CreateDebate


Debate Info

126
94
Yes No
Debate Score:220
Arguments:116
Total Votes:265
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (71)
 
 No (44)

Debate Creator

TERMINATOR(6779) pic



Should child pornography be decriminalized?

Yes

Side Score: 126
VS.

No

Side Score: 94
11 points

To be quite honest I can not find any logical or rational reason for making it illegal to possess child pornography. All the arguments used to criminalise its possession would be ridiculed or laughed at if applied to anything else.

Owning child pornography hurts the child.

How? Honestly. Does the child know you even have it?

Owning child pornography supports the practise.

Really? Just like watching the news supports violent crime?

Owning child pornography makes you a paedophile.

How's that then? So watching gay movies makes you gay? Watching Dexter makes you a serial killer?

Criminalising child pornography enables law enforcement to convict producers.

Isn't that just lowering the standards of evidence for conviction? What if merely owning a gun, made you convictable for murder? Or owning the murder weapon was alone enough to incarcerate you?

Criminalising child pornography cleans up society so that we aren't exposed to it everywhere.

So if we make BDSM pornography illegal that means that we'll no longer fear it being everywhere... oh wait, it is already the case that it isn't.

Child pornography makes children appear as sex objects.

The same way that violent videogames like Grand Theft Auto make organised crime and running over pedestrians appealing?

I can think of an additional point in favour of legalising child pornography ownership, that should appeal to parents. Your sons and daughters are taking pictures and videos of themselves and distributing these files on the internet or through mobile phones. Who would have thought that our youngsters would incorporate technology into the growth phase of their sexuality and expression? They also will download and watch child pornography because, surprise, a thirteen year old boy or girl isn't interested in thirty year-olds or even twenty year-olds having sex. They want to see stuff with their age group.

So how does this interest parents? Well, current laws would convict your child as a sex offender, and he or she would have their names put on a sex offender registry, all for the grand crime of watching people their age in porn, or sending photos or videos of themselves to friends.

Side: yes
4 points

I open-mindedly agree to this. If you would like more information please visit human-stupidity.com about the "voodoo effect" of those who view child pornography. Everyone that is quick to say "no" has been misinformed, does not understand, or does not want to understand and simply wants to agree with their own dogmatic ideology that was passed on to them by some fat politicians and police. By the way if "viewing child pornography re-victimizes the child", then wouldn't the police/federal agent, jury, judge, and prosecutor be "re-victimizing" the child?. Example you are a women and came out of the shower and there are two men standing in front of you: one is a nice guy and the other is a sadist and rapist (she doesn't know this). Don't you think she would be equally disgusted that two men are staring at her naked body? Sometimes I feel that the only people in jail should be people that cannot utilize their brains.

Side: Yes
3 points

I agree with your points wholeheartedly. It becomes a sick, twisted Orwellian shit hole society when the government can destroy the life of an individual because of what they VIEW or THINK about.

Side: Yes
Elvira(3446) Disputed
1 point

So you'd be absolutely fine if someone had child pornography- and you were the child. Anyo ne could legally own or view this image without your consent. People have killed themselves over les.

Side: No
freetruth22(4) Clarified
3 points

You must be an idiot to think ANYONE would feel "absolutely fine" if someone possessed their sexual exploitation as a child. Of course I wouldn't feel fine. I would feel embarassed, but all I would know is that people in general have my images, I wouldn't know who specifically though. If it was a person I knew I would be 10 times more disgusted than not knowing who the actual person was. The people that killed themselves are people that do not cope with the problem properly. Did you know that there is a law called the The Crime Victims' Rights Act (2004), which allows for law enforcement to send the victim of child sexual exploitation a letter everytime someone is arrested for possessing an image of them. Do you see where the "cycle of abuse" comes into play now? The victims are not comforted by hearing this and they cannot move on with their lives. Only a stupid president such as george w. bush would make such a ignorant law. The actual "re-victimization" occurs when the KNOWN victim receives that letter. Don't you think they want to get on with their lives instead of receiving a letter stating some pervert had an image of them being sexually exploited. That is what I call bad coping. Those victims are still living in the past EVERYTIME THEY GET THAT LETTER. So who is really "re-victimizing" them? the ones who posses OR law enforcement and the media? Wouldn't you rather move on and never look back at the horrific events?

Side: Yes
link6065(741) Disputed
1 point

I am against the abuse of real children but, artistic freedom and expression of such desires should still be legal to produce and view. I mean writings, drawings, paintings, and or sculptures that are not depicting real children should be legal.

Side: Yes
3 points

The creation of it is child abuse, but once it is created, it is of no provable harm to anyone.

So yes, it should be decriminalized in the sense that if you download it, the FBI shouldn't be breaking down your door.

Side: yes
HeatedIce(4) Disputed
7 points

The creation of child pornography is child abuse but after it's created it can still harm the child. Not only was the child molested, but child pornography allows others to watch and enjoy the molestation. This creates even more pain for the child.

If a man rapes a woman and makes her rape viewable on the internet, how would she feel knowing that anyone could watch it whenever they wanted? This would make it harder for the woman to move past the rape. The same is true for child pornography. The child would have a harder time moving past the molestation.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
4 points

The creation of child pornography is child abuse but after it's created it can still harm the child. Not only was the child molested, but child pornography allows others to watch and enjoy the molestation. This creates even more pain for the child.

How's that? How does it still harm the child afterwards? Is the child somehow aware of all the people on the internet? Sympathetic magic maybe?

If a man rapes a woman and makes her rape viewable on the internet, how would she feel knowing that anyone could watch it whenever they wanted?

That's a different topic. Specifically, knowing that it could be watched is not the same as knowing that it was presently watched.

This would make it harder for the woman to move past the rape. The same is true for child pornography. The child would have a harder time moving past the molestation.

If I were molested I should think that what's on the internet would be the least of my concerns. Further I wouldn't even know that it was on the internet because I'd be too traumatised to go out and look for child porn, to see if I'm on the internet.

