Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.books,net.women Subject: Kiddie Porn (Re: R. Draves) Message-ID: <4608@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 11:57:01 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4608 Posted: Wed Jan 16 11:57:01 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jan-85 13:06:48 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 71 Xref: watmath net.books:1232 net.women:4108 >[from Richard Draves:] >I think there is a very real difference between kiddie porn and >"normal" pornography. I don't think any kind of sex between >consenting adults should be banned; similarly, I don't care what >happens between a porn actress, her producer, and his customers. >The key phrase there is "consenting adults," obviously this is >lacking in the case of kiddie porn. Since people are pressing me for definitions, I'll do the same. What definition of kiddie porn will distinguish effectively between it and "cute pictures of naked kids". I think we will run into the same difficulties here as we would if we were to attempt a legal definition of adult porn. As for the "consenting" part of your distinction, I have already remaked that the fact that the kids aren't consenting is because kiddie porn is illegal in the first place. If it weren't it would be done by "consenting" children. I'll explain that by saying that it is the parents who would give consent. Last week I heard on the news of a couple who was arrested by an undercover agent posing as a kiddie porn producer. They "sold" their daught (either 8 or 12 years old, I can't remember) over to him for $300,000 saying that they could do anything they want to her. I think we are being inconsistent in our judgement in comparing kiddie porn with adult porn if when we don't take into account the differences made by the fact that one is illegal and the other not. If kid porn were legal couples like the one above would be granting consent for their children to be used. It could also be argued that the kids would suffer less abuse at the hands of people they no rather than strangers (i.e. kidnapping would be unecessary, the production would be less covert so abuse would be easier to detect, parents could supervise, etc.) What would be the difference between that and granting consent for them to be used in TV commercials or motion pictures? If you say the content of the material makes a difference then you must play the definition game and, in doing so, you need to justify why the distinction can be made based on content when consented (by parents) children are used, but no such distinction can be made for adults. When the two types of porn are placed on an equal legal footing they encounter the same problems (the only technical difference is that a third party, the parents, need to grant consent when kids are used). In both cases, 1) the distinction between artistic and pornographic content must be made. 2) Prohibiting the production of what is considered pornographic supposedly violates the rights of adults who like and want to buy the stuff. I think that if we actually had the situation where kiddie porn was legal (to the same extent as adult porn) much of the basis for argument against it, used by those against restricting adult porn with similar content, would disappear. My question then is, would that make kiddie porn acceptable? I think it turns into an argument for the legalization of kiddie porn based on the same 1st Amendment rights that are used to protect "normal" porn. It could be argued (though no one would dare) that keeping kiddie porn illegal only gives impetus to the mistreatment of the children used. Since it is next to impossible to remove the demand for it, kids will inevitably be used. Why not make it safer? If the production of adult porn is as protected as that of non- pornographic material, why does the situation change when kids (with parental consent) are used? Given that kiddie porn exists it would seem that adults have as much right to buy it and look at it as adult porn, if we accept the argument that porn may not be restricted. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd