PC and Video Game censhorship in Australia

[iNow]

We have the OP's eloquently phrased position :

"I think adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want...... unless it's something like child porn."

 

So I'd ask iNow or dudde to come up with a position in response.

And I decline your request. It was the OP himself who made the comment, and I'm essentially asking for him to explain why. I don't need to take a position in this thread to challenge that expressed by others.

 

 

I disagree with that characterisation. I would say that the producer directly harms the child, and the consumer indirectly harms the child.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but you're logic doesn't hold. The consumer does NOT indirectly harm the child. The harm to child comes form the producer, and I argue from the producer alone. The only role the consumer could play is if they happen to encourage the producer to make more. That would result in indirect harm, but the harm itself comes from the producer and no one else.

 

Further, your argument would only really hold if the producers did this solely for economic benefit. My stance is that they don't. I'd say the vast majority of times the producer plays a dual role, and tend most often to also themselves be a consumer of the material. The fact that others seek to gain access to that material once it's already been produced is generally going to be irrelevant to the desire of the producer to make it in the first place.

 

The harm comes from the person who puts the child in that position to begin with, not those who find pleasure in viewing the the materials the producer has made.

 

You are arguing ideal supply/demand, as if the producers would not make this crap if people were disallowed from consuming it. I reject that premise since all indicators suggest that the material will be produced regardless of the laws against consuming/viewing it.

 

So, my question remains. Why do you advocate punishing the consumer when the harm comes from the producer? I posit that it is a retaliatory response... a desire for punishment and retribution... an implicit desire to legislate your own personal morality... and has NOTHING to do with protection of the child.

 

 

It is unreasonable to suggest that the censorship's purpose (the reasoning behind those who legislated it) was to "punish the consumers" of child pornography. I would suggest a better characterization would be that the law "seeks" to protect children, given that that is the reason which those who would implement such a law would give.

<...>

because it helps protect children

<...>

because it helps protect children

<...>

Because consumption of child pornography encourages the manufacture of child pornography which in turn harms children. The basic tenet of demand and supply.

 

You are working with some very weak assumptions here. First, you have not established that consumption of the material is harmful to the child. As I have argued above, it is production of the material which causes the harm. Second, you assume standard supply and demand fundamentals for a market where they don't apply. As I argued above, producers do not make this material to increase the size of their bank accounts or to make money. They produce it to satisfy a need, and the existence of that need will not be terminated by making consumption illegal. It can, however, be mitigated via better enforcement on the production side. Simply put, the protection of the child comes from preventing production, not consumption.

 

You can argue that you wish to "protect the children" all you want. My point is that the consumption of CP is not where the harm to the child takes place, and also that consumption is not what drives production in the first place (i.e. supply/demand assumptions are being mistakenly applied in this specific instance).

 

Establishing scientific data for such correlation and causal effects is practically and ethically problematic in the extreme in these kind of cases. How would you propose a double-blind test of the correlation between child pornography and the sexual abuse of children?

I don't have to. I'm not the one arguing that CP should be treated differently, nor am I arguing that the viewing of CP leads to sex crimes against children later in life from those who have viewed it. That was NOT my assertion. I'm not the one asserting that consumption harms the child. I am challenging those assumptions/assertions, and the burden of proof lies with those who are making them.

 

 

Even if the OP hasn't phrased the argument as accurately as you might have liked, it would be more interesting/helpful for the thread if you were to point out how it could have been phrased better, where ambiguities lie.

Thanks for the tip. I'll take that under consideration.

 

 

Instead of setting up strawmen.

I setup no strawman. You should check what that means. At no where and at no time did I misrepresent the position of others, argue instead against that misrepresentation, and then claim victory. I used a similar circumstance to ask for clarification, and to pull apart why one was okay, but not the other... Why a correlation was good enough to argue against CP, but not against everyday porn.

 

No strawmen involved. It was a sincere question, and I was not attempting to misrepresent others in this thread, so thanks.

 

 

Anyway I absolutely agree that we should examine our assumptions and think why we draw lines where we do.

Indeed. That was the heart of why I decided to open this exchange, and I'm glad to find agreement around this point that we should be clear on why are against certain things and draw the lines we do.

 

In fairness, I'd accept it if others just came out and said they were against CP because it's gross and they don't want anything to do with it, and will take any measure possible to keep it from happening, even if the efficacy of that measure is questionable. I'd be good with that, because at least then people would be being sincere.

 

However, the arguments being put forth in this thread have been little more than rationalizations based on flawed and inconsistent logic.

 

 

We can't expect certainty though and I think that you are being slightly too trigger happy to be a really constructive devil's advocate!

When did I imply that I gave a shit about being constructive? I'm just after having some interesting and stimulating discussions with bright people, and making sure that the arguments we put forth are logically consistent and representative a membership here with a modicum of academic integrity.

Edited November 8, 2009 by iNow

[A Tripolation]

I highly doubt that you would be okay with the depiction of child pornography in a video game.

iNow, you're simply wrong. I would hate the game, but since it's a game, I would recognize that it's a freedom of speech thing. Since they don't exist, there really is no crime.

