Should VIRTUAL Child Pornography be legal? Why/Why not?

Question

Please justify your answers using:
Harm Principle - the idea that the state is justified in using force to prevent individuals from harming others.

Legal Paternalism - the idea that the state is justified in using force to prevent individuals from harming themselves.

Immoral Behavior - the idea that the state is justified in using force to prevent individuals from acting immorally.

Offense Principle - the idea that the state is justified in using force to prevent individuals from offending others.

My Thoughts so far:

Harm Principle
-No real children were harmed in its creation.
-It could lead to the harm of real children, or it could have a cathartic effect.
+If people who would normally buy real child porn instead purchase virtual child porn, this diverts money away from harm to real children used in production of child porn.
+It is certainly degrading towards children, but unlike regular pornography, it has not reached a massive audience, and thus its viewers probably already have a negative attitude towards children; viewing this may have little effect on their propensity to abuse children.
-It could in fact lead to the capture of child molesters, if virtual child pornography was legal but users were tracked.

Legal Paternalism
-The major harm to self is that viewers of virtual child pornography would be shunned, because the behavior is anti social. This is true of many behaviors which aren’t banned (dressing poorly, bad body odor, and so forth), so I see no reason to make an exception.

Immoral Behavior
?
Offense Principle
?

For those of you talking about its legality:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

The supreme court struck down a ban on virtual child pornography.

Answer 1

OK to much inside the box thinking by the answerers so far.

As a digital media finance industry analyst, I had the chance to cover similar ground with a several attendees of a conference of sex offender treatment therapists the other day.

I haven't completely processed the answers yet, but they seemed open to the idea that technology could be used in ways they haven't yet themselves imagined to enable them to reach their goals - while at the same time being skeptical too.


On First Amendment principles, it seems outrageous, and dangerously akin to creating categories of thought crimes. Allowing people to have ideas, especially abhorrent and/or unpopular ones, and to be able to publish them, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect. After all, popular speech does not really need protection does it?

Answer 2

Sure, go ahead & make it legal. Just as long as the person buying the game has an electronic chip implanted into them! All users would also need to have this chip in their bodies to enable the game. This would solve all problems in tracking & make it easier to identify the bodies of the sick minds who abuse children & end up found dead in the alleyways at some point in their lives.

As an adult who has experienced sexual abuse as a child, then I have to ask just what purpose a virtual game to abuse a child would serve? It simply enforces & reinforces an already twisted mind to continue having abusive thoughts. It's time people started to speak out against things of this nature.

I can't help but notice that you seem to think along the same lines as many of the ACLU "power houses"!

Your boundaries have become blurred if you are equating a game of abuse using children (virtual chirlden) to things like bad breath & poor dressing skills. I urge you to seek counseling for some issues that are deeply buried within your adult mind. I don't hate this question or the asker of this question...I simply sense that something is out of whack, somewhere, within all of this.

Answer 3

ask what proportion of current buyers of child porn will later try to become buyers of child sex.

deviant behavior, imho, tends to increase in individuals over time. thus, virtual cp would leads to real cp buying which leads to attempts at real child molestation [felony sexual battery]

i thus conclude under the Harm Principle you cite that virtual child porn should remain a criminal offense.

Answer 4

NO...why you ask? Let's see
1. It's sick
2. It's disgusting
3. It can and will lead to harm to children
4. It's immoral

I could continue with the list, but I think you get the point.

Answer 5

WHY THA FU*K WOULD THIS EVEN BE A QUESTION???
the answer is so obivious && iiM justifying wit my PRINCIPLES....
its disgusting && ur ultimately messing up that child!!
Damn that kid could grow up && commit suicide because they couldnt cope with what happened to them && WHY?? just because you wanted to jack off for 20 mins!!

Answer 6

It is illegal incase you didnt know
The fbi has its own sector for that

Answer 7

No... it's disgusting and morally reprehensible...