PC and Video Game censhorship in Australia

[Dudde]

I think CP is different than video game violence

You mean video game CP right? Video game CP vs. video game violence, it's important to keep that in context.

 

violence in entertainment is to provide adrenaline and excitement through stimuli that appears dangerous.

 

You bring a good point, but you can hardly say this is 100%. While being a large percentage, there are several other reasons to like violence in games besides just the adrenaline.

 

Most people who want to use CP want to molest children.

 

I would like to see some sort of references that can back that up, and it seems a bit off topic, but I'll press the point seeing as this viewpoint is directly correlated with peoples' mindset and the reasons for censoring games - Australia or elsewhere.

 

Psychcentral.com and Crime-Research.org have a few dated articles that I could find - I wasn't able to find anything in the past few years, so if anybody has any breakthroughs that have happened, please tell me -

 

from these articles:

According to Scott, two federally commissioned studies, one in 1970 and the other in the 1980s, failed to find a strong correlation between viewing erotica and acting out sexually. He said that the decriminalization of pictorial pornography in several northern European countries in the 1960s and 1970s was not accompanied by an increase in the frequency of rape. Case studies of sex offenders – which Scott describes as potentially limited because they depend on self-reporting – have also not shown a clear link between pornography and the commission of sexual crimes.

 

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service says that about 34 percent of the more than 1,800 people arrested for child pornography have molested children. And research at a North Carolina federal prison, which treats sex offenders, concluded there is a significant likelihood that a person who indulges in child pornography would molest a child.

~~~~

They say the vast majority of people who look at child porn are never arrested and fly under the radar of researchers.

 

“The authorities tend to exaggerate the link (between child pornography and abuse),” said Philip Jenkins, author of Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet.

 

and so back to your post Padren sir,

 

they obviously lack the self control despite the risk of prosecution, and are considered a genuine risk to the welfare of children.

 

can you back this assertion sir?

 

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?

 

No certainly not. The one reservation I had was in regards to the parents of children - but most of the time, I would expect them to misdiagnose and treat the problems wrong anyway, simply for not being trained professionals. Thus, I stand by it being released only to doctors, who can further show the parents with a guided eye.

 

There's no reason I believe I'm defending lewd acts against children, it's very important to keep this in mind - what I don't want, is extreme personal bias to overtake something that should be kept a rational decision, lest we get wrong impressions and take things much further than actually needed.

[iNow]

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.

 

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.?

In short, I question the relevance of the supply/demand assumption. I may not be correct in my own assumption that consumption is only minimally tied to production. I stipulate that.

 

However, does your argument really change if there is no exchange of money? If the product is delivered without charge... It's obtained via YouTube, for example... I strongly doubt that your argument against consumption suddenly goes away... I am reluctant to believe that you'd be fine with people viewing CP just because there is no commerce involved. THAT's my point.

 

You have argued that you wish to protect the children.

I have argued that the harm comes from the production of the material, and that is where enforcement should be focused.

You have countered that consumption feeds production due to the profit motive.

 

I am now asking... If the profit motive is removed, are you now suddenly okay with consumption?

 

I HIGHLY doubt that. So... Explain.

[A Tripolation]

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 believe something along these lines. I seriously doubt the people that make CP available in various forms are doing it as a "hobby". They have what I would think would be a highly profitable niche (because of the fact that they would be SEVERLY punished for getting caught) and they are doing it as a job.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

While I think that profit is not the only motive for further production -- perhaps "hey look it got 23,000 views" encourages some people -- I'll go with this.

 

Assume we have a perfect situation where the consumer does not pay the producer and the producer, in fact, has no idea that the consumer is consuming the material -- so the consumption provides no other possible motive to the producer. Consumption is totally decoupled from production.

 

In a situation like that, I'd think of child porn as like goatse (for those of you who don't know goatse, it's an extremely disturbing image. just don't search for it, ever): I'd rather not see it, and I'd rather not meet whoever made it, but I'm not going to crusade to make looking at it illegal.

 

But I think the total disconnect between consumer and producer does not exist.

[iNow]

Okay, so let's recap.

 

• If you are the one engaging in the sex act with the child, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that
  
• If you watch the sex act with the child as a spectator in the location where it is occurring (in the present... it's happening right in front of you), that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that
  
• If you film/produce CP for yourself, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that
  
• If you film/produce CP for distribution, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that
  
• If you contract with someone else paying them to produce CP on your behalf, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that
  
• If you purchase CP which has already been produced, that deserves punishment because it encourages further production (the demand/supply argument), and others should try to disallow that

 