 

Your argument fails at this one point:

Since you are advocating restricting someone elses freedom (disallowing them from viewing CP), then you ought to be able to make a good argument and a well-reasoned case for why that freedom warrants limiting

 

It shouldn't be a freedom to view violent crimes. It should be illegal to view any and ALL real, violent crimes. And since I've already stated that I do think that people that view videos of murder should be held as accessories to murder, your argument fails in that it isn't a "freedom", but rather, a crime to do so.

 

And if you didn't know, any sexual crime committed against a minor is automatically classified as a violent crime.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'd say the vast majority of times the producer plays a dual role, and is also themselves a consumer of the material.

 

Even if that is true (which I don't think it is), then that would mean that there would be a 10% or so that did do it for economic reasons, and punishing the consumer WOULD help to stop it, thus, helping to protect the children.

 

So, going with your logic iNow, if I offered money to view your murder, then I shouldn't be held responsible for your death at all? I didn't harm you in any way. The only harm was done by the murderer.

Edited November 8, 2009 by A Tripolation
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

It shouldn't be a freedom to view violent crimes. It should be illegal to view and and ALL real, violent crimes. And since I've already stated that I do think that people that view videos of murder should be held as accessories to murder, your argument fails in that it isn't a "freedom", but rather, a crime to do so.

So, according to you I'm complicit in the deaths of people because I watched Faces of Death while I was in high school, and I should be punished for being a consumer of that material. I'm sorry, but no. I'm not guilty, nor am I complicit, but according to you, I am. That's ridiculous on its face.

 

 

So, going with your logic iNow, if I offered money to view your murder, then I shouldn't be held responsible for your death at all? I didn't harm you in any way. The only harm was done by the murderer.

Precisely. The murder already happened. You are in no way, shape, or form responsible for my death by viewing it after the fact. The responsibility lies with murderer, and the murderer alone. The situation changes if you paid the murderer to kill me just so you could watch, but if that's the case then your comparison is not inline with what we've been discussing here in this thread... The consumption of videos well after they've been produced.

[A Tripolation]

From what I read, watching that makes me question your high-school morals, but no. They were all either fake deaths and/or deaths in a historical context, or the deaths of animals.

The description I read may be off, but if that is the case, that is not the type of violent, real, crime viewing I was speaking of.

 

Precisely. The murder already happened.

 

So, basically all I have to do to contract a legal kill is to tell my hitman to record it, so I can watch it in the future?

 

 

 

 

Edit:

Ok, let me correct it.

 

So, basically all I have to do to contract a legal kill is to advertise that I would pay money for the viewing of the death of you.

Edited November 8, 2009 by A Tripolation

[iNow]

I fail to see your point. If you were contracting someone to videotape sex with a child, I'd be against that too. However, that is not the type of consumption I've been discussing in this thread. In your example, people contracting to see sex with a child (or, to kill someone using your example) are, in fact, responsible for the production of the material, and are hence no longer mere consumers... They are no longer just viewers after the fact, they have involved themselves directly with production, and hence are now included under the producer umbrella... which I've argued above is where the punishment should be directed.

 

 

 

EDIT: I can't believe I'm having to push so hard on this. It seems perfectly obvious to me. I'm going to back off this thread again for a while. I feel like I need to take a shower, and I can't believe I'm here arguing so strongly for such a disgusting thing. That's just it, though. I will come right out and state that I find it disgusting. I don't try to hide behind rationalizations, flawed premises, and inconsistent logic.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From what I read, watching that makes me question your high-school morals, but no. They were all either fake deaths and/or deaths in a historical context, or the deaths of animals.

The description I read may be off, but if that is the case, that is not the type of violent, real, crime viewing I was speaking of.

 

My bad. I meant Traces of Death. I often confuse the two.

Edited November 8, 2009 by iNow

[A Tripolation]

No. While I certainly don't have any respect for someone that would choose to watch it, from what I've gathered from the description, it shows scenes of accidents and suicides. Not people being drug into the woods and raped and murdered. Big difference between the two.

 

But if I'm wrong, then yes, you should be held accountable for helping to fuel murder in terms of profit.

[iNow]

No. While I certainly don't have any respect for someone that would choose to watch it, from what I've gathered from the description, it shows scenes of accidents and suicides. Not people being drug into the woods and raped and murdered. Big difference between the two.

 

But if I'm wrong, then yes, you should be held accountable for helping to fuel murder in terms of profit.

 

In its opening you see the death of a woman named Maritza Martin, who was gunned down by her ex-husband on Spanish language television. Your argument is that I should be held accountable since it was caught on film and I watched it. That's stupid. What if I click a YouTube link and it's someone getting stabbed? Am I guilty and accountable then, too? Do you not see how ridiculous your line of reasoning has become?

 

 

 

I think this is the real key issue in child pornography and while we may allow knee-jerk reactions and outrage to be enough to justify the laws against it's viewing, if we explore the issue further we could find an interesting discussion on the nuances between censorship and complicity in criminal activities.

I'm honestly not sure the contributors to this thread are able to get past their visceral distaste enough to have that conversation. People are making unsupported claims, assertions based on fallacious premises, and using twisted logic to justify their stance.

 

Exploring the nuance between censorship and complicity would be very engaging and rewarding, but I've seen practically none of that here thus far. The way this thread has gone, it seems I should be jailed for viewing a clip online two years ago of a gang beating one of their "pledges" to death during his initiation in Dallas. It seems I'm as bad as the folks who were kicking him in the skull with steel-toed boots.

