Child Pornagraphy: The Legality of Viewership

[Nietzsche]

Kiddie porn.

Yes, Nowhere do relativists converge quicker than on this one topic. It is the great harmonizer
of our time.

I'm not going to discuss the obvious moral disgust at violation of childrens rights. A person
who violates the rights of another, particularly one who so grievously injures and robs the
innocent of theirs, deserves nothing more than the fullest punishment of the law.

However, my interest lies more in those who view child pornography. Should those who view this
material be considered criminal if their only act lies in viewing, not participating?

Arguments?

[Lord Romanus III]

Kiddie porn.

Yes, Nowhere do relativists converge quicker than on this one topic. It is the great harmonizer
of our time.

I'm not going to discuss the obvious moral disgust at violation of childrens rights. A person
who violates the rights of another, particularly one who so grievously injures and robs the
innocent of theirs, deserves nothing more than the fullest punishment of the law.

However, my interest lies more in those who view child pornography. Should those who view this
material be considered criminal if their only act lies in viewing, not participating?

Arguments?

Yes they are still criminals. The only exceptions I make are for situations such as some girl sends me a pic of her naked or w/e. That is their own choosing and we are the same (or near to) age.

[Imperator Romani]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=273674

[The Count(er)]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=273674

meh, one for the politics behind it one for moral side, anyways, I'm not sure what the viewer's done wrong here, would you punish a witness to a murder? Except it's not even that bad, would you punish a person who happened to take a peek at the murder victim's body some time after the murder? (or actively seeked out the body to take a peek, yes, very weird, but not really harmful) Obviously the ones making the child pornography should be in quite some trouble, but the viewer? S/He really hasn't hurt anyone, at least not directly, it won't really solve anything to punish the viewer, especially when attacking the source is so much more effective.

[Pontifex Maximus]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=273674

Please use that link for discussion.

[Denny Crane!]

Edit: -cough- There is a difference between politics and ethics two threads is pretty legitimate -cough-

There is a difference between relativism in morals and relativism in legal principles (something the OP woefully neglects in his rush to criticise posters) as most relativists usually (like myself) pose questions like:

What defines the age, is it morally wrong if it is 18 in one country, 16 in another and 21 in yet another? Where is the line drawn and how? Since it is age which determines paedophillia.

What about a 16 year old girl and a 15 year old boy is that paedophillia? Technically under the law yes it is.

And finally in terms of ethics a point I am always keen to push is that these people who view it should consider the fact that their material is generally a product of abuse but then there drives which compel them into this behaviour is often created by a combination of abuse and biological abnormalities. The question is surely one of how much free will does that person has and only then can we determine moral culpability.