porn because it is real. But I have no problem with the Manga child porn, because its a cartoon. We role play in bed so that he can sublimate his sexual thoughts.
The media basically says that my boyfriend will become a child molester because he watched child pornography. They have statistics. 86% of possession cases will molest children. At the same time, 86% molested children before they got caught for possession. (Anonymous government therapy sexual disclosures). My boyfriend also filled out a disclosure. He didn't have to tell me about it. He's never molested anyone. But there's very little solid investigation into this area. Nobody knows how many watch vs. how many commit afterwards. Child pornography increases the risk to act for dangerous offenders but not so much for mildly affected people. So the study says. Someone should get all these facts together because I don't know statistically what kind of risk my boyfriend is. It gets all built up in my imagination when my friends say he's evil and dangerous and will molest someone. Its confusing.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Response to the "My Boyfriend" poster:
ReplyDeleteYou should google "Debbie Nathan," and read her articles. She tends to argue that we in America indulge in hysteria when it comes to child molesters. She cites alot of good solid research too.
Just responding to the content of your post, the study you cite sounds a bit dicey, maybe even junk. I am tempted to say that you are in love with the guy, and therefore blind. Furthermore your daughter is how old? Children often say what you want to hear, so your daughter may not be the best check on your boyfriend either. Unfortunately, you probably can't trust family or friends for an objective opinion either, for the reasons you mentioned. That you are researching paedophilia (or lack thereof) for yourself really speaks volumes, however. The more knowledgeable you are, the better you will be able to defend him. It sounds like you really want to do the right thing.
The reality is that Nathan is incredibly biased and does not represent the majority of researchers in the field. There is no hysteria about children being abused. High percentages of children are abused. However, there are child molesters and their defenders that would like people to believe this. They misrepresent data and spin child abuse cases to make child molesters look innocent. They question children's accounts of being abused, which ends up allowing child molesters to continue abusing children.
ReplyDeletefor data on this, see childabusewiki(dot)org
and ritualabuse(dot)us