Edited November 9, 2009 by iNow

[A Tripolation]

Your argument is that I should be held accountable since it was caught on film and I watched it. That's stupid. What if I click a YouTube link and it's someone getting stabbed? Am I guilty and accountable then, too? Do you not see how ridiculous your line of reasoning has become?

 

That's how I've always felt ever since I learned that "snuff films" existed. I'm relatively new to the internet, and wasn't aware of the atrocities that people enjoy watching on here...namely innocent people getting gunned down. I don't see how people could even watch that and not feel some shame. So, I'm not twisting my logic to suit my argument. That's how I feel.

 

And no, since you would not knowingly be viewing a murder. If you buy something with the intention of seeing a murder, then you are helping to fuel demand for murder, meaning more murders are perpetrated for profit's sake, thus, you are indirectly responsible for the rise in profit-related murders.

 

 

It seems I should be jailed for viewing a clip online two years ago of a gang beating one of their "pledges" to death during his initiation in Dallas. It seems I'm as bad as the folks who were kicking him in the skull with steel-toed boots.

 

When you buy such material, you are basically creating a market for it...can you not see that?

And also (as an unrelated aside), why would you even WANT to watch that? Do you enjoy seeing people die?

[Dudde]

So I'd ask iNow or dudde to come up with a position in response.

 

I didn't see myself quoted anywhere, did you have a specific question for me?

 

My position has been stated by iNow a good 7 or 8 times with the exception that there are some things that I, personally would feel compelled to punish people for. Watching someone else be killed is one thing, paying to watch it happen to a real person should be severely punishable

 

however, that's completely irrelevant to this thread, which is about video game censorship (in Australia)

 

In video games, I would find it extremely distasteful to have a game involving CP, however, couldn't legally fight that game, as no children are actually being harmed in any way.

 

Because consumption of child pornography encourages the manufacture of child pornography which in turn harms children.

 

which shows in this respect, that you're in the camp that says that adults are irresponsible enough to depict between game and reality? Because there have been huge crapfests over stupid things like some games causing violence in children. Do you agree that people playing games where they kill people make them want to go out and kill real people?

 

for the record, I hope nobody brings up "violence in children" - it's time to blame the parents, those games are never meant to be in kids' hands.

 

secondly, if there are adults who succumb to this behavior after playing games, maybe there was something not quite right to begin with?

[padren]

Just to explore another angle of the "anti" argument, I think it may be worth considering the "regulated substance" view instead of the "freedom of speech" view. When it comes to freedom of speech, we do allow for censorship of phrases that include threats against someone's life, and direct statements telling people to commit crimes.

 

I think it's worth arguing that child pornography is a type of "regulated substance" that, while not a drug, causes suffering to society on par (per capita) to that of hard drugs. By that I mean, if the number of people who used heroin viewed child pornography you could expect sexually based assaults on children to be comparable to crime funded drug habits.

 

 

I could own heroin for non-consumption purposes, either to collect, or some non-narcotic use. Maybe I just like the powder to use to grit the path with when it snows. When you think about it - what crime would I be committing? I would not be selling it, distributing it, and not using it... but it's a controlled substance and I could be put in jail for possessing it. I can understand the logic - I probably shouldn't be allowed to own weapons grade plutonium either, even if I have no malicious use for it planned. My individual case does not trump society's right to make blanket regulations due to it's inherently dangerous nature.

 

In the same way, child pornography can be considered a dangerous material. Even if you overlooked the harm to the child, the product is dangerous. You could choose to debate whether the dangers are overplayed - both with child porn and drugs - but that is an aside to the fact that society has deemed it dangerous and chosen to regulate it.

It is tricky because it overlaps the "freedom of speech" issue, and regulating information as a dangerous material is dangerous in itself and open to abuse. However, we already to regulate freedom of speech with regards words spoken to hire hitmen and prostitutes among other things. Plus, the possibility of abuse does not affect the pure abstract intent of such regulation.

 

I don't think it should be criminal to unwittingly view child pornography anymore than it is a crime to be involuntarily drugged. From my understanding of the law it can be overly harsh, but I don't think the basis itself is flawed.

 

 

Now, the other issue - synthetic child porn - through CGI/airbrushing to make photo realistic child pornography that does not actually ever harm a child.... I have to say I consider this still open to regulation. If a new chemical was discovered that had the exact same effects as heroin but was synthetic it would be legal at first but quickly become regulated in the same way as heroin. That's why I break it down into two crimes: the first being the production of child pornography (the provider) and second the distribution or consumption as a controlled material. The synthetic stuff is just as likely to "feed the habit" of pedophiles as the real deal... it just didn't hurt a child to produce. Regardless of your own benign intentions for possessing such materials, you can't really argue you should be a special case unless you think heroin and plutonium should be unregulated for "well intentioned" use.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just a side note on the more direct OP topic:

 

Learning tools in the form of games, or situational simulators are on the rise - would a pediatric computer program be considered "peddling kiddie porn" if it included child anatomy? Should it be strictly controlled and only be allowed in the hands of doctors? Is it conceivable that a parent may wish to have access to such information to better know warning signs of ailments and know when their child's health is in danger? I don't know of any conditions off the top of my head that would require "kiddie porn" equivalent photography but it's certainly conceivable. Such access to information would help children - but how would it's use be regulated to ensure it wasn't employed as kiddie porn?

