Re: NY AG--defender of children?

Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:d9d194ltlhcl27jbs0l2p9do0du96tfj52@xxxxxxx:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:36:42 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Joerg <notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:X4%jk.13791$LG4.4511@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
[snip]
Can we admit to ourselves that we really want to censor it (and
should do so) even if it can be proved to have been
computer-generated? Or do we have to huff and puff and say that
computer generated fantasies cause
abuse of real children? (I'm not saying that's impossible--but
our
deep moral feeling about it wouldn't go away if it were shown not
to be the case.)


It's probably a case wherein a lto fo people don't want to make
exceptions, becasue exceptions are always pucshed, taken advantage
of - there is a fear (and I'm not absolutely sure it's without
foundation) that, if computer-generated CP is permitted, epople will
push the limits of that in a ways that *does* end up harming
children. And personally, I'm not convinced that the risk of that
is acceptable. Yes, I fear erosion of the First Amendment, but I
also have *very* strong personal concerns about child welfare (which
already is IMO insufficient in this country) - it's quite a
quandary.

I think digital child p__n should be illegal--very illegal. The state
has a sufficient interest in preventing the corruption of its citizens
to override freedom of expression in that instance. It's ridiculous
to contend that during the 200 or so years in which pornography was
illegal, the political freedom of Americans was harmed. It's the
equivalent of Rudy Giuliani cleaning up Times Square--everyone heaved
a sigh of relief.

I agree with much of what you've written on this as well as this part,
but you've introduced a strawman of sorts here. I'd imagine the
argument isn't strictly limited to one about "political freedom."

Oh, by no means - there are very real issues surrounding "harm", and even
with potential harm to the most vulnerable and innocent of poeple, there
are questions that must be asked, and dealt with, regarding teh degree to
which individual freedom is to be allowed in cases where that freedom
casues harm, most especially to children (which is a topic that my
expereinces admittedly make it exceedingly difficult, and probably
impossible, for me to consider on a purely intellectual level). So it is
not at all an easy issue for me to deal with. At the same time, it is one
with which our society *must* deal, so I *try* to be mroe rational, and
less emotional, because I also believe in fair play so to speak.


Sure, that is probably the most protected form in the US -- in terms
of speech, for example, that is certainly true in that political free
speech is more protected than any other form of speech in the US.

Very true.


There are some who may argue there is more to protect than just
political expression. It might also be about what we are allowed to
think about in private, for example, and whether or not society has a
right to intrude at that level. I haven't given this detailed
thought. Although you appear in the above to restrict the argument to
that, I can readily imagine a debate that involves more than deciding
things purely upon some one dimensional scale of political expression.

Actually, I've given it a lot of thought. It's difficult, in a venue such
as this, to go beyond a certain level of detail, so what appears to be a
one-dimensional arguemnt "on paper" so to speak, is actually anything but.
The reaason that what I wrote seems short, is the difficulty I mentioned
above with separating my emotional gut reactions to child abusers (most
esp. child sexual abusers), and trying to consider what is just, what
allows for personal liberty.

In a sense, a thought or drawing or computer image, etc., is not an
expression unless you speak of it to someone. If that thought, image, or
whatever is negative, one's expression of it *is* limited - for example,
IIRC it's a punishable offense to stand up in a crowded movei theater and
scream "FIRE!", becasue the ensuing panic, and high liklihood of resulting
injury, overrides one's personal desire to do that. THere are also laws
against "inciting to riot". And, when you're workign with classified
material, you agree to relinquish your freedom to blab about your work in
public and/or to those who are nto cleared to discuss it, because you're
supposed torealize that the potential harm of disseminating sensitive
material far outwieghs you personal desire to talk about it - I've been in
the position of knowing for a fact that blabbing about something had a high
chance of getting someone else killed, and tat is far too high a price for
soemone else to pay, merely because one might, on a whim, "feel like"
blabbing.

At teh same time, it can be argues that none of those things - yellign Fire
in a movie theater, inciting to riot, or disclosing classified info - are
actually "expression". "Freedom of Expression" is more about expressing
ideas, beliefs, perceptions - and relates tehrefore to political speech,
artistic expression, and religious discussion. Ther eare more things, but
those stand out, off the top of my head, as the major items.