Side: yes
V4Vendetta(4) Disputed
3 points

How do these victims KNOW they are being viewed in the privacy of other ppl's homes?? They Do not know. Thus your argument is invalid.

It is the responsibility of the parents or guardians to protect their kids... If they are so incompetent to allow something so heinous happen to their kids, then THEY are the ones who should receive the penalties....The government is WAY OUT OF LINE in spying on ppl's IP's and then BUSTING families' door downs and hurting MORE innocent children over this shit!! when does the bullshit stop??

Side: Yes
link6065(741) Disputed
2 points

I agree and support you. Again I am stating this because this debate lacks the full spectrum of the debate. Imagined fictional works of child pornography should not be illegal. Drawings such as Japanese anime for example should be aloud to be produced viewed and possessed. No harm comes to any child and harms no one except for the ego's of those whom it may devour.

Side: Yes
3 points

It should be nobody's business but ones own what one looks at in the privacy of ones own home in so far as no one is forced to watch or otherwise harmed. How can looking at a picture hurt someone when the picture may be decades old and the viewer had nothing to do with its production? It's just a waste of police resources.

Censorship is the closing down of thought in pursuance of an agenda by the ones doing the censoring. For that reason alone I am all for legalization of child pornography (mere possession), though not necessarily for its production.

Side: yes
3 points

I should add that if you follow foreign news, a number of countries like Australia (I think also Belgium, Denmark or one of those countries too) were enacting nationwide internet filters in the name of blocking child pornography, but the filter lists were classified and when leaked it was revealed that the censor lists included political websites in addition to the pornography.

In other words child pornography is presently a heartstring pulled by politicians to enable censorship of other media or behaviours.

Side: yes
1 point

The business of making child porn belongs to the same criminal organisations which run drugs and they have become very rich. Because child porn has been criminalised - it has also become a part of their operations. Fighting the war on drugs has proven to be increasingly futile -as the drug mafia is better armed and well trained. These criminals have become so rich they can fund the campaigns of politicians. So no politician will never want to legalise drugs - they want campaign funds. Planting drugs in someone's house, is a good way to eliminate political opponents. Child porn is also not a small business operation - it is a huge one, protected with lots of armed people. So the police is fighting not only drugs but child porn at the same time.

Planting child porn in someone's computer is something which hackers can do easily, thus ruin the political career of any individual. By keeping these things illegal is just another way to destroy the reputation of anyone. There is child porn because there is a demand for it. Who are the buyers? And how many of them are there? Is the government prepared to resort to mass arrests? Such measures would only encourage bribing the police to look the other way, thus corrupting society even more. The biggest owners of child porn are police organisations, which they took from the people who had it. They use it to snare anyone interested in it.

Side: Yes
3 points

I have been reading both sides and for the most part both sides seem right, EXCEPT..... Those arguing that it should remain illegal are arguing what is going on in the pictures. No one argues that the act is illegal. It is illegal to steal, to murder, to rape, to harm anyone, it is NOT illegal to own, or view or posses those pictures. If you think the law should remain, you are mostly saying it should be illegal to have a picture where something illegal was done. If you can't say that, then there really is no argument. It is censorship. If a pedophile can get his jollies looking at a picture of a child's picture taken 30 years ago, you just may have prevented the harm of a child. In supporting the law, you take away his means to get his "jollies" so now he has to resort to possibly hanging around the local schools and/or parks. I say keep him in his apartment and let him look. If you make owing of a picture of an illegal act illegal, you are heading down a slippery slope.

Side: Yes
2 points

Sexuality and procreation are central to a healthy species. Sex and violence are incorrectly tied in modern civilized morality, an unfortunate twist at the base of our moral compass. There is nothing morally criminal or shameful inherent in the human body. There is no natural and true cut-off age when young people with healthy curiosity first explore their sexuality and all of its possibilities. Everybody learns at their own paces, and those with less fear, here specifically less fear of their own potentials, tempered by greater wisdom, tend to be more successful. It is unfortunate that we, as a self aware civilized modern society, can't officially define the difference between these truths and their utter perversions. Coercion, rape and derision, mistrust and violence, among many other possibilities, are not the same as guidance, faith and love, pleasure and procreation. Further, in many ways these are subjective concepts listed, leaving only time to tell what effects a society of censorship will have on each generation. One thing I can say for certain is that our current government is not wise enough to make these distinctions well for me and my future family, and this is why I vocally support the decriminalization of nearly everything.

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes it should be decriminalised. Now most people disagree with me. I can understand why you would, but i cant agree. One of the reasons i cant agree is because i know just how much GOOD it would do to be legalised. Most people dont take numbers into consideration. Before Pornography was introduced the percentage of rapes and murders of the sexual nature was at the all time high in the USA alone. Once porn was introduced these numbers whent down durasticaly. If legaluising pornography of children would lower the ammount of child rapes and kidnappings then wouldnt it be safer FOR THE CHILDREN if we did? I mean think about it. People with an atraction to children cant avoid it. Just like men who have an atraction to men. Its something that the mind is preprogramed with. Fighting that programing just makes it that much harder to resist. Eventualy fighting this attraction would not only destroy the person fighting it but would cause them to go to such extreams that it would destroy the child as well.

Another point i would like to make is the outlet factor. IF people who have an atraction to children had an outlet do you think they would be more able to keep a hand on their urges? I do. Giving these people something to use as a way to releave the "presure" of fighting these urges would not only help to lower the ammount of kidnapings but also the ammount of child related sex crimes. Im not saying let some random guy come into your house and stick his dick in you kid, im not saying there has to be anyone else involved at all! What i AM saying is that gving this outlet would be better than keeping it away just because it would lower the ammount of damage being done.

Now the third topic i will be commenting on is the most common argument for those that are agenst. It hurts the child. Well it doesnt have to. If you FORCE the child then yes its goin to hurt them but if they could sit down and actualy talk about what they would be doing and why then the factors of mental harm no longer apply. There would be no force thus no trama. If the chld said stop and the person stopped that would be the end of it. No harm would be done and the childs right to decide agenst doing it would have been observed. Now when it comes to making child porn why does everyone assume that it involves an adult? if the parents of the children told them what to do and they did it on there own would that be so bad? would putting pictures and videos of a child touching themself or another willing parent consented child be doing harm? some would say yes but what harm is being done? The child would be acting on there own instincts and urges. Most people dont realise that a childs penis means no more to them then mud. Touching themselves or another child would be equal to playing in the mud in there eyes. The "Big Deal" comes from the parents telling the children that its a big deal. If you let a child do only what they feel okay with doing then not only are you NOT hurting them but you are teaching them about there body and also helping them to come to terms with there own sexuality.

CLosed minded simpletuns are the kind o people who make solutions like this LOOK like a problem when there not. open your minds to the possibility that you are wrong before you go deciding that the things someone else sees as okay arnt, because by doing that arnt you just doing to them what you dont want to be done to your children. And before you go making any stupid comments on "well you dont have children do you" let me say this: no i dont but if i did my views would remain the same because i am open minded enough to see what kind good this could have.

Side: Yes
2 points

Freedom of speech requires the freedom to seek and obtain information. I believe this also means the right to view child porn.

Side: Yes
0 points

Freedom of speech with child porn is only valid if the child is consenting and voluntary, otherwise, it violents life, liberty and property.

Side: No
anachronist(889) Disputed
3 points

In the production of child porn, yes, however once it has already been made it is information, which people have the right to seek out and receive.

Bombing a small village is also a clear violation of life and liberty, however we watch it on the news every morning. Should any videos of people being harmed be made illegal to view or possess? Should pictures of dead people be banned, since they cannot give consent? Should we be disallowed from filming the police if they don't want to be filmed?

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes, child pornography must (and likely will) be decriminalized.

First, for those of you who are overly emotional - I DO NOT condone molestation of any type.

1) Viewing an image does not re-victimize the victim. Here's why not:

- If a person doesn't know they are being exploited in the thoughts of another person's mind, how can they be victimized? How can thinking thoughts victimize a person to a point of being a crime. There must be an actual act, for which we already have laws.

- Does looking at a person of any age in public with sexual thoughts victimize them in a way that should be criminalized? Why should this be a crime in private?

- Is it the mere looking? or the thoughts? or both? that makes possession of this material criminal?

- If looking is what is criminal, why are such images stored and restored, viewed and reviewed during trials and by law enforcement everyday not criminal? Yes, they confiscate illegal drugs, but they don't use them. Can you really say, turning your eyeballs towards something is criminal? Is it two crimes to look twice? What about have two copies of the same image?

- Or is it the thoughts the person might be having? Do we really need to dissect this? Going to jail for thoughts? Sadly, we have such laws against thought. They are called hate crimes. We are a society demanding people be punished for their thoughts.

2) Viewing an image doesn't make a person more likely to act out what is in the image.

- If the opposite is true, we ought to destroy all means of communication given the uncountable images we see each day of very bad things.

- How can you prove that looking at an image causes the crime? Is looking the sole motivator? Or are the other factors? Are the other factors held as guilty? If not, why not? How can we measure any of this distribution of cause?

3) Not all people who view this material will actually hurt a child.

- I suspect we would be shocked to find out how many adults are attracted to children, which, by the way, is defined as 18 and below.

- Society is loaded with child exploitation. Just look around at the teen stars, movies, clothing standards, etc. If the looker is guilty of victimizing, so is society.

4) What is child pornography?

- Go find the 'official' definition and you will see nothing but subjectivity. Who here has the correct definition for all of society? How do you prove the definition is the correct one?

- Even a drawing can land a person in jail.

- Teen girls and boys are sending nude images of each other all over the country. They are being prosecuted for this. (Most of these images are sent by girls which makes them producers of child pornography. Production carries the longest jail sentence.) Yet, when they are together, they are petting and having sex every chance they get. They are looking at each other naked in person, then touching, then having sex. But the image they send to each other is a felony. The law is often more lenient towards youth in this area. But if you are an adult and you see such an image you will be prosecuted. It is almost like this is 18- porn. We have 18+ plus porn for adults, and 18- porn for youth. Don't anyone look across the boundary of 18 or you are a felon. Not only are you a felon, but you are thrown into the same category as the actual molesters and producers. In fact, many times the sentences are rougher for the lookers than the doers.

It is inevitable that child pornography will be decriminalized. The current laws are unconstitutional, highly emotional, and very difficult to support legally. Think of this: possessing an image is criminal. We already have laws to prosecute people who molest and harm children. That is a totally different category of crime. But having in your possession an image? How can possibly be. Yes, people might find sexual gratification from the image. Is that criminal? People get off to all sorts of things, none of which is criminal.

These laws will not stand and many will lose everything until the laws change. Only when this crime touches someone close to you will you ever really find the ability to logically think through the ridiculousness of criminalizing possession of child pornography.

My thoughts were a little all over the place, some of which might be useless. But can any of us really not see the conflict here?

Warning: DO NOT look below this line:

o>-< (to the left is an image of a naked 11-year old). Sorry, too late for you. I told you not to look. I drew the image. I therefore am a producer and will have a lighter sentence than you. You looked. You now have a record on your computer. You are in possession of child pornography. By law, you are now a felon. Minimum of 5 years is what Congress has thought appropriate for your crime. Society now sees no difference between you and a molester. In fact, many judges will sentence you to a longer time in jail, where you will be called a 'chomo.' Prepare to lose your job, your family, your life, and be raped in jail. This, all because you are in possession of a whole bunch of 1's and 0's that add up to be an image of the human body without clothing. We don't want to hear how you looked on accident. You are a pervert. Away with you filth.

You might laugh, but this is the law as it is now.

Side: Yes

I could post a big long wall of text as to why it shouldn't be illegal but a lot of other people have already done that for me. I happen to agree with them. There is no logical reason as to why its illegal. Sure its a horrible and disgusting act but whats done is done. Not having it available to other pedophiles isn't going to turn back time. I think the possession of child porn should be legal but the creation of it should be illegal. Trimming the leafs from a tree isn't going to stop it from growing. Only pulling out the root will do that.

Side: Yes
2 points

Everyone arguing that "the chid is victimized all over again when an image is viewed" probably believes that the child has some form of ESP (extra-sensory perception) to know who exactly is viewing their image. I can tell you if they knew that the FBI, Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC), and ICE (Cyber Crime Section) were all downloading their images off P2P (then viewing it to "verify") AND purchasing a subscription to a commercial website.

(1. ice.gov - An HSI special agent, acting in an undercover capacity, purchased a 20-day subscription to the "Illegal.CP" website in October 2005, and the next day, received an e-mail that provided a login and a password – indicating that the credit card charges would appear on the subscriber's credit card bill as "ADSOFT" and would include a charge for $79.99. Upon accessing the "Illegal.CP" website, the initial page warned subscribers as follows:")

(2. http://www2.wbtw.com/news/grand-strand-wbtw/2012/dec/18/loris-man-charged-sharing-child-porn-after-underco-ar-5194313/ --- "During an undercover investigation initiated by the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, an officer downloaded multiple child pornography videos via peer-to-peer file sharing from an IP address at a residence in Horry County. ")

I do not condone looking at someone's sexual exploitation as a child, but do you really want to continue with your pathetic and invalid argument; "the chid is victimized all over again when an image is viewed"

So now, tell me how is the opposition's argument valid?

Supporting Evidence: ICE.gov (breaking the law to enforce the law??) (m.ice.gov)
Side: Yes
2 points

Well, I'd have to say Yes, considering it's no different from gore viewers (meaning people who purposely view victims of violent crime and discuss the perpetrators in a VERY neutral way, sometimes deciding they are "cool", not to imply that they don't have sympathy for the sometimes dead victims)

Side: Yes
2 points

And here's another reasons why this issue is just emotional hysteria (note, I in no way whatsoever condone the production of child pornography or the breaking of any laws):

1) A female child is starving in Africa. I'm alone. I look at her picture. My heart is broken. I feel extreme sadness. I caress her picture, talk to it, comfort it. Does the child now feel better? Is her stomach full? Is she comforted?

2) A father's son falls of his bike and skins his knee. The father sees this. He runs as quickly as he can to his own bedroom. He grabs a picture of his son and tells him it will be OK. He has tears in his eyes. Will he get points as a parent for his using the picture to transfer his love to his son?

3) Child Protective Services shows up at a residence where people have claimed that the parents are neglecting their children. They enter the home and hear terrible crying from the basement. But the parents argue that they are taking care of their children. CPS looks around the rooms and see wonderful pictures of their children on the walls surrounded by flowers. The pictures are clean, well-cared for. They also have pictures of their children at the dinner table with nice meals placed before them. Will CPS declare these as good parents and close the case?

4) A man is found guilty for a crime regarding child pornography. He is to be sentenced. He argues during sentencing that his picture be sent to jail. Will the judge acquiesce?

If so much harm can be inflicted through a picture why can't an equal amount of good? Why is no one celebrated for comforting a picture versus the actual child?

Side: Yes
1 point

my answer to the question is found at thecullenreport.blogspot.ca

Side: Yes
1 point

I believe that only people who have viewed it should be given a break. Simply viewing it could be as harmless as just a taboo curiosity. No, the making of child pornography is not a good thing, but people who have viewed it shouldn't be given life ruining sentences for first time offenses.

I do think that the FBI could step in and just delete the stuff off of your computer and give you probation of something, because it can be harmful, but I don't think that first time viewing offenders should be given any jail time at all.

Side: Yes
1 point

If the age of consent laws were abolished, there's be no such thing as "child pornography" in the first place. It is an entirely contrived and arbitrary position. Criminalize violent abuse, rape,, and physical harm, but just because a person arbitrarily identified as "underaged" voluntarily engages in sexual acts with someone or permitted sexual photos to be taken, (of their age or older) does not mean any actual abuse occurred.

it's no different than if a 20 year old and her boyfriend filmed themselves going at it, and then broke up, with the boyfriend still owning a copy. It's no more "traumatic" then that.

If physical bodily harm occurred, prosecute the perpetrator, if it was rape, prosecute the perpetrator, if it was invasion of privacy, prosecute (as an invasion of privacy) the perpetrator, but if it was voluntary, leave the child, and the perpetrator alone.

If it's viewed by others, it's no different than if the police has viewed it and presented in in a courtroom as evidence, whether there was harm done or not, viewing it does not re-victimize the victim, just prosecute the producer for producing it. It's pretty sick personally, if you're enjoying something cause bodily harm to a child, but it's no worse than the nightly news, and we don't criminalize that.

Side: Yes
1 point

People keep arguing that child pornography should remain illegal because it exploits children. Two young girls under 10 recently opened an event for the LGBT community at which President Obama was the main speaker. I'm not sure that isn't child exploitation.

Side: Yes

No image should ever be illegal to view, this is an emotional reaction but not rational. The argument is the simple act of viewing is dangerous and creates demand. The problem is you can watch violent acts all day (or even, war crimes) and no one makes the same argument to remove those images.

If an act is illegal to commit, fine... but viewing is not the same as committing the act (any act, violent or sexual). Personally, I've always been appalled by graphic violent images. Yet, those images are seeming everwhere.