[Dudde]

 

The synthetic stuff is just as likely to "feed the habit" of pedophiles as the real deal... it just didn't hurt a child to produce.

~~~~

Learning tools in the form of games, or situational simulators are on the rise - would a pediatric computer program be considered "peddling kiddie porn" if it included child anatomy? Should it be strictly controlled and only be allowed in the hands of doctors?

 

On the first note: that still doesn't hold unless you agree that 13 year olds running old women over on the streets of san andreas is really just feeding their habit to run down old women in their real towns. I personally know several children who are far worse than I am in games, but can all seem to connect the dots and don't actually think they want to really try running people over.

 

I think we've merely been exposed to violence and killing too much in today's world, we think nothing of it to do those things. Not that I want to see more CP or anything negatively happening to kids in movies or games, but if we'd seen that like we see murder, I doubt anybody would have a problem

 

On your last part in regards to a child anatomy game, I personally would say yes to release only to the doctors, but there's plenty of anatomy stuff online that I'm sure they could use if medical were their taste =\ So it may not be necessary

[foodchain]

Just to explore another angle of the "anti" argument, I think it may be worth considering the "regulated substance" view instead of the "freedom of speech" view. When it comes to freedom of speech, we do allow for censorship of phrases that include threats against someone's life, and direct statements telling people to commit crimes.

 

I think it's worth arguing that child pornography is a type of "regulated substance" that, while not a drug, causes suffering to society on par (per capita) to that of hard drugs. By that I mean, if the number of people who used heroin viewed child pornography you could expect sexually based assaults on children to be comparable to crime funded drug habits.

 

 

I could own heroin for non-consumption purposes, either to collect, or some non-narcotic use. Maybe I just like the powder to use to grit the path with when it snows. When you think about it - what crime would I be committing? I would not be selling it, distributing it, and not using it... but it's a controlled substance and I could be put in jail for possessing it. I can understand the logic - I probably shouldn't be allowed to own weapons grade plutonium either, even if I have no malicious use for it planned. My individual case does not trump society's right to make blanket regulations due to it's inherently dangerous nature.

 

In the same way, child pornography can be considered a dangerous material. Even if you overlooked the harm to the child, the product is dangerous. You could choose to debate whether the dangers are overplayed - both with child porn and drugs - but that is an aside to the fact that society has deemed it dangerous and chosen to regulate it.

It is tricky because it overlaps the "freedom of speech" issue, and regulating information as a dangerous material is dangerous in itself and open to abuse. However, we already to regulate freedom of speech with regards words spoken to hire hitmen and prostitutes among other things. Plus, the possibility of abuse does not affect the pure abstract intent of such regulation.

 

I don't think it should be criminal to unwittingly view child pornography anymore than it is a crime to be involuntarily drugged. From my understanding of the law it can be overly harsh, but I don't think the basis itself is flawed.

 

 

Now, the other issue - synthetic child porn - through CGI/airbrushing to make photo realistic child pornography that does not actually ever harm a child.... I have to say I consider this still open to regulation. If a new chemical was discovered that had the exact same effects as heroin but was synthetic it would be legal at first but quickly become regulated in the same way as heroin. That's why I break it down into two crimes: the first being the production of child pornography (the provider) and second the distribution or consumption as a controlled material. The synthetic stuff is just as likely to "feed the habit" of pedophiles as the real deal... it just didn't hurt a child to produce. Regardless of your own benign intentions for possessing such materials, you can't really argue you should be a special case unless you think heroin and plutonium should be unregulated for "well intentioned" use.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just a side note on the more direct OP topic:

 

Learning tools in the form of games, or situational simulators are on the rise - would a pediatric computer program be considered "peddling kiddie porn" if it included child anatomy? Should it be strictly controlled and only be allowed in the hands of doctors? Is it conceivable that a parent may wish to have access to such information to better know warning signs of ailments and know when their child's health is in danger? I don't know of any conditions off the top of my head that would require "kiddie porn" equivalent photography but it's certainly conceivable. Such access to information would help children - but how would it's use be regulated to ensure it wasn't employed as kiddie porn?

 

Yes but on an off angle lets look at automobiles. How many people yearly all over the world die via cars for instance. Yet this as acceptable and why, is it some form of sacrifice for progress of some kind, and what kind of progress, do you think cars are used by people who make kiddie porn along with the internet? So when it comes down to the crime itself society by in large does not look to reduce enablers if you will, or for that matter attempt to design a system that is as safe as possible.

 

You could even look upon medicine and say it enables people to do all kinds of stupid things they might not if they knew no medical attention would be giving to them in the aftermath, so medicine enables stupidity?

 

Saying that making child porn legal will increase the amount of child porn produced has the subtle or hidden tone that people, or the amount of, will seek to purchase such, why is that? It’s like the argument I find against homosexuality at times. That if we don’t fight it we will all become homosexuals, to me that whole premise sounds false because no one can prescribe a mechanism as to why that would occur. I want to know why making something legal will increase its base of consumption, not just the token that it will.

 

Plus it sounds scary to think that bulks of people would be downloading that material if not law was against it. Then again there is a step penalty for illegally downloading pirated material. In fact a 15 year old girl got charged, or her family did, 750$ per track at a few hundred tracks. So did the law work there, or is it more or less the social aspect of this crime which is more potent to stop the crime then say the police and laws like that. Sociology has terms for this I just fail to remember them.

 

Now dont get me confused as to think I am arguing for the topic at hand to be legal, I don’t care for it, its more or less the logic behind the argument I am after like iNow.

[mzatanoskas]

******************

Quick summary of overlong post that follows:

 

:-):-):-)

 

• My goal in participating in this thread is clarification of interesting ideas/principles, not attacking anyone or point scoring!
   
  
• Please assume my good faith in all my posts!
   
  
• I'll try and address the actual meat of the issues when I can find some time later.
  

 

:-):-):-)

 

******************

 

I didn't see myself quoted anywhere, did you have a specific question for me?

 

No, not really, my point was just that I thought it would be constructive to have an explicitly stated "counter" claim as such to help keep the argument on track.

 

...however, that's completely irrelevant to this thread, which is about video game censorship (in Australia)

 

Although the title of the thread is about game censorship in Australia, I was focusing on the OP's only statement which is:

 

I think adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want...... unless it's something like child porn.

 

Which I guess is a more generic statement on censorship of all media. But this was my point about stating positions or making explicit claims so that we avoid talking past each other. Being aware who is arguing about a specific claim related to the censorship of videogames in Australia or a broader statement on censorship of the media or whatever is helpful.

 

In video games, I would find it extremely distasteful to have a game involving CP, however, couldn't legally fight that game, as no children are actually being harmed in any way.

 

Here we go, now we are getting closer to isolating certain sticking points around which we can better focus the argument. Would it be fair for me to rephrase this as saying the important point for you is:

 

Whether child pornography in games can harm children? If not, then society does not have a right to legislate censorship.

 

A quick point here to mention (I'll make other points and give details when I have time, but seeing that similar points to this have been brought up a number of times already) is a connection between demand and supply. Simply put, if child pornography in games is not censored and can legally be sold, the financial incentives as described by economic theories of demand and supply will encourage increased production of child pornography which would harm children.

 

Now you may have any number of objections to this argument, including for example that you meant only virtual child pornography in videogames (when no real child was abused in the production of the game) should not be censored. But of course I don't know for sure until you make them.

 

Let's not forget we are always going to end up in a "grey area" and expecting either "side" to come up with exhaustive and absolute treatises off the bat is unreasonable, probably intrinsically impossible and would definitely exceed the maximum word count for a post on any forum board.

 

which shows in this respect, that you're in the camp that says that adults are irresponsible enough to depict between game and reality?

 

I was arguing about consumption of child pornography (real not simulated) and the demand/supply effect, not videogames, so there we were talking past each other there as so often happens in these threads.

 

Because there have been huge crapfests over stupid things like some games causing violence in children. Do you agree that people playing games where they kill people make them want to go out and kill real people?

 

As far as whether playing videogames can have a negative effect on people's behaviour or not, that's another very important point to be addressed, but I think the debate has to be more nuanced than framing positions as starkly as "playing games ... make them want to go out and kill real people."

 

Look I'm not saying there aren't people who do think in infuriatingly knee-jerk and simplistic ways. However in an intelligent discussion, do we have to assume that someone who seems to be disagreeing with us is so intellectually challenged?! Let's try not to argue to the lowest common denominator! This is basically what I meant re iNow and strawmen. Apologies if I phrased it too agressively or in too accusatory a manner; it's not that I think iNow is specifically taking words out of context etc, but that I'm sure he could phrase the arguments he is attacking in a stronger form. I believe there is no point setting up a weak version of an argument (ie a straw man) that I disagree with in order to knock it down. Not on an internet thread anyway because I honestly have no interest in scoring "points" here.

 

for the record, I hope nobody brings up "violence in children" - it's time to blame the parents, those games are never meant to be in kids' hands.

 

Again as you set forth more claims we can better identify and isolate the real sticking points around which the argument revolves.

 

So just to clarify, here you are arguing that:

 

1. even if some videogames cause violence in children, the blame lies solely with the parents of the children, and censorship should not be the answer.

 

2. something else?

 

secondly, if there are adults who succumb to this behavior after playing games, maybe there was something not quite right to begin with?

 

Again to rephrase to ensure we are on the same page, here are you arguing that:

 

1. even if some videogames cause violence in adults, the adults were ill already and blame lies solely with them, therefore censorship should not be the answer (because it is unecessary, ineffectual, immoral or some combination of the above).

 

2. even if we find evidence of adults behaving violently after playing games, this is probably not evidence of the games negative effect, but evidence of the adult's inherent behavioural problems, therefore censorship should not be the answer (because it is unecessary, ineffectual, immoral or some combination of the above).

 

3. something else?

 

 

Ok here I think I should lay my cards on the table and make my position a little more explicit too:

 

1. I normally don't touch internet debate threads with a bargepole, especially "controversial" topics such as these, because they usually almost exclusively feature name-calling, point-scoring, shouting matches, where the arguers talk completely past each other and no progress is ever made whatsoever. In other words, flame wars.

 

2. I decided to jump in this thread therefore precisely because I thought it showed signs that people were interested in debating for the same reasons as me.

 

3. Why am I interested in debating this? Because I believe a measured and disciplined discussion can ideally result in:

 

a) clarification of all our own ideas, principles, their strengths and inconsistencies etc

 

b) clarification of all other possible ideas, principles, their strengths and inconsistencies etc

 

c) identification of what we need to think about/analyse further

 

d) where disagreements amongst different people really lie

 

etc...

 

To me the above is what an "interesting conversation" about controversial topics looks like. It's basically a rephrasing of a concept of "ideal argumentation". Ok that can sound pompous, or unrealistic, but I don't think it's that out of place on a science forum. I would never post this on a youtube thread.

 

4. So as I said, in order to achieve all this lofty stuff, I have to assume that the majority of other participants share a similar goal. It is not necessarily true. Indeed it is rarely true on most "argument" threads. But it is on the basis of this assumption that I encouraged the explicit statement of claims, the avoidance of strawmen, the notion of a "constructive" devil's advocate etc...

 

5. Why have I concentrated on one "side" as it were? Because that is another application of the concept of "ideal argumentation" to this thread. It seems to be the most constructive way to achieve the goals I have set out. But yes, I think the points I have made are valid to everyone arguing in the thread.

 

6. And finally I should state something a little more immediately relevant to the controversy being discussed:

 

I would tentatively say that for a whole wadge of reasons of varying strength and clarity, I support the general notion that in the society that I currently live in (UK, 2009) some form of censorship of media is appropriate, including censorship of child pornography.

 

Ok I have points, responses and clarifications I need to add, but will have to save for later.

 

Just one final thing though:

 

When did I imply that I gave a shit about being constructive?

 

Amongst other things' date=' I presumed it from the forum we are in, the position you were taking, comments you made about interesting conversation and clarifying arguments etc... It was that assumption that made me decide to contribute to the thread. Of course all these words are subjective to some degree, but we can't have any conversation without making some assumptions on what they mean.

 

Ok so very importantly: [b']are you not interested in being constructive then?[/b] I don't mean this in an aggressive way at all, but it will save me some time coming up with a response to your earlier posts if you are not.

[foodchain]

A quick point here to mention (I'll make other points and give details when I have time, but seeing that similar points to this have been brought up a number of times already) is a connection between demand and supply. Simply put, if child pornography in games is not censored and can legally be sold, the financial incentives as described by economic theories of demand and supply will encourage increased production of child pornography which would harm children.

 

Yes, and I would agree but by that logic if we remove laws on crack cocaine we should see a massive spike in crack addiction. My basic premise is twofold. We make an assumption that denying certain liberties will curtail that behavior, which is questionable, and more so that it will in this cause reduce bulk offenses, which giving murder seems dubious at best. The next chunk is that is also states to a certain extent that without such laws so many people would be doing this, that is without murder laws a great deal of people in the now would actually be murderers, or crack addicts for instance. I have a hard time accepting that notion overall, as I think its to simplistic and or does not actually grasp the reality behind something like this.

 

If crack cocaine were suddenly legal I would feel no more compelled to begin using it then if it were illegal for example. So it in general makes the assumption that a large extent of our populous is actually interested in X but does not do it simply on law which is then coupled to a supply and demand argument.

[Dudde]

Now you may have any number of objections to this argument, including for example that you meant only virtual child pornography in videogames

 

Indeed, I thought I'd made myself explicitly clear on this point. To be quite honest, I'd hope that were I to happen across CP in person that I could react like an educated person and think clearly. In all reality, I would probably physically harm someone if the situation allowed.

 

And I don't think that it should be okay in any form of media. However, in video games, there is no actual child involved, you could replace that model with a dog, bird, dracula, with a simple change in the image file itself. Movies, internet videos, pictures, all deal with real children - that's bad. I think it's important to keep the context of the media you're talking about when referencing something and I restate:

 

most media stays away from depicting horrible acts on children because society as a whole rejects these. I don't encourage them to take it up, but it wouldn't be legally fair to attack them for it if there weren't actually any children involved.

 

1. even if some videogames cause violence in children, the blame lies solely with the parents of the children, and censorship should not be the answer.

If the games weren't censored, maybe I'd be less inclined to point out the failures of the parents. The games people say are bringing out violence in kids are usually rated much higher than the child is in the first place. If you look through a 12-year old's game collection and find Manhunt, which is definitely rated mature, who bought the game? The industry does try censoring games, and then we bypass that by buying the games for them and getting mad that they're inappropriate.

 

1. even if some videogames cause violence in adults, the adults were ill already and blame lies solely with them, therefore censorship should not be the answer (because it is unecessary, ineffectual, immoral or some combination of the above).

 

Sure. If one person plays a game, goes to work and jokes with all their friends and lives happily ever after, and then another does it, and we have all these thousands of people doing that, and suddenly you get one person who plays it and starts butchering his neighborhood, why should we automatically assume the game is the fault? Even if he did this after watching a movie, why is there any reason that isn't ludicrously over the edge that we should start to presume the media is at fault.

 

For one single example, I'll use myself. I watched Poltergeist when I was 4, saw most of the 80's slashers like Jason and Freddy before I was 8, and grew up watching them as they released - once violent video games became available, I also played those. I've also never killed anyone, really have a strong distaste for hurting anyone and am pretty damn good with kids. What kind of special circumstances do I have to be in where blaming something else for my own actions is justifiable?

[Mr Skeptic]

The consumer does NOT indirectly harm the child. The harm to child comes form the producer, and I argue from the producer alone. The only role the consumer could play is if they happen to encourage the producer to make more. That would result in indirect harm, but the harm itself comes from the producer and no one else.

 

It's kind of like if I offer a bounty for the death of a certain person, that person gets murdered and I pay the bounty. The harm caused to that person would not have been directly caused by me but it would still land my ass in jail.

 

The manufacturer of the gun used to kill the guy also is involved, but again indirectly. They will not be held responsible however. Probably this is because they have other legal effects, whereas said bounty has a very specific, illegal effect.

 

 

Further, your argument would only really hold if the producers did this solely for economic benefit. My stance is that they don't. I'd say the vast majority of times the producer plays a dual role, and tend most often to also themselves be a consumer of the material. The fact that others seek to gain access to that material once it's already been produced is generally going to be irrelevant to the desire of the producer to make it in the first place.

 

Perhaps, but you have to ask yourself why a producer would make a video available, at significant risk to himself, so that there must be some drive to do it. This can only involve the people who watch the videos. If nobody watched a video, there would be no benefit to making it available, which some of these people want to do.

 

----

 

I'd also point out to whoever said that child porn was done without the consent of the child, that it is not necessarily the case. It is possible that a minor could consent to have sex and be filmed doing it (eg if they get paid). It would, however, still be illegal as they cannot give legal consent

[Dudde]

It's kind of like if I offer a bounty for the death of a certain person,

 

Not necessarily the same case sir. If a consumer were to pay directly to see CP of a certain child, then perhaps. But this isn't the normal case. I agree with demand fueling supply for the most part, however, I also agree that sometimes the producers are really the ones who want to see it the most, in regards to this particular topic. A lot of them will probably make it anyway, whether we're watching or not

[iNow]

It's kind of like if I offer a bounty for the death of a certain person, that person gets murdered and I pay the bounty. The harm caused to that person would not have been directly caused by me but it would still land my ass in jail.

 

I took great pains to explain this already multiple times to A_Tripolation, but it seems that you are making the exact same mistaken assumption that he is.

 

I am not talking about people who contract directly to have the product produced. That is a separate and distinct set of circumstances, and falls (IMO) under the producer umbrella, since they are directly involving themselves with the production event... which is where I think the enforcement mechanisms should be focused.

 

To help you understand my point, think of people who watch regular (non-controversial) movies at the cinema or via Netflix. They are consuming the product after it has already been created. They are not involved in production, they are not involved in story or cast selection. The product exists... and they then interact with that already existing product. I am assuming the same scenario with CP... that the product itself is already in existence by the time the consumer comes in contact with it. It could have been video-taped 10 years ago... Is the person who watches that 10 year old video still complicit in its making?

 

My argument has focused on consumers who encounter the product after the fact. They were in no way involved with the creation, they are simply consumers of the product after it's already been released. I am taking the existence of the product as given, and the involvement of the consumer as nil.

 

There are also now separate questions about whether or not the product is presented for a price, or if the consumer has obtained it for free. I tried to touch on this previously with my mention of YouTube. I may watch it, but I'm not paying for it. Do the arguments regarding economics (the assumption producers would not do this without a market) also apply when it's obtained and no money is exchanged?

 

In short, where do you draw the lines and why do you draw them there? Are you being consistent, and do those lines apply equally to other content that you don't personally find as vile?

[A Tripolation]

To help you understand my point, think of people who watch regular (non-controversial) movies at the cinema or via Netflix. They are consuming the product after it has already been created.

 

My argument has focused on consumers who encounter the product after the fact. They were in no way involved with the creation

 

There WOUDLN'T BE A MOVIE, were it not for the fact that the producers are EXPECTING PEOPLE TO WATCH IT. The idea that PEOPLE WILL WATCH IT leads to it being PRODUCED.

 

Stop dodging that fact and address it.

 

If nobody went to see the original Saw, then there most certainly wouldn't be like 5 sequels.

Edited November 9, 2009 by A Tripolation

[iNow]

There WOUDLN'T BE A MOVIE, were it not for the fact that the producers are EXPECTING PEOPLE TO WATCH IT. The idea that PEOPLE WILL WATCH IT leads to it being PRODUCED.

As I've stated numerous times already, I dismiss this central premise from which you are working. In the context of CP, it will be produced regardless of demand, since most times the producer themselves plays a dual role as a consumer.

 

I find your assumption that people wouldn't make this shit if they didn't have someone to whom to sell it to be incredibly flawed. I am confident that standard supply/demand fundamentals can only be minimally applied in the context of CP.

 

No need to yell. Get a grip, and think through my comments before blasting out and making me repeat myself over and over again as if I'm some sort of sick, twisted monster.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes but iNow does make a good point there. The closer the consumer is to the production, the more trouble they get into. Consider this thought experiment:

*I offer $1 million for a video showning someone being murdered at 5:47 pm next week at the corner of 1st and A streets. If a murder happens that fulfills these requirements, odds are I would be considered directly and completely responsible for that specific murder.

