Wrong as it may be, to me and I hope you, should simulated child pornorgraphy be illegal?

Question

In my country, Canada, it is illegal to depict sex acts with minors even if it is in fiction or drawings.

"Definition of child pornography:
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in sexual activity; or

(ii) the dominant character of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or

(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen that would be an offence under this Act. [sexual offences]"

Personally I think it should be illegal and I am quite happy that people get busted for it.
I know for some people this
is a free speech issue? What do you think?
http://www.robinsharpe.ca/page_s1631.htm

re:bone
based upon your answer do you mean that the fact that I am against the depiction of children engaged in sexual acts makes me a bad Canadian.
I think people such as yourself who advocate for pediphilia are the ones that give all people a bad name.

Answer 1

Even simulated child pornography creates specific desires in the wrong people and I agree: it should be illegal.

Answer 2

The US Supreme Court weighed in on this one a few years back.

Essentially, the absolute ban on child pornography is justified, despite free speech arguments, based on the absolute compelling need to protect children from such abuse.

However, computer animations or adults that simply look young are not children. As such, no children are being harmed. Because no children are being harmed, there's no justification for the government prohibiting that type of expression.

You can't make something illegal just because it might give some people the idea to do something else illegal. Just like you can't ban movies about criminals just because someone might have the idea to go commit a crime. Until they actually plan or attempt or agree to commit a crime, just fantasizing about robbing a bank is not illegal. Neither is watching a fake depiction of it in a movie.

Harming children is illegal. Depicting actual children is illegal. And every step should be taken to keep those bright lines in place. But you can't punish people just for what they might be thinking about, if they never actually attempt to do it. At least, that's the way the law is supposed to work.

Answer 3

No, not fiction or drawings.

Photographs, videos and such (even audio recordings) even if no actual children were used, are an issue because it has become too difficult to be certain how such things were actually made.

While I in no way--none whatsoever!--advocate child sexual activity or even the photographing, recording or filming of children *pretending* to be engaging in sexual activity, I would hate to see people jailed for their thoughts, or the expression of such thoughts as words or drawings.

In my area some middle-school-age children were suspended from school, arrested, and taken to juvenile hall for passing around some hand-drawn pictures with a swimming pool full of sharks biting their teacher, and the words "we shud feed her to the sharks" written on it. I don't know what eventually happened to them, probably nothing, but the arrest and suspension should never have happened!

I think arresting people for *thinking* about doing ANYTHING is wrong. Talking about it, without a conspiracy to actually do it, should not be illegal, either. We cannot create a perfect society, nor protect our children, by locking up those who think in ways we don't like. What we can create is children afraid to think. In my opinion, the "thought police" would be a much greater danger to our children than the child molesters are.

Answer 4

You really cant say child pornography is illegal without crossing the church and state seperation rule. It comes down to it is immoral, but that is a part of the church. I dont think it should be legal, but its something to think about.

Answer 5

Of course

Answer 6

I support your feelings and opinion 100%!

Answer 7

Yeah , I agree