Then, moving on:

• If you get a free copy, you will not be punished because you are not paying and not encouraging further production, so others have no place trying to disallow that
  
• If you view it for free at a site like Youtube, you will not be punished because you are not paying and not encouraging further production (taking as given that # views is not a motivator for further production), so others have no place trying to disallow that
  
• If graphic CP is depicted in a video game, you will not be punished because it's just pixels (no matter how graphic or vile), so others have no place trying to disallow that
  

 

Is this accurate so far? Does everyone agree? If I've missed any scenarios, please speak up. If you disagree, please explain where... and, more importantly, please explain why.

Edited November 10, 2009 by iNow
left out a bullet point

[A Tripolation]

That's fairly accurate.

Except for the first two on the "Then, moving on:" section.

 

I can't disagree using the argument I've been using, but I think it should be disallowed because it is a deplorable thing to do, and I say 99.9% of humanity agrees with me.

 

But, couldn't you also argue that people who view it for free more than once are most likely going to end up paying for it? Isn't that the whole "first sample of drugs is free" mentality?

Like Cap'n said, I don't think the total disconnect between consumer and producer exists.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

iNow: Sounds reasonable enough to me, if you accept your assumption of consumer<->producer disconnect.

[iNow]

I can't disagree using the argument I've been using, but I think it should be disallowed because it is a deplorable thing to do

 

This is basically what I've been trying to get you to admit all along. Your argument as presented throughout this thread is little more than a rationalization.

 

When you get right down to it, you are trying to legislate your own personal tastes and morals... You are trying to prevent others from viewing it because YOU find it deplorable, NOT because you are trying to "protect the children." If protection of the children was your sole goal, then the final three bullets should all be perfectly acceptable to you, yet they are not.

 

 

I honestly thought I'd get more libertarians stepping up in this thread supporting me with how I've positioned my argument... ya bunch of wusses.

[A Tripolation]

My logic no longer holds under your assumptions, no.

I guess you missed this:

iNow: Sounds reasonable enough to me, if you accept your assumption of consumer<->producer disconnect.

 

That's a mighty big thing to just "accept" iNow.

[Mr Skeptic]

*If you get a free copy, you will not be punished because you are not paying and not encouraging further production, so others have no place trying to disallow that

*If you view it for free at a site like Youtube, you will not be punished because you are not paying and not encouraging further production (taking as given that # views is not a motivator for further production), so others have no place trying to disallow that

 

Nope, as mentioned there is no reason to expect the benefit people derive from publishing videos to be limited to only economic factors. As you mentioned YouTube, perhaps you care to explain what economic benefit people get from submitting videos to them? If your assumption were true, YouTube would not exist!

 

*If graphic CP is depicted in a video game, you will not be punished because it's just pixels (no matter how graphic or vile), so others have no place trying to disallow that

 

Quite. (Assuming it is just pixels; many animations require real people to be involved to make their movements look natural). Anyone who opposes video games with other negative aspects such as violence would be equally justified (or not) in opposing C.P. If there is a causal link between C.P. and pedophilia, then that would also be a reason to oppose it. One might also ask, what is the purpose of C.P. in the video game?

 

However, at some point people need to draw the line with things that might possibly harm a child. It is also not necessary to involve the government; some things can be accomplished better via boycotts. I suspect a boycott against C.P. would be quite easy to find support for.

[Dudde]

Quite. (Assuming it is just pixels; many animations require real people to be involved to make their movements look natural).

 

Please don't assume this. It certainly helps but is not required nor necessary. I just wanted to step in here with a game developers view to let you know that had a game animator the inclination in the first place, they would require no real children in which to model or animate CP ever.

[iNow]

Nope, as mentioned there is no reason to expect the benefit people derive from publishing videos to be limited to only economic factors. As you mentioned YouTube, perhaps you care to explain what economic benefit people get from submitting videos to them? If your assumption were true, YouTube would not exist!

Well, at least when you miss a point, Mr.Skeptic, you miss it broadly. Youtube was just an example. The concept underlying what was presented is that there is a total disconnect between the consumer and the producer... Whether that means you download the CP from online somewhere, see it on youtube, watch it at a friends house, or get a copy for free from someone...

 

Youtube was just the example to illuminate the idea that there exists a disconnect between the consumer and the producer, and hence your desire to punish the consumer in this particular instance is based merely on a wish to legislate your own personal morality since you find CP deplorable and vile... NOT because it helps to protect the child.

 

Does that help to clear up the issue?

 

 

 

Quite. (Assuming it is just pixels; many animations require real people to be involved to make their movements look natural).

Good deal. I'm going to start selling the new game titled, "Ass-pounding 7 year old boys with 35 year old phalluses" for Playstation next week. The graphics are incredibly life-like... on par with Disney and Pixar, but I should not encounter any resistance since it's "just pixels." After all... both you and A_Tripolation say you're fine with that.

 

I say... Whatever. You're both being incredibly disingenuous in this thread, and it's becoming rather tiresome.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Good deal. I'm going to start selling the new game titled, "Ass-pounding 7 year old boys with 35 year old phalluses" for Playstation next week. The graphics are incredibly life-like... on par with Disney and Pixar, but I should not encounter any resistance since it's "just pixels." After all... both you and A_Tripolation say you're fine with that.

 

I say... Whatever. You're both being incredibly disingenuous in this thread, and it's becoming rather tiresome.

 

I think you'll have trouble proving that MrSkeptic and A_Tripolation are the only two people in existence.

[Sisyphus]

Okay, so let's recap.

 

• If you are the one engaging in the sex act with the child, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that
  
• If you watch the sex act with the child as a spectator in the location where it is occurring (in the present... it's happening right in front of you), that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that
  
• If you film/produce CP for yourself, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that
  
• If you film/produce CP for distribution, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that
  
• If you contract with someone else paying them to produce CP on your behalf, that deserves punishment and others should try to disallow that
  
• If you purchase CP which has already been produced, that deserves punishment because it encourages further production (the demand/supply argument), and others should try to disallow that

 

Then, moving on:

• If you get a free copy, you will not be punished because you are not paying and not encouraging further production, so others have no place trying to disallow that
  
• If you view it for free at a site like Youtube, you will not be punished because you are not paying and not encouraging further production (taking as given that # views is not a motivator for further production), so others have no place trying to disallow that
  
• If graphic CP is depicted in a video game, you will not be punished because it's just pixels (no matter how graphic or vile), so others have no place trying to disallow that
  

 

Is this accurate so far? Does everyone agree? If I've missed any scenarios, please speak up. If you disagree, please explain where... and, more importantly, please explain why.

 

I know I'm coming late to this, but that all sounds pretty much fine to me, though it might not be quite as clear cut as that. You would have to be sure it doesn't support the process in any way, even if it does not cost you anything personally, as with things like ad revenue, publicity, accepting it as a gift (that was paid for at some point) or even encouraging the actual producers non-monetarily.

 

The problem, it seems, is that it is so hard to trace and determine whether any of this is taking place, that it's probably easier and safer to simply outlaw possession of CP depicting real acts. Pure animation would be fine. Maybe even encouraged, if it offers a harmless outlet. (I don't enough about the psychology of pedophilia to offer a firmer opinion.)

Edited November 10, 2009 by Sisyphus

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, at least when you miss a point, Mr.Skeptic, you miss it broadly. Youtube was just an example. The concept underlying what was presented is that there is a total disconnect between the consumer and the producer... Whether that means you download the CP from online somewhere, see it on youtube, watch it at a friends house, or get a copy for free from someone...

 

Youtube was just the example to illuminate the idea that there exists a disconnect between the consumer and the producer, and hence your desire to punish the consumer in this particular instance is based merely on a wish to legislate your own personal morality since you find CP deplorable and vile... NOT because it helps to protect the child.

 

Does that help to clear up the issue?

 

The point though is, your example fails miserably. No one would publish videos on youtube if there were no viewers. And they are not compensated monetarily. Your example totally undermines what you were saying -- it is an example of people publishing videos for no monetary compensation whatsoever, yet they still derive benefit from it (otherwise they wouldn't bother to do it).

 

Additionally, some people have filmed, or actually done, things they wouldn't have otherwise, specifically due to the benefit they derive from being able to publish it on youtube and have people watch it.

 

Your premise is completely bogus -- there cannot be a complete disconnect between producer and consumer. At best you might get a nearly complete disconnect, and that would be fairly hard to do. In fact, I can't think of an example.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I point to the free/open-source software movement as evidence that people can use "other people find it useful" as sufficient motivation to produce more material, even without monetary gain.

[iNow]

Okay. So your argument is essentially this. Because I am not very well versed in online mechanisms to store videos for personal use, but which also have the characteristic where others can access those files from another system, I undermine my entire argument. Whatever.

 

My point remains. People arguing against CP are doing so because of their own personal preferences... because they find it distasteful and disgusting. I understand that. I feel that way, too. However, I'm growing increasingly impatient with people who are disingenuous with their distaste, trying instead to rationalize it in terms of child protection. It's weak.

 

My entire approach in these last several posts has been an attempt to pull out the "harm to the child" aspect of the discussion... both in terms of direct and indirect harm from consumption driving further production... And the opposition remains even when the harm is fully removed. Perhaps I could have chosen a better example than Youtube, but the point is that there is no connection between consumer and producer, and yet people still oppose it.

 

This means... by definition... that they are NOT arguing just for the protection of the child... and they are instead trying to impose their own preferences on others for no good reason. That then brings me back to my opening argument on page 1... Why are your tastes and preferences more acceptable to deny others the ability to view this stuff than the tastes and preferences of people who wish to deny ALL porn (standard everyday run of the mill stuff), or who wish to outlaw movies with blood and violence?

Edited November 11, 2009 by iNow

[A Tripolation]

This means... by definition... that they are NOT arguing just for the protection of the child... and they are instead trying to impose their own preferences on others for no good reason.

 

Actually, I'll say this. I support punishment of viewers of child pornography because I'm angry that I couldn't stop the child from being abused in the first place.

 

And again iNow...a lot of people here have explicitly stated that they cannot see an incident in which there is TOTAL disconnect between producer and consumer. Your arguments only hold when that is true, a fact you keep on casually ignoring.

[iNow]

I'm exploring the logic of your arguments, not the likelihood that my chosen scenario could actually happen. Often, if we stretch our arguments to their most extreme we can see more clearly where and why they fail. So, with that said...

 

We take for given that there is a total disconnect.

You are still against it.

 

Why are your preferences more worthy of legislation which restricts freedom of others (remember, child harm is fully subtracted from this scenario) than the preferences of someone who accepts even less than you do, but does NOT get to have their preferences legislated?

 

I'm referring to people such as those who wish to make illegal the consumption of violent movies, or movies where they show a booby for a nanosecond, or movies where a white woman sleeps with a black man, or where the president is shown in a negative light... or any of the countless other things people oppose because they personally find it distasteful, vile, and/or deplorable.

[A Tripolation]

We take for given that there is a total disconnect.

You are still against it.

 

Not true. If there could be a COMPLETE disconnect, and the child wasn't being harmed in any way by the consumer, then I have no reason to be against it. But, this scenario can never be true, thus, I will always be against the viewing of child pornography.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay. So your argument is essentially this. Because I am not very well versed in online mechanisms to store videos for personal use, but which also have the characteristic where others can access those files from another system, I undermine my entire argument. Whatever.

No.

 

My entire approach in these last several posts has been an attempt to pull out the "harm to the child" aspect of the discussion... both in terms of direct and indirect harm from consumption driving further production... And the opposition remains even when the harm is fully removed.

I thought everyone agreed above that the opposition is gone.

 

Perhaps I could have chosen a better example than Youtube, but the point is that there is no connection between consumer and producer, and yet people still oppose it.

No.

 

The point is that they would not oppose it in that situation -- but we do not believe that situation would ever realistically exist.

 

 

Please stop assigning motives to people and declaring they're "just rationalizing" beliefs they hold for no good reason. It is rather tiresome.

[iNow]

Not true. If there could be a COMPLETE disconnect, and the child wasn't being harmed in any way by the consumer, then I have no reason to be against it. But, this scenario can never be true, thus, I will always be against the viewing of child pornography.

 

Here's the part I'm struggling with. If the movie was made in 1980, and I watched it today in nearly 2010, you'd still send me to jail. I have problems with that since you keep saying that you're only trying to "protect the child." I say, bullshit. If you'd still send me to jail for watching a video made 30 years ago, then you are not abiding by your own argument because there is no way that I could legitimately be considered involved with the harm done to that child.

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow, if you can get an example of a situation such that both:

1) Consumption does not encourage harm of children by producers (ie, a total disconnect between production which harms children and consumption)

2) Consumption does not increase the harm consumers do to children (ie, that there is no causal link between watching C.P. and pedophilia)

 

This I would support due to principle, even if I find it personally distasteful. However, I remain unconvinced that there is any example of such. Note that if you argue for an artificial production for 1) you would also have to show that the consumption of the artificial production does not suggest to people a market for the "real deal".

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Here's the part I'm struggling with. If the movie was made in 1980, and I watched it today in nearly 2010, you'd still send me to jail. I have problems with that since you keep saying that you're only trying to "protect the child." I say, bullshit. If you'd still send me to jail for watching a video made 30 years ago, then you are not abiding by your own argument because there is no way that I could legitimately be considered involved with the harm done to that child.

 

Do you want to draw up a nice set of criteria to determine exactly if the consumption did encourage further production? You know, take into account price, date of purchase, date of production, whether the producer did it as a business or as a hobby, just how much material the consumer downloaded, if the producer had time to notice it had been downloaded, whether the producer could see view statistics for the video...

 

Saying "it's legal to view it.... but only if you download it for free, ten years after it was made" will not work.

[Mr Skeptic]

I see we're talking past each other a bit. You point out that there can easily be a complete disconnect between a particular producer and a particular consumer. Completely true. However, the consumption demonstrates that there is a market -- this encourages future production. And how can it not? Even if people devoutly restricted themselves to films produced 200 years ago, would there not be value in making films in the future, so they could be published 200 years later? Certainly that would reduce it's value, but isn't a similar thing (though much shorter time) frequently done in the legal porn industry?