*I offer $ 1 million for 100 videos of murders committed next week. 100 or more murders occur that week. Odds are still pretty good I'd get in trouble.

*Every year, I offer $1 million for 1000 videos of murders in the past year. I still think I'd get in trouble.

*Every year, I offer $1 million for 1000 videos of murders and attempted murders in the past year where the victim attempted to defend themselves. I teach a self defense course. People might not like it, but in this case I probably won't get in trouble.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I find your assumption that people wouldn't make this shit if they didn't have someone to whom to sell it to be incredibly flawed. I am confident that standard supply/demand fundamentals can only be minimally applied in the context of CP.

 

If you are going to base your entire argument on this one opinion you should not be surprised when people disagree with the argument. Can you substantiate this assumption?

 

After all, paying for the images gives the producer an extra motive to produce them. Think of it this way: the producers of regular pornography probably enjoy watching their videos. But would they be producing nearly as much if they didn't get paid for it? Probably not. It makes it a job rather than a hobby.

 

Now, not knowing any child pornography producers, I do not know whether they consider it a hobby or a job. It could be either way. So assuming one position or the other is rather unfounded.

[padren]

On the first note: that still doesn't hold unless you agree that 13 year olds running old women over on the streets of san andreas is really just feeding their habit to run down old women in their real towns. I personally know several children who are far worse than I am in games, but can all seem to connect the dots and don't actually think they want to really try running people over.

No of course not, and that's not what I was trying to say at all. I think game censorship is very overblown - people who play football don't go tackling others at the grocery store either. It's very important to be clear that most people separate game metaphors and those goals from real life. People who go off and use video games as an excuse probably were a bit off to begin with.

 

I think we've merely been exposed to violence and killing too much in today's world, we think nothing of it to do those things. Not that I want to see more CP or anything negatively happening to kids in movies or games, but if we'd seen that like we see murder, I doubt anybody would have a problem

I think CP is different than video game violence - violence in entertainment is to provide adrenaline and excitement through stimuli that appears dangerous. CP on the other hand, is to stimulate excitement to those who have sexual fixations on children. (Not all imagery of children without clothes, but CP emphasis on the P does.) Due to the harm child predators cause, we do not as a society tolerate even those fantasies. Most people that want to play violent videos want a fast paced adrenaline kicking experience, not to kill someone. Most people who want to use CP want to molest children.

 

We have high penalties for child pornography because when someone is busted for possessing it, they obviously lack the self control despite the risk of prosecution, and are considered a genuine risk to the welfare of children. I think there is a strong correlation between users of CP and child abuse, which is why it's controlled. I don't think people would suddenly start using it all over if it was legal - anymore than everyone would drink and drive if we had no DUI laws - but there would be a correlating cost to society due to enough people taking advantage of it.

On your last part in regards to a child anatomy game, I personally would say yes to release only to the doctors, but there's plenty of anatomy stuff online that I'm sure they could use if medical were their taste =\ So it may not be necessary

 

Do you think that pedophilia is wide spread enough to allow access to such medical material would cause more harm than help parents identify health risks? It seems odd that parents would be denied this sort of material when their intentions are clearly benign - but it is a tricky issue.

[A Tripolation]

If you are going to base your entire argument on this one opinion you should not be surprised when people disagree with the argument. Can you substantiate this assumption?

 

After all, paying for the images gives the producer an extra motive to produce them.

 

Perfectly stated Cap'n Refsmmat.

iNow, how my idea (that is based on the principals of supply and demand) less valid than your assumption that S/D doesn't apply to C.P.?

 

most media stays away from depicting horrible acts on children because society as a whole rejects these.

 

Hm' date=' that is an interesting point. The [i']only[/i] time I ever saw a child being killed (the actual showing of the killing) was in the recent Rambo movie, which was quite possibly the bloodiest movie I've ever seen. But, even then, it wasn't just gratuitous violence. In an interview, one of the writers said that that scene in the movie was designed to make you HATE the rebels, and not to just show a child being killed. And I must say, it worked for me, as that scene made me literally hate those actors.

Edited November 9, 2009 by A Tripolation

[foodchain]

Being this is a public forum I do not think anyone really wants to engage in any debate about the issue. I am playing on the devils advocate side as some others happen to be, and I am not saying no one is trying here. What I would like to think though is that the subject matter of the debate is to heavy to really allow for an open analysis to take place for what people could do if they wanted to in regards to the debate. No one wants that social image, as I encountered this one time doing devils advocate for bestiality, most the time instead of debating the issue you simply got replies that made you feel as if the opposition was just saying "you crazy" and that was about it.

 

We have managed to avoid any flaming so far, which could have easily occurred. Its a shame that social factors basically kills what could be a good debate.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for any form of actual change to existing laws surrounding CP, I might be wrong but I seriously doubt it.

 

I still lack a response on my earlier foray into the topic about it being legal would mean everyone would suddenly want it, as if we are all repressed sexually from true desires or something, maybe its a bit insulting I dunno, I am just trying as I see this argument used so many times surrounding issues like this, that if we allow for something the world will end basically, though you never find much anything attached to that line beyond that.