(no subject)
A friend and I were sitting around, talking about nothing in particular when we found a point on which we could reach no definite conclusion. We two are laymen, only superficially knowledgeable concerning the finer points of legality. So, this is a question for anyone out there with any sort of familiarity with legal matters. Mind you, this is all purely hypothetical. You know, knowledge for knowledge's sake. Philosophy in the strictest, most etymologically faithful sense of the word.
Kiddie porn is illegal. This is a known and accepted fact. Those who engage it sexual acts with the underage are vilified endlessly, have a permanent stamp attached to their records, and it haunts them wherever they go. Photographing and/or videotaping it is taking such an act one step further, not only recording the subversion and destruction of innocence but also creating the potential for others to experience it vicariously through the magic of the internet. And Xerox machines, if they're really determined to get their message out there.
But what about illustrations of sexual acts involving minors? True snuff porn is completely illegal but album covers like this one by Cannibal Corpse are allowed spots in Best Buy. The obvious explanation is that even though such illustrations might encourage what is seen as, well, unhealthy interests not befitting an upstanding citizen, no one was hurt in the creation of the image: no harm, no foul. Couldn't the same logic apply to child pornography? As long as no children are involved, meaning the person doesn't work from photographs or live models but only from the mind, no harm is being directly inflicted. Would it not fall into the same fuzzy, gray area as graphic depictions of horrendous violence?
And if one allows carnage but not kiddie smut, does that not implicitly put groping little children a tier higher on the hierarchy of sin than murder? If the images are so execrable then it seems to be viewed as little more than a difference of degree between looking at these pictures and going out and committing the acts themselves. Can child molestation really be so heinous an act that it surpasses cutting apart and devouring total strangers? As far as I can tell, only two states (Florida and Mississippi) allow for capital punishment for specifically sexual offenses whereas all the states with death penalties allow them for matters of homicide.
I suppose one could spin it around, however, and say that the extreme nature of murder somehow precludes a chunk of the population from being driven to it under normal circumstances whereas the comparatively less severe crime of child molestation has a greater potential to be seriously considered by an individual. Widespread exposure to sadistic gore might jade an audience, but not coerce them into duplicating the acts they've seen but kiddie porn might strike a few too many chords. Look at all the slasher movies in theaters right now and then try to remember the last movie you saw with a graphic depiction of sexual acts involving minors. I can almost guarantee you that it wasn't a big budget blockbuster.
I think I got a little ahead of myself, extrapolating before I had a solid answer. Can anyone help me out? Is the illustration of children engaged in sexual acts allowed?
Kiddie porn is illegal. This is a known and accepted fact. Those who engage it sexual acts with the underage are vilified endlessly, have a permanent stamp attached to their records, and it haunts them wherever they go. Photographing and/or videotaping it is taking such an act one step further, not only recording the subversion and destruction of innocence but also creating the potential for others to experience it vicariously through the magic of the internet. And Xerox machines, if they're really determined to get their message out there.
But what about illustrations of sexual acts involving minors? True snuff porn is completely illegal but album covers like this one by Cannibal Corpse are allowed spots in Best Buy. The obvious explanation is that even though such illustrations might encourage what is seen as, well, unhealthy interests not befitting an upstanding citizen, no one was hurt in the creation of the image: no harm, no foul. Couldn't the same logic apply to child pornography? As long as no children are involved, meaning the person doesn't work from photographs or live models but only from the mind, no harm is being directly inflicted. Would it not fall into the same fuzzy, gray area as graphic depictions of horrendous violence?
And if one allows carnage but not kiddie smut, does that not implicitly put groping little children a tier higher on the hierarchy of sin than murder? If the images are so execrable then it seems to be viewed as little more than a difference of degree between looking at these pictures and going out and committing the acts themselves. Can child molestation really be so heinous an act that it surpasses cutting apart and devouring total strangers? As far as I can tell, only two states (Florida and Mississippi) allow for capital punishment for specifically sexual offenses whereas all the states with death penalties allow them for matters of homicide.
I suppose one could spin it around, however, and say that the extreme nature of murder somehow precludes a chunk of the population from being driven to it under normal circumstances whereas the comparatively less severe crime of child molestation has a greater potential to be seriously considered by an individual. Widespread exposure to sadistic gore might jade an audience, but not coerce them into duplicating the acts they've seen but kiddie porn might strike a few too many chords. Look at all the slasher movies in theaters right now and then try to remember the last movie you saw with a graphic depiction of sexual acts involving minors. I can almost guarantee you that it wasn't a big budget blockbuster.
I think I got a little ahead of myself, extrapolating before I had a solid answer. Can anyone help me out? Is the illustration of children engaged in sexual acts allowed?