mmm... I don't see how one could argue that without actual data.
Here's one article[1] claiming a possible link between availability of porn and abuse. But I'm sure there must be at least one other study arguing the opposite.
You do understand that child pornography is created by the rape of children?
You're saying, "Well, it could be argued that if we stop letting these guys rape them, possibly more children might get raped. We should let it go."
No.
Its really only sexual crimes that get monsters to rage at monsters. It must be some primal instinct, that is completely detached from the crime and the victim itself. Its really all about the pure existence of the criminal.
The kids grow up and suffer tremendously. They are tortured every day for the rest of their lives.
Many, if not majority wish they were dead.
You must lack any empathy to make a comparison like that.
In our current environment, this is mostly a pedantic distinction because almost all child porn is produced in an otherwise abusive environment.
Also, the definition of child porn is far broader than what would be required to meet the definition of rape, which requires penetration. [0]
The definition of child porn is also sufficiently broad to include any pornographic image that depicts an identifiable minor in a sexual act, whether or not said minor was actually ingaged in said act, or involved in the production in any way.
The FBI also has a stash of already created child porn. Any harm resulting from the creation of said porn has already been done, and is therefore not a reason to not use it in order to reduce future harm.
[0] Technically, many jurisdictions do not have any form of "statatury rape", but instead use other crimes like sexual abuse.
I'd like to play the Devil's Advocate here.
Isn't that application of intent and affect the same as a convicted viewer could use to explain why they didn't hurt anyone? They weren't the person behind the camera, nor the person who had sexual relations with the child, so what harm is their consumption of the content?
The government also has a substantial quantity of already produced narcaotics, opiates, psychadellics, and other Schedule 1 drugs that they've confiscated from suppliers and users. Are they free to sell a portion of those drugs in order to find people they can target for future prosecution? I'm not talking about stings where no actual product is exchanged, but months of supplying communities with illegal drugs.
We're not talking about a 25 year old filming his 17 year old girlfriend giving him head here. This is the kind of stuff where the people involved cannot consent. Your spellchecker is broken.
Yes we are. What you describe is child pornography. Depending on jurisdiction, the girlfriend cannot consent. Even in jurisdictions where she can consent, it is still child porn. Even in situations where the 17 year old is acting alone, it is child porn. Even in situations where the 17 year old draws a picture of herself masturbating, it is child porn.
I guest you are correct, my comment should read:
s/rape/depiction in a sexual manner/g
Either way, my point is that we should be careful of the language we use, and recognize that child pornography is far broader than circumstances that would generally be considered "rape" are. My phrasing was sub-optimal due to my other problem with the conflation of statutory rape and normal rape.
Easy to say if it isn't you or your kids getting raped on video.
For the most part the consumers are being left out of major prosecutions, one can also make an argument that blocking all sources of CP might increase sexual assault cases involving children if the users cannot get their relief that way.
But this overall isn't a clear cut case.