I'm not sure I understand, are you saying this is a BAD thing? I disagree with a lot of your opinions but I can usually see the logic behind them, not in this case though. Firstly, the arson analogy doesn't work, looking at pictures of a fire isn't a crime, looking at pictures of child porn is. Also your comment about increasing the value of images seems to fly in the face of your strong assertions the principles of supply and demand don't apply to child porn. This measure isn't a cure all by any means but I can't see how it could possibly hurt the situation.gleakk is right: I did not write the post well. I wrote it over several days while traveling, editing it in a series of motel rooms. I finally said "enough!" and posted it.
The arson analogy does work. The "one's legal, one's not" distinction is just silly. Of course child porn images are illegal; this blog questions whether those laws make sense, whether those laws do what they are promoted as doing. It makes as much sense to say that looking at a photo of child abuse IS child abuse as it does to say that looking at a photo of a fire set by arson IS committing arson.
I'm saying that knee-jerk celebrations about eradicating child pornography aren't taking into consideration the fact that we don't really know what the unintended consequences will be. The motivations of those who produce child porn and those who use it are not well understood--probably because each producer and viewer has his/her own motivation.
I have no objection to Google doing this--the internet corporations can do as they like, within the bounds of the law. The timing of the announcement, though, makes me go...hmm. Google recently came under heavy criticism for cooperating with government spying activities and now Google is offering itself up as the consummate good guy because it is working against child porn.
People who go ballistic when I defend child porn users (from the excesses of the justice system) say we need to protect children and they also like to use the supply/demand argument. I didn't do it well, but I was trying to point out that their enthusiasm for making child porn just go away ignores those two arguments.
If someone believes child porn users (the demand in that argument) are responsible for the producers creating child porn (the supply), the elimination of existing child porn should make them wonder if this will increase the value of new images.
If someone believes that we should protect children from abusers, they cannot argue that it is also a good thing to eliminate evidence of that abuse.
The push to "eradicate" child porn ignores what is happening when the images are created. Why would anyone think that is a good thing?
5 comments:
It takes less dedication to see who is using the child porn sites than it does to find the creeps who make it (often times they operate out of this country). The policing agencies can also exclaim that they have "arrested 'Mr pervert' for child pornography charges"...and the public assumes the agency is really cracking down and doing their job, spending the taxpayers money to incarcerate the threat to their children. The common person, never personally involved in one of these cases- never realize the taxpayers cost of jailing old and ailing, non-violent offenders. The tether system could be used instead, assuring the public that the non-violent offenders actions are being monitored, jailing only the ones who are not compliant with the rules of the tether - but then the headlines would read: "Child Pornography viewer sentenced to 15 years on a tether" Not quite the impressive bang, is it. No prosecutor would climb the ladder of success for that sentence, would he...
I just discovered your blog. Brave woman. I salute you. I am in the same position, but my husband has been out for two years. Two year sentence because the material was nudity only of teenage young women - no men, no sex. You wrote, "It makes as much sense to say that looking at a photo of child abuse IS child abuse as it does to say that looking at a photo of a fire set by arson IS committing arson." I don't need to tell you that what we are discussing, the BIGGEST OBSTACLE, is the theory of re-victimization. It is the confusion of a model with reality (known in academic circles as "reification") It's the mad belief that photos are people. Here are a few similar examples you might use: 1) Is a sheet of music is the same as the orchestra and that if you spill a cup of coffee on it you have stained the violinist? 2) Is the map the same as the territory itself, so that if I spit on a map of Italy, I have actually spit on an Italian? 3) Try reversing the experience. Let's take a photo of a child battling cancer instead of a naked child. Instead of thinking dirty thoughts, let's send healing energy and good thoughts to the child with cancer. Any results? Have we impacted that child in any tangible way by thinking good thoughts? No, of course not, any more than nasty, distasteful thoughts about a person can tangibly affect them in real time. Yet the logic of re-victimization would have us believe this.
Welcome, Claire. "The child is victimized all over again" is an article of faith for them. They do not like to have it questioned.
I think you and I will get along just fine. ;-)
YOU should not be allowed to say whether people looking at child pornography is abuse. I assume you have never been abused yourself, therefore you have NO IDEA what it is like to be a victim of it, or how it feels to know that sick bastards like your husbands are still downloading and looking at that pornography. How dare you try and say what should and shouldn't be classed as abuse.
Wait. So you think a naked photograph of YOU, that was taken without your permission, that was out there on the internet where any pervert who likes jacking off to pictures of naked women he doesn't know can access it, save it to his computer, show it to his friends, share it online - would be okay? Like that wouldn't bother you, to have your naked picture floating around without your permission? You wouldn't want to know about it? You would have no problem with ANYTHING that anyone did with that picture? What if that picture was of you as a child, naked, in the midst of the thing that brought you the most pain and shame in your whole life? THAT picture floating around the internet forever, for your children to some day possible stumble across, that picture being used by perverts to jack off to - that would be fine with you too? You wouldn't worry about where that picture is or what was being done with it? You wouldn't feel some need to try to control what happens with those naked pictures that someone else took and posted without your permission?
You don't believe people have any right to control photographic images of themselves? Especially images that were not taken or distributed without their permission?
That is SO interesting to me, because I have not seen ANY pictures of you on this blog... why is that? Are you shy? Are you worried about your picture getting out? Are you worried about someone in your life recognizing you? How ironic.
Post a Comment