The other thing is, if you really want to protect children, why wouldn't you make images legal to view and reporting them easy... so the focus is on finding and stopping abusers (if that is the priority)? The other issue is nude images are NOT against the law, nudity at any age is in fact legal. Many wrongfully conflate under age nudity with cp, even judges and then they wrongfully convict teens for nude sexting or someone for visiting a nudist site. Think about that, visiting a nudist site is wrongfully perceived as a crime by some misinformed law enforcement officers.

Side: Yes
15 points

Dumbasses, listen:

Child Pornography is illegal for a very damn good reason. Thus it should remain illegal!

It is illegal because in order for it to exist a child is abused, raped or violated. This act is psychologically abusive to the child and is in itself illegal.

Now some of you might say, "Well what about the stuff that already exists, we should be able to look at that!" NO! That is, and should remain illegal to view as well. That child (age 17 and under) could not legally consent to being in that video, and was violated during it's creation. If you were raped or violated at any age would you want a video of that on the internet? Any mentally sound, reasonable person would say no. So extend the children in those videos the same respect.

It is out of concern and respect for every child that has ever been violated, let alone on video, that child pornography is and should remain a criminal act.

Now go fuck yourselves.

Side: No
joebbowers(4) Disputed
4 points

There is a lot of embarassing content on the internet that people didn't consent to being published, all of it is legal to possess. Even rape videos, torture, animal cruelty, beastiality, etc. While they are illegal to produce because that requires a victim, they are all legal to possess, because there is no harm in simply watching. Why the exception for child pornography? It's thought crime. They know the action is harmless, but the thoughts make them uncomfortable. The fact that pornographic drawings and stories which involve no real children are also illegal demonstrates that it is not about protecting children, but punishing impure thoughts.

Side: Yes
Pendulum(3) Disputed
2 points

Actually lolicon art is entirely legal in many places. This debate is interesting in that it is one of very few actual modern taboos in conversation. Well, this and being republican. Seriously, how are we to know right from wrong if it isn't permitted that we even indulge the conversation, let alone take a direct look at what we're debating? Lolicon Anime is relatively common and legal, not to mention the large number of treatments childhood or cross generational sexuality has been given in literature. Are we burning books here, afraid to look before we condemn?

Side: No
tom5164(1) Clarified
2 points

look pal 1) dont call us dumbasses ok that kind of hurts 2) technicly notabuse if the child in question actually wants it i mean maybe this kid wanted to show up in a porno or to loose her virginity earley 3) why dont you go fuck yoursellf seems you wank off enough any ways

Side: Yes
1 point

I agree to what Joebbowers said but I want to put in my two cents as well. You asked if you were molested would you want it placed on the internet. Well it just so happens I was molested once as a child and while I would definitely not want that online if it just so happen to end up that way while it would suck. It wouldn't bother me to much. I mean yeah I may feel a bit embarrassed to learn that it was out there. But I would eventually get over it and move on. I wouldn't know who the people were looking at it and I wouldn't want to know. If its making them happy then let them have at it.

Side: Yes
Euori(24) Disputed
1 point

This is just bias towards children. Children are only children for a short time, and child pornography in terms of their victimization is no different from people who view adult victims on gore sites. Yeah, many victims on there are DEAD, but I'm sure people like you don't care if the children are dead or alive when being victimized, right, so don't use that argument.

I have yet to find a solid argument that says why child pornography is bad and viewing adult victims of violent crime is not. I'm not into child porn, but I just don't have a reason to condemn it. I'm not even saying this because I feel like I'd have to condemn myself for viewing snuff and gore. Even if I didn't, I'd shrug at it. Logic wins over social conditioning in my mind.

Side: Yes
1 point

I just wanted to fit in so I gave you an up vote... then read it you are correct

Side: No
V4Vendetta(4) Disputed
1 point

How do these victims KNOW they are being viewed in the privacy of other ppl's homes?? They Do not know. Thus your argument is invalid.

It is the responsibility of the parents or guardians to protect their kids... If they are so incompetent to allow something so heinous happen to their kids, then THEY are the ones who should receive the penalties....The government is WAY OUT OF LINE in spying on ppl's IP's and then BUSTING families' door downs and hurting MORE innocent children over this shit!! when does the bullshit stop??

Side: No
link6065(741) Disputed
0 points

Go fuck yourself. Obviously you do not know the full spectrum of the argument you are projecting. In Canada child porn falls under the categories of REAL or IMAGINED. Therefore factually, not all child porn involves real children. The mere act of imaging a child is considered child pornography and thus the mind becomes illegal. Now seriously, take your ignorant biased opinion and go fuck yourself.

Side: Yes

No it should not. Every method of removing the scum of the earth that would watch it from society needs to be available to police.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

No it should not. Every method of removing the scum of the earth that would watch it from society needs to be available to police.

A bit Orwellian don't you think? You realise that (teenage) children themselves watch child pornography AND produce it, in their adolescent years as part of the whole exploration and formation of sexuality bit? It isn't all manufactured from sweaty old men raping boys. But hey, it's a REALLY deep subject that modern taboo has made just about everyone ignorant of or silent on.

Side: yes
1 point

A bit Orwellian don't you think?

Orwellian?

The only thing that matters is stopping it - by any means necessary. I'm not concerned with the feelings of child molesters or those who sympathize with them.

You realise that (teenage) children themselves watch child pornography AND produce it

What is your argument, that child molestation is acceptable where the perpetrator is still in the formative years?

But hey, it's a REALLY deep subject that modern taboo has made just about everyone ignorant of or silent on.

What's deep is the cause of the sickness, not the need to protect children from those who have it.

Side: No
1 point

"modern taboo has made just about everyone ignorant of or silent on." Well put. How can I decide for myself if child pornography is dangerous to everyone involved if I'm afraid or forbidden to look at it? What if you looked at it and there were kids having a good time, not being raped, exploring their sexuality? Just saying, what if . . . what if by making that exploration a felony the system is actually forcefully removing the child's sexual choice, eg: rape. What if the opposite of all these things was true? Is there any way to make an educated moral choice about a forbidden topic? Are our children important enough that we should face the responsibility of their education?

Side: Yes
3 points

Child Pornography should be illegal for the sole purpose that Children should be protected to create Child Porn a Child is harmed, keeping it illegal is an attempt to take away the demand, take away the demand less of it will be made make it Legal to watch more people will watch it so increasing the amount of it being made. Just because it is hard to Police is not a good reason to legalise it.

Side: No
link6065(741) Disputed
1 point

Not all child porn is actually depicting real children though. In canada child porn falls under the catagories of REAL or IMAGINED. Meaning no harm to a child actually has to take place. While I feel personally that erotica (the artistic side which encompasses real models not being touched while being able to show off there bodies as well as porno that is drawn, written and or sculpted) should be decriminalized or even legalized.

Side: Yes
unownmew(160) Disputed
1 point

Banning Liquor during the prohibition era really cut down on the demand for it didn't it? You're never going to take away the demand for it. All you can do it try to cut down on the damage done to children by it, by strictly penalizing anyone who harms a child in it's making and production.

Of course, a digital piece of drawn artwork doesn't really harm any child does it? So how do you protect the child being harmed when no child is actually harmed?

Side: Yes
thumper8766(3) Disputed
1 point

That's not true. Child porn WAS legal in the past. It was made illegal in the 70's. Yet in the 60's and 70's abuse was a lot less common as it is today with it illegal. Some argue that the abuser sitting at home could have gotten his rocks off alone, now with no way to find what he/she is looking for, they must go find a real victim. Seems making it illegal created demand as the actual abuse went up AFTER it was made illegal.

How come you can have a picture of a kid having his head blown but not playing with him/herself?

Is a kid playing with themselves abusive? Is it more so then the kid having his head blown off? (Yes that actually exsists)

Side: Yes

Child pornography is a clear violation of life, liberty and property of the child.

Side: No
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

The production of child pornography is, but isn't the denial of the right to seek and receive information a violation of free speech, and therefore liberty? I don't support the rape of children, but I don't support public stonings, murders and vandalism, yet I watch videos and see images of these things daily through the news and through the internet, for the purpose of connecting emotionally with the victims, understanding of a situation, or curiosity.

Side: Yes
1 point

Life, liberty and propety trump the right to free speech.

Side: No
link6065(741) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, but so is making the mind and artistic expressions there of is a clear violation of life, liberty and property of all individuals. So even though you are right on the side of real children and I support you for that. I have to go against you in this debate because I feel that imagined works should be decriminalized.

Side: Yes
3 points

I agree watching these videos should be decriminalized, but at all costs, the production of these videos must be stopped because it violates the life, and liberty of children.

Side: No
3 points

-1st: about possessing and accessing child porn

Yes, accessing child pornography contributes to that more children be abused, because the only reason why this kind of content is distributed is due to the fact that there are people who consume it!

So, if there is consumption, that's because there is demand, and if there is demand, then more children should be abused in order to produce more content! (that's a basic lesson of Economy... you people, missing the Math classes, huh?)

In other words, accessing and possessing child pornography MAKE MORE CHILDREN BE ABUSED, even if you will never known these poor kids personally! (and sometimes you know, and that's disgusting...)

-2nd: about the shitty argument "Childhood is a construction of the society"

if the childhood is actually a construction of the society and Christianity, as some people like to say and want to we believe, WHY THE HELL WE DON'T DECONSTRUCT THE CHILDHOOD? HUH???

C'mon, let your children alone, homeless, careless, say to them "You are a society construction, so get the fuck out of here, and just return when you get employed!"...

Huh, c'mon, let's do this, right?! RIGHT?!

I really doubt that you people would like to be treated like adults when you were children!

The problem with our society is that we want to see our kids as "mini-adults", reflecting to the children everything (the problems, the issues, and specifically the problems!) that belongs to the ADULT LIFE, and JUST TO THE ADULT LIFE! In a materialist attempt to make children more "productive" and less "expensive", we are killing the only good thing that the humanity has to offer: THE INNOCENCE OF OUR KIDS!

Is necessary to take care about what we say and do, how to say and do, and in what circumstances say or do the things to the kids, because, even if the children aren't stupid brats as some idiot conservatives believes and wants that we believe, kids are in stage of formation, physically and psychologically. We don't want (at least I don't want!) that the kids becomes a bunch of rapists and genociders in the future, I'm right?

-3rd: about having sex with kids and about their maturity

I will ask you a question: If the children really have maturity to know what to do with their own bodies, WHY THE HELL is it necessary for parents to take care of the children, taking care of their food, bathing, clothing, education, moral and ethic formation, habitation, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc and ETC??? If children can be mature enough to have sex with adults, why they can not be mature to work, act politically, fight in wars, pay for purchases or anything else?

I have the answer for this question:

thats because they AREN'T mature and autonomous enough to do these things! At least not without taking psychological and physical harms, and stopping of being children... Michael Jackson did so much things when he was a kid, but look for what happened with Michael...

Even if a child has sexual feelings and desires, they aren't mature enough to have sex with adults, because an adult will expect things from the kids that they aren't prepared to do, and adults will affect the sexual behavior of the children in a manner to which they are not ready! Sex is a natural thing of the human life, but, exactly because it is natural, it should be explored by children without the interference and the pressures of a adult asking for such things as anal sex, bestiality, and even BDSM! (really, that's really fucked up...)

The children are sexual beings (YES, they are, because they are humans as any of us), but they don't experience those things in the same way as the adults do... adults creates fantasies and deviances about sex that aren't even possible to be realized, and a kid can suffer so much harm in the hands of these "dreamers"...

Of course, parents should respect the tastes of children, and must respect their sexuality (for example, in matters relating to homosexuality, they should understand that it is a natural thing), and explain some things about sexuality to them, helping children to understand themselves and letting them discover their own body... but, it should be clear that the ADULTS (yes, the adults, these race of sons of a bitch) must be responsible, because THE CHILDHOOD MUST BE RESPECTED!

