The porn that's a bad thing is child porn, rape porn, and violence porn.
+ (Assuming the rape and violence are real not just actors)
They can be that and still be porn to some people.
I doubt that anyone would make child pornography in order to satisfy someone else. I would be pretty sure that one would do it either for a huge financial gain, personal satisfaction, or both. The people who upload it for free would still rape children even if they were not able to upload it anywhere. Considering that I would say that this argument is even worse than saying that the media should stop reporting terrorist attacks to disencourage the terrorists from performing terrorist acts (assuming that they do it for personal fame or to scare people).
The first could be solved by catching people who are buying and selling. However none of these can be solved by catching people who simply watch or distribute but do not create nor buy child pornography - catching them would be arresting them for a thoughtcrime.
Does it count as being in the market if no exchange of money takes place? Is Github a market, for example? If not, this would seem to invalidate the idea at least when the material is found by chance or provided free.
>There are people who, knowing you are like them and enjoy that sort of thing, will make it for you.
That's true, but if you're using this as an argument against all the material then I think I should step in and say that it does not apply to all the material, or at least, you haven't provided evidence that it does. I don't doubt it happens, but to use this as a general argument seems to fall flat on its face.
The "good porn" analogues are people who record themselves because they like the attention. But I think this is a minority.
Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives.
I simply don't buy the idea that the majority of CP advertised on the dark web is only available for pay or exchange; I'm sure a lot of it is, but this "market effect" thing is unsubstantiated as far as I can tell, even though many would like to believe it's a good argument against something heinous, that doesn't mean we should just accept it.
>Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives.
This I can understand and actually I regard it as a bigger motivator to the illegalisation of possession. However often they don't know, and could you reassure them that it's not happening if you put an effort toward eradicating only their images? And if they don't know, doesn't that also eradicate this argument in those cases too? What if they don't have a problem with it, or rather, they are neutral about it? The harm would have to be found, and if there is no harm, the argument collapses in that case. Of course the argument also does not apply to pornography in which the victims are dead or unconscious etc. which would seem to, considering only this argument, make such material permissible.
Also consider the viewer of the child pornography. They have no way of knowing if the victim is aware of the video, or the victim's opinion about the video. So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong?
Perhaps I was too hasty. Of course it's wrong, even if they didn't know. But in this case, the actual harm you're claiming exists (and I agree that it can exist) is knowledge itself. The knowledge is a side effect; if this side effect can be stopped from manifesting itself, then the harm is no longer done.
i.e rape involves harm not through knowledge but by matter of fact, by its very definition. This is not the case with the crime of possessing child pornography.
With regard to death, I'm not sure what your point is - your argument for harm caused by knowledge does not hold up when the victim of the harm is dead. Of course that dosen't mean that it's OK to kill the victim, but if that were to happen, it would eliminate the crime of harm by knowledge.
>So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong?
Not if there was no harm caused.
I'm becoming more skeptical of this argument. If knowledge that something is happening constitutes sufficient harm, then would it follow that somebody laughing at you in another coutry, which you know to be happening somehow (such as being told by a friend), can be considered as harm?
I would claim that it is as long as it harms nobody and as long as it does not benefit the creator.
You haven't met a victim before. For them, the knowledge that their abuse is being watched by people for sexual pleasure all around the world years after it happened is a profound source of psychological trauma. It harms them.
I honestly doubt that but even then the money would go to the site owners, not to child rapists directly. Anyhow, as I said in another post we could simply also hold accountable these who pay for it - after all the act of paying for it would cause the harm, not the data by itself.
> one to provide some child porn of their own as a barrier to entry
Create their own or just post some of what they have collected? Only the first one causes harm.
> the knowledge that their abuse is being watched by people for sexual pleasure all around the world years after it happened is a profound source of psychological trauma
I fail to see how they would know that they are being watched or how watching it being illegal eases their thoughts.
> It harms them.
No, only physical actions like rape could harm them, distributing data on the dark web does not.
Untrue. We know from interviews of the children, now adults, featured in the images of child sexual abuse that the distribution of those images in itself causes harm.
> No, only physical actions like rape could harm them, distributing data on the dark web does not.
Clearly bollocks.
How do they know that the distribution of these images took place? How did that even affect them in their life?
I honestly doubt that this is the case - and even then it would be only an argument against distributing it, not watching it.
People who have been through such experiences typically have extensive and long-running contacts with the legal and law enforcement systems, and at the ry least tend to maintain an awareness of their original abuser's custodial situation.
Just as there are networks of people who like child porn, there are networks of people who monitor its production and distribution. A few unfortunate people go on to become consumers or perpetrators of abuse in turn because they are drawn seek out imagery of what happened to them.
Be aware too that in many cases access to child porn collections are not traded for money, but for the submission of new material, so the distribution of it directly incentivizes further abuse.
> No, only physical actions like rape could harm them, distributing data on the dark web does not.
Does that mean that mental / emotional trauma from being robbed at gunpoint is not harm if a physical assault does not occur?
I have been robbed at gunpoint. I was robbed by someone who I met through a third party (not randomly on the street, but at my home). Police arrested the robber after I called 911, but he was released for reasons not easily summarized.
One month later, I pulled into a gas station and saw the perpetrator in the parking lot. I immediately drove home and had a panic attack.
By your argument, no harm was caused. The psychological impact, however, was very real to me.
Edit: formatting.
At some point we draw the line, and in almost all other respects the line is drawn elsewhere - in that mere knowledge of an act occuring is not sufficient to make that act illegal.
The equivalent here would be the fact that the robber is in the gas station, I think? Should the robber not be allowed to be anywhere where he may even be seen by you? In the same way, even though the abuse of the child was problematic, should someone who views the abuse be disallowed from doing so? And further, there is even more disconnect here, making your analogy much weaker - what does the victim know of the instance in which someone views that recording?
Now, they may not know in real time, but yeah they can find out. The contents of child-porn collections are documented in the legal proceedings of court cases, for example. People who consume child porn have social networks of their own, and discuss and comment upon that material in the same way that enthusiasts do anything else on the internet. And as I've mentioned, access to child porn collections/communities is often purchased by the submission of new material, both to bind the would-be viewer with ties of shared criminal liability and to feed the demand for novelty. Thus, the commoditization of child porn incentivizes the production of more of it.
I didn't equate them - you created a discriminator which placed them in the same category. The reasonable interpretation is that your statement bites off too much, and is thus invalid.
But really? So do you personally reject the concept of the universal set, or do you just not take yourself seriously?
Do you deny that they're both in the category of "things that happen" ?