My work is discussed on CYD!

[pyesetz]

Here is a thread on CrushYiffDestroy.com about my Pedophilia essay.  Clearly the CYD folks are much classier trolls than the SomethingAwful goons.  Hi, jinx_mouse!

<Donotsue> The end makes sense.. =)

Thanks for your support!

<weird_guy_in_the_corner> But what happens when the pedophile gets sick and tired of the pictures? Then he goes out and starts looking for the real thing.

What happens if the pedo *never* gets sick and tired?  Should we kill all pedos because some of them sometimes hurt people?  Why not kill all Arabs because some of them sometimes become suicide bombers?

<Mastertran> You know I'll bet just maybe he's got another agenda... It's kid fucking

Nope.  Wrong ulterior motive.  The essay was actually aimed at one or more of the pedophilia victims on my LJ-friends list.

<Pyesetz> In the United States it is a crime to bring a gun into a school. In many schools, under the "Zero Tolerance" policy, it is also a crime to draw a picture of a gun while in a school.
<Dogthing> That's silly, I used to draw a lot of guns in school, and they were typically being wielded by ninja-masked stick figures and slaughtering countless small animals or possibly jews or goblins. My teachers saw some and thought they were hilarious. :]

Okay, I was overgeneralizing.  There have been several news reports of kids being expelled for drawing pictures of guns, but this is a local issue and some schools aren't as uptight about it as others.  But nobody at the Department of Education ever steps forward to say "That's not what we meant!  Zero Tolerance isn't supposed to be about punishing kids for having impure thoughts!"

Comments

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

I'll take the time to comment that generally those who enjoy computer generated images of adult/child sex and those who enjoy real images of adult/child sex or adult/child sex itself run in two separate crowds. The computer generated images group (usually lolicon) are attracted to an idealized notion of childhood. While you get some crossovers, they generally don't have anything to do with real children (indeed, many find real children to be a great disappointment when compared to their perfect ideals). While there are those of the "real" group who hold childhood up on a pedestal, even they do it differently. More commonly, one who enjoys images of real children or sex with real children falls into the categories of control or capability. They either enjoy the control they get from attacking children or they believe (almost always mistakenly) that children are capable of an adult sexual relationship and that this relationship can be good for them (all talk of child sexuality aside, the very reaction of society to such a relationship proves this assumption quite wrong). Even among the second group, most fall into the group that believes children are capable of adult relationships (this is why so many pedophiles can have wives/husbands).

In short, a member of the first group looks at Chiyo from Azumanga Daioh and thinks her cute, then responds to that cuteness in a sexual manner. A member of the second group sees an 11 year old on the street either has a strong desire to dominate him/her or responds to them in a manner that a more normal individual would respond to a 22 year old. Attacking the first group probably only hurts our chances of getting the second group who are more likely to attack real children.

Lastly, I feel it should be noted that while I agree with you that the law probably should never have been passed, it should be noted that its author's original intent was not to attack cartoon drawings or harmless art. Though I forget who wrote the bill, I do remember he wrote it out of fear that one day computer technology would allow the generation of images so realistic that you could not tell them apart from real photos. Pedophiles could then make all the real child pornography they wanted (and believe me, the ability to make realistic fake pornography would not stop many from making real pornography because that is the nature of the affliction). Then, if caught, they could argue that it could have easily been digital images (since few pedophiles produce much of their own pornography and since the child pornography industry that produces most of the images out there operate in countries where it would be very hard to track down the child and even inside the US finding an abused child would be very difficult).

I realize the technology to create digital images so real in appearance that they cannot be identified from real life is a ways off. But Congress has never been "current" in our culture, if you will. I just thought it was worth noting that there was better will behind the bill than most assumed.

[cassander42.livejournal.com]

If we are talking about the United States, the Supreme Court did rule that law unconstitutional. I remember celebrating it as a victory for art and some people disagreeing with me.

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

We are, and they did. I was only pointing out that the author did it out of his mistaken belief that it would soon be possible to make images so real they would serve as a defense for those who would traffic in real child pornography, not necessarily to attack art. When the day comes that such technology exists, I would not be opposed to a law that makes all realistic digital images of child pornography illegal ( and can even think of the argument to make to cement it constitutionally).

[pyesetz]

When writing the essay, I couldn't remember enough factoids about the law to find out whether it was still in force.  Do you have any references I could hyperlink?

I would not be opposed to a law that makes all realistic digital images of child pornography illegal
I would.  Two of our country's founding beliefs: "Anything not prohibited is allowed.  It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man."  There is no clause in the Constitution that allows any kind of image to be banned--only abuse of children during a photography session is bannable.  The point of the law we're discussing was to ensure that all guilty pedos go to prison by also sending some innocent ones there too.  Anyone who thinks that's a good trade-off is spitting on our founder's graves.

[cassander42.livejournal.com]

The case is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition... here's a link to the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the law:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/00%2D795.html

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

I would. Two of our country's founding beliefs: "Anything not prohibited is allowed. It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man." There is no clause in the Constitution that allows any kind of image to be banned--only abuse of children during a photography session is bannable. The point of the law we're discussing was to ensure that all guilty pedos go to prison by also sending some innocent ones there too.
Images of child pornography are illegal, actually. It is illegal to possess them, trade them, or produce them. This is because the images fall under an obscenity which is not protected by the 1st amendment. As for laws making 100% real seeming images illegal, if we allow them there will be a very valid defense for actual images of child abuse. There is plenty of legal ground for the restriction of civil liberties for the protection of children and I would be for that in such an instance.

[pyesetz]

two separate crowds

Thank you for providing this informative discussion.

[zi-mugudarina.livejournal.com]

While I don't partake of it myself, I feel that individuals have a right to sanctuary inside their own mind and to discuss and share among like-minded adults in an appropriate setting. I think the largest reason for laws like this comes from a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to discuss certain matters.