Everything to the children is their first time: tastes, smells, feelings, and sex as well. Children are educated to trust in adults, because adults are experienced and can help kids in the troubles of the life. Furthermore, the kids feels safely and protected when someone which is physically stronger and have more acknowledge about the world seems to care about them (even if this "someone" trade sex with the kid for all this care and protection). And that are some reasons why kids let these "adults" do these kind of things to them. So, even if you can convince a kid to do something, even if that thing is consensual, this can be very harmful and traumatic to them (or not, but any of you really want to give it a try?), even if the kids seems to enjoy those things, even if they have pleasure, because kids DON'T HAVE THE MATURITY TO MAKE DECISIONS TO THEIR LIFES! Even some adults don't have maturity, so what expect from the kids?

Those things that early looks to be "funny" and "cool", later can affect negatively the children for their entire lifes! Kids can be sexually attracted and can have sexual pleasure, because they have feelings and they have sensible parts in their body that can be stimulated, as in any humans, and even against their will, they can feel sexual pleasure, and they can ask for more, and they can repeat this for years, but...

I will remember you of one important thing, my friends: VICTIMS OF RAPE CAN FEEL SEXUAL PLEASURE DURING THE RAPE TOO, in the same way as in any sexual relations, BUT, as we all know, RAPE ISN'T A GOOD THING TO DO! I'm right?

We all know that users of Marijuana can "feels good" and "high", but we all know that Marijuana, like Tobacco cigarettes, can causes Pulmonary Cancer, right?

And we all know that accelerate your car to 160 km/h on a road of 80 km/h is exciting and activates the Adrenaline at your body, making you "feels good", but we also know that you can run over someone, or you may lose control and overturn the car, or hit a tree or another car, consequently dying. Right???

Not because something make you "feels good" that it is actually good! If you want to experiment those things and want to fuck with your life or with someone else's life, do it at your own risk. But if there are laws, they exists for some reason, and I believe that there's a good one: protect the life, physically and psychologically, at the earlier age!

I'm right?

P.s.: I'm a anti-contact pedo, and I was abused by other boy when I was younger, so I know what about I'm talking... because I am my own source!!!

Side: No
thumper8766(3) Disputed
1 point

"you people missed the math classes huh?"

No, seems you did though. How much money does the US spend fighting drugs? How much could it save or even gain if it made it legal and even collected taxes on just pot? The numbers would be overwhelmingly HUGE!!!!. You economy class should have taught you that the demand for drugs isn't there because the drugs are there, they are there with or without the supply. Supply only comes AFTER the demand. So the demand for the pornography is already there. Fighting it is like fighting drugs. You will not win the battle, only fill the jails. The content of the pictures is not whats being argued. Having a picture of rape is not illegal and it in no way makes people go out and rape more to create more pictures, yet rape is a popular type of pornography (mostly staged - I hope). So yes, children should not be raped or molested, we all get that. But a 12 year old filming themselves playing with themselves has hurt no one. Someone (perverted or not) gets satisfaction from this, no one is still ever hurt and no further children would be hurt. Again, the pervert NOT getting the fulfillment from that picture, would now have to resort to getting it somewhere else and now; by making the harmless pictures illegal, you just hurt a child who is now about to be prayed on.

Side: Yes
link6065(741) Disputed
1 point

You forgot to even mention the fact that not all child porn involves a real child. Some are written, drawn, painted or sculpted. You're very biased and are only looking at the rape of real children on Canada. Since Child pornography encompasses both and is generally non-specific I agree no child should be harmed in the making of these films and the imaginitive side should be decriminalized. I give you a vote but, speak against you.

Side: Yes
unownmew(160) Disputed
0 points

"-3rd: about having sex with kids and about their maturity

I will ask you a question: If the children really have maturity to know what to do with their own bodies, WHY THE HELL is it necessary for parents to take care of the children, taking care of their food, bathing, clothing, education, moral and ethic formation, habitation, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc and ETC??? If children can be mature enough to have sex with adults, why they can not be mature to work, act politically, fight in wars, pay for purchases or anything else?"

The islanders of Mangaia, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cultural_differences_in_sexuality seem to disagree with you.

Unless a child is physically incapable of taking care of their own food, bathing, and clothing, then they are perfectly capable of taking care of those things. Adults are there to teach them how to do what they need to do, which can include sex. As for maturity, that is something that must be taught through personal responsibility, and is not age related. Children can be mature enough to work, and fight in wars, pay for purchases, learn and engage in politics, and have sex. And some adults can be immature enough to not be trusted with any of those things. It's not an Age thing, it's an experience thing. The more experience and responsibility a child gets, the faster they mature.

Side: Yes
2 points

The reason that i believe it should STAY ILLEGAL to have child pornography is because even though that person may not have done n e thing directly to that child it is the people who look at the child pornography who are indirectly supporting nasty inhumane so called people who would subject a child to getting naked to have pictures taken. A lot of times the children will be beated, raped and so on and even if they are to even have a child strip naked for pictures is inhumane and sickening!!

Side: No
b52eto(1) Disputed
2 points

So watching the beheading of somebody by al-qaeda supports beheading. Watching a historical film of nazi concentration camps supports genocide. I supposedly indirectly support high-speed chases every time Fox broadcasts one.

This is an argument about thought control.

Side: Yes
unownmew(160) Disputed
1 point

And some children can't even be forced to keep their clothes on, and some love to have their pictures taken. Taking a couple pictures while they're voluntarily nude, or even requesting their pictures be taken isn't harming anyone, especially if nothing else is imposed on them but the camera from a distance.

Actual physical harm to a child should be criminalized, no exceptions, but where no harm is done, let people make their own decisions. You're not "supporting" the industry of child pornography when you view it, because they would be making it regardless for themselves anyway, and just as much. The demand will always be there so long as humanity remains human. 1000 views of one child is better than 1000 children harmed.