So, getting back to the question of fake/entirely-computer-generated/hand-
drawn CP and the posession thereof, I suppsoed one has to start with
erotica. Erotic imagery is often argued as being a form of artistic
expression, and it's argued that "a picture of a naked person never killed
anyone". What gets problematic, especially when it comes to photographs
and film which use live people, is (1) whether those people freely
consented to participate or were in any way forced to participate, and (2)
were they harmed while, or by, participating.

With children, we as a society (albeit not all individuals within that
society) have determined that, when it comes to any adult-child
relationship, the adult is always in a position of power, not pnly
physcially, but more importantly, psychologically. Because of that, the
question of consent doesn't exist - the adult will almost always be able to
coerce the child by manipulating the child's innocence (i.e., the child's
incomplete brain development, and lack of expereince, knowledge, and
intellectual sophistication), and/or by threats of harm to the child and/or
the child's family. Although this coercion is claimed by pedophiles to be
"an expression of love", they tend to be alone in their perception,
although some of their victims can be imprinted with the same belief. This
general societal understanding of child (and pedophile) psychology has led
to the illegalization of both sexual activity with children, and the
posession of photos or films of such activity, since the film/photo
required the coercion of a child and the posessor is therefore assessed as
being a conspirator, so to speak, after-the-fact. (It's also illegal, for
instance, to be involved after-the-fact with a murder, by knowingly hiding
the murder, obstructing the investigation, and so on.)

The only questions arise in specific cases, such as:
(1) if a person simply has photos of children at the beach, is that CP?
Many have said "yes", as if its somehow inherently perverse to *at all*
like children and eenjoy seeing them play, or so on.
(2) if a person has one of the old-time "baby on a bearskin rug" type
photos fo himself or herself, is that CP? Some have said "yes".
(3) If a person who had been victimized as a child choses to express
related emotions, etc., in the for of art, and here I'm thinking of a
specific exmpale from *amny* years ago, which was a painting of a curtain,
I forgot whetehr it was at a beach or somewhere else (did I say it was a
great many years ago...?) with only the lower legs and feet of what
obviously was a child, and a pair obviously belonging to an adult - *many*
people said it was CP and forced it to be taken out of the exhibition it
was in.
Finally,
(4) if someone completely makes something up, using a graphcis program, a
computer program, a sketch, etc., which did not involve any children, but
depicts a sexual situation which shows, or can be interpreted as showing,
an underage individual, is that illegal?


So part of the issue is, I think, illustrated by this:
(1) I used to have an old newspaper photo of a little girl sitting in a
field who'd just had a butterfly land on her hand, and her grandfatehr had
his camera with him when it happened. It was jsu tvery, dare I say it,
sweet and innocent. But I got rid of it becasue I actually became afraid
that, if someone ever saw it, I'd be accused of having CP. I know a few
other poeple, men AND women, who've had similar experiences of having
pictures that were just plain old cute, eventually becomeing so afraid
about ever-expanding definitions of CP, and the fact that the mere
*accusation* of impropriety destroys careers and families. IMO, that's an
erosion of the First Amendment, when a person becomes "frozen out" of
having even perfectly innocent paintings or photos that depict the delight
of innocence, and remind one of one's own pleasant childhood experiences.
(2) Far messier is the idea of images that are entirely fake, but intended
to be sexual. In thiose cases, it can be legitimate to investigate the
question of whether someone whose sexual proclivities are directed at
children can have enough self-control to stay away from children, and
whetehr teh posession of CP erodes that self-control. I do think that the
latter is a valid question, especially since some people have said that
they were trying to have self-control, which was destroyed do to spammers
emailing CP out via mass-emailing-software.

I'm not saying I know the solution. I'm just saying that there are
questions to be considered.


What I'm really getting at is the inconsistency in the real position
of the `no-censorship-no-how-no-way' folk. I think that most don't
really want to allow the nastiest sort of stuff to proliferate, on
grounds that at bottom are moral--the obvious need to protect children
has allowed them to avoid articulating the moral argument, but that
smokescreen is going to go away, and soon. Some smart Russian will
write a program that generates ugly stuff on the fly--no images on
your hard disk--and then the cat will be among the pigeons.

It'll be interesting to see how they react. Probably some will grow a
backbone and some won't. It'll change the terms of the debate, for
sure.

I had missed this, earlier. Very interesting presentation of your
point. You are making me think more closely. Thanks.

Jon


Those paragraphs were writen by the person to who I replied, I think it was
Joerg <??> (I clear read posts), who makes, in general, a lot of
interesteing observations and good points.
.

Quantcast