Side: Yes
2 points

Only a really twisted person would want to watch child pornography. Children aren't supposed to be porn stars, it's a sick idea.

Side: No
link6065(741) Disputed
0 points

I agree and I disagree. While images are just mental construct and are merely illusions children are not ment to be porn stars. A porn star makes money selling her body to a camera for the enjoyment of others. A child regularly has no choice and gets no pay. However, I want to make it clear that not all child pornography needs to encompass the rape of a real child. As it stands atleast here in canada child pornography is regarded in terms of REAL or IMAGINED. Everyone here seems to forget that drawings writings paintings and sculptures are purely imagination and artistic. In these cases, it is the interpreter that judges the content in any way he chooses. For example a Japanese anime picture of a 10 year old girl getting a unrealistic size dong stuffed in her butt hole who crys holding her teddy bear on a ruffled bed with her head on a pink pillow and still in a brownish plad dress could be sexually stimulating for one and disgusting for another. In fact it holds thousands of different interpretations meanwhile the artist may have only been trying to convey that that probably hurt the little girl and gave a photo explanation rather then a 3000 word documentation explaining in a boring dry way of the message he was trying to convey.

Side: Yes
1 point

No, I don't need a reason, you Pedophile. But, I have no choice. The reason for porn is for people over 18 to have something to look at. Child porn is just un-humane.

Side: No
TERMINATOR(6779) Disputed
2 points

'Pedophile' is spelled with a small 'P'!

In case that comment was directed at me, I shall inform you that I never have either had sex with a child nor desired sex with a child.

How do you not have a choice? The purpose of debating sites is so that you can give reasons for your 'choices', and to debate them in a thoughtful manner.

Why is porn exclusively reserved for those over 18 years of age, if your opinion?

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Should_youngsters_watch_pornographic_films

How is child porn any less humane than regular, adult porn?

Side: No
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
1 point

Everywhere i've looked Pedophile is spelled with a large P and the reason Child Porn is less humane than regular Porn is that to make it a child has to be abused whereas regular Porn is made by consenting adults, if they are not consenting then I think it is as bad as Child Porn and probably be as illegal

Side: Yes

Are you fucking kidding me? Is this a troll debate? Boning kids is wrong. End of.

The only reason anyone would own child pornography is because they like to shag kids. That is not a behaviour I want to be encouraged.

And your claim it doesn't hurt the child? Try fucking a toddler without hurting it.

Side: No
anachronist(889) Disputed
3 points

I no longer hold this opinion, I now realise that my reaction to child pornography was an irrational, primitive instinctual reaction caused by my brainwashing. I have now thought the issue through and support the decriminalisation of child porn, and all other forms of media.

However, I shall not delete the above argument because it looks like I am trying to hide a mistake I made, which I am not.

Side: Yes
ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

Are you also against the ownership of child pornography ? I assume so.

Y'know who wants to shag kids? Kids. 14 year olds taking topless pictures of themselves and posting them on Facebook or whatever, would be classed as child pornography. Anyone who then views it would be incarcerated.

Bit harsh, don't you think?

Side: Yes
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

Actually I'd agree with you there, I've had my fair share of underage sex. I would like to redefine "child porn" as porn that is produced without the consent of the underage child in the porn, or, porn created involving an adult that is taking advantage of the child.

The reason I have not defined the term adult properly is that I don't agree with current rules on age of consent, they do nothing to stop under sixteens boning and I don't see a problem with under sixteens boning each other anyway.

Side: No
link6065(741) Disputed
1 point

Not all child pornography harms a real child. In canada REAL or IMAGINED defines child porn and since this thread is generally non-specific to weather they are videos of real or imagined and everyone is only looking at the side of real children being harmed I take the stand to defend artistic freedom. Freedom of speech and defend the fact that not all child pornography hurts a child. It should be decriminalized in respect to separating reality from fiction and making one a do and the other a dont.

Side: Yes
Sitara(11082) Disputed
-1 points

Hello Prodigee. ;)

Side: Yes

The reason I don't think child pornograpgy should be deciminalized because the act of buying it, makes a demand for it.

A child can not legally give consent to sex so it's an illegal act. If people are making porn of illegal acts, and doing nothing to stop it, they are performing illegal acts.

It's illegal indirectly.

Side: No
0 points

Child pornography and the entire industry of child exploitation are harmful. It is the job of our government to protect the citizens of this nation. That having been said, I think the laws should be re-written to be more clear. As it stands now, many states list 16 as the age for sexual consent while 18 is the age given for the term 'child'. This means that a 19 year old guy can have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend but cannot carry a picture of her naked. That doesn't make much sense. There is a difference between pedophilia (pre-pubescent sexual attraction) and sexually mature minors. A quick look at most American high schools will tell you that many boys and girls over the age of 16 want to be viewed as sexual beings. Should consent be a factor? Should the age of consent be under 18? I don't know what the age should be but true child exploitation is truly harmful to our well being as a society. The exploited child will grow up to be an adult and have an effect on society. We want to continue to evolve in a positive direction towards more civilized behaviors, right?

Side: No
magpie(4) Disputed
1 point

Regarding child exploitation, you need to talk with President Obama speaking recently at an LGBT community event which was opened by two preteen girls.

I absolutely agree that it would be a public victory if there was no exploitation whatsoever, especially of children. But the world is what it is. Throwing tens of thousands of people (and it will be tens of thousands, given the nature of the internet) in jail for seeing something seems to be pretty ugly, even if you disagree with their thoughts. Get the people who produce child exploitation.

Side: Yes
0 points

Anyone who supports the other view should be questioned by the authorities.

Side: No
link6065(741) Disputed
2 points

I think you're head needs to be questioned by a doctor. Your biased opinions have no place in any debate let alone this one.

Side: Yes