Do note that in all of this you assume that he found a site with child pornography on it and does not report it.
From what I understand, a lot of CP is distributed through P2P sharing, which is decentralized and not tied to any website.
Also, what does that have to do with whether his actions should be considered a crime or not?
Unless you’re saying it’s a crime not to report a crime. But then you’re only talking about the method of acquisition as a crime, not viewing or possessing the material.
What’s with all the use of words like ‘disgusting’ and ‘vile’? Emotionalism has no place in this situation.
I didn’t say disgusting, only vile. That’s not a description of emotions, but a moral qualifier.
What if there is no exchange of money? How do you facilitate the crime just by downloading the material if you don’t pay for it?
You provide encouragement to the person performing the physical act itself. There is no difference between being there and cheering him on and sitting at home and downloading his work. Both constitute complicity.
In my state, it’s legal to have sex with a 16 year old girl, but if you watch a video of her having sex, then it’s child pornography and you’re a sexual predator?
You’re a sexual predator if the person in the video did not give her fully rational consent. In the case of a 16 year old, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that she might not be capable to fully understand what she is doing, so yes, you could be a sexual predator. I certainly can’t fault any law that sets the age of consent at 18. (and it even makes sense to set the age of consent for porn at 18 even though the sex one is 16, since porn has implications beyond just having sex)
But the differences in age of consent in different states have nothing to do with our discussion of child pornography, and the ethics of reporting it. Why bring it up?
If (hypothetically) all he did was view the material, what is his crime? The crime of looking?
If he intentionally downloaded the material, whether he looked at it or not, then his crime is possession of child pornography. If he unintentionally ended up with some small amount of it on his computer, then he should not be prosecuted. However, like Jake mentioned earlier, I’ve never come across child porn on the internet so I don’t know how one would unintentionally get it on your computer. In any event, this guy apparently has a hard drive full of it, so we’re not talking about someone who innocently stumbled into possessing this material.
I believe that you should not, because as you indicated in your original post, your interest in this case is entirely irrational, and it would be as good for your purposes if he were hiding income from the taxman or growing marijuana (acts which are also illegal). Your interest is clearly in destroying the life of a person whom you despise as a “totally worthless parasite, literally worse than worthless in terms of human value, who is very dangerous and who I hate with a raging passion.” What you should do is have nothing to do with this person, and also I would suggest that you seek some sort of psychological guidance regarding your raging passion. From what I can tell, if there were a gas leak in his house and you knew that within a few minutes his house would explode, killing this person, you would do nothing to save his life. That is not rational behavior.
There is a separate question about whether a rational and moral man would be doing the right thing in turning him in to the authorities, perhaps because he concludes that the act in question is a wrong act and that the act is correctly classified under law as a crime. That man would not be driven by raging passion and hatred. But first, you have to address the question of whether the act is properly a crime. Not all evil acts should be classified as crimes; indeed, if you were to turn the guy in, given your reasons for doing so, that would be an evil act, but it should not be a crime.
Generally speaking, moral conclusions are not founded on raging passions.
I didn’t say disgusting, only vile. That’s not a description of emotions, but a moral qualifier.
You provide encouragement to the person performing the physical act itself. There is no difference between being there and cheering him on and sitting at home and downloading his work. Both constitute complicity.
There is a substantial difference between “cheering on a person” in the act of creating CP and downloading it. Someone who is physically present knows who is committing the crime and either has the ability to stop it or notify the police. If he doesn’t, then he is most likely a conspirator or accessory and should be charged as such.
A person who downloads CP (without paying for it) on the other hand, is the moral equivalent of someone who downloads a video of a bank being robbed or a person getting shot. No one in their right mind would say that you could be an accessory to a bank robbery by watching a video of it, and I fail to see any difference with CP.
As an aside, I think there should also be a distinction made between child pornography and “underage” pornography, which is sometimes treated the same. A 16 year old may not be fully mature, but is definitely not a child, and is most certainly rational enough to decide whether to have sex, or have it videotaped or not. Treating an 8 year old being coerced into sex and a 16 year old choosing to have sex, as the same, is ignoring the facts of reality.
Also, just to let you know, complicity is not usually conisdered a crime.
A person who downloads CP (without paying for it) on the other hand, is the moral equivalent of a someone who downloads a video of a bank being robbed or a person getting shot. No one in their right mind would say that you could be an accessory to a bank robbery by watching a video of it, or to an assault by watching a person being assaulted. I fail to see any difference with CP.
As always with analogies, if you saw no difference between the two scenarios, it would be pretty pointless to bother making the analogy. Clearly, you see a difference, and you’re hoping that the difference will make me judge your new scenario differently, and then accept the same conclusion for the old scenario. And I do judge the new scenario differently, but that’s because of the difference. I of course refuse to transfer my new, different judgment onto the old scenario, because an argument through analogy is a fallacy.
The difference is between the purpose of the robbery and the purpose of the abuse of the child. While the robbery is not done to create videos for the pleasure of the people downloading them, the abuse of the child clearly is. The sole purpose of child pornography is to distribute it to pedophiles. Whether that is done as an act of charity or for money, is irrelevant.
If I had to come up with an analogy (strictly to explain my position, not as an argument), I would say the relationship is more like the one between a bank robber and his fence than a bank robber and someone watching the tape of the robbery, captured by surveillance cameras. Keeping with the analogy, you could say that the “loot” being stolen from the victim is the pornographic material, and whoever knowingly accepts that “loot” is a “thief” himself.
P.S. I realize I started the “there is no difference” line of reasoning, and that was wrong. My argument there was that accepting the material, through file-sharing or the Internet, makes one an accessory to the crime. A similar case of accessory to the same crime would be someone cheering on as the abuse is happening, since the physical distance between the two criminals isn’t relevant to establishing their guilt.
A person who downloads CP (without paying for it) on the other hand, is the moral equivalent of someone who downloads a video of a bank being robbed or a person getting shot. No one in their right mind would say that you could be an accessory to a bank robbery by watching a video of it, and I fail to see any difference with CP.
Why do you think these detestable scumbags put this stuff on the net? It’s so that they and their perverted friends can share their experiences, they can relish in their sexual conquests of children.
This attitude perplexes me. An Objectivist considers when a person downloads a CD without paying for it he is guilty of robbing a person of his right to that property but some seem to say that when a person downloads a picture of a 6 year old being forced to perform fellatio he is in now way robbing that child of anything?
The difference is between the purpose of the robbery and the purpose of the abuse of the child. While the robbery is not done to create videos for the pleasure of the people downloading them, the abuse of the child clearly is. The sole purpose of child pornography is to distribute it to pedophiles. Whether that is done as an act of charity or for money, is irrelevant.
The fact that a person could find pleasure in viewing a video of a child involved in sexual acts is irrelevent.
The crime being committed is sexual abuse of a child. A video is a recording of that. A person viewing that video is a person viewing a recording of a crime.
The intent of the person perpetrating the abuse is a matter of case by case determination. Off hand, I’d say that in general, someone who sexually abuses a child is doing it for his own twisted pleasure, not to distribute a video of it to other people. That would be the main motive. Distribution is a side issue. The “loot” is the pleasure.
This attitude perplexes me. An Objectivist considers when a person downloads a CD without paying for it he is guilty of robbing a person of his right to that property but some seem to say that when a person downloads a picture of a 6 year old being forced to perform fellatio he is in now way robbing that child of anything?
Be specific. What is that person robbing? By what means?
The person who creates CP is committing a crime. But simply watching a video of a crime is not, in itself, a crime. What about the prosecutor who has to watch the tape to try the criminal? Is he committing a crime? What about the jurors who have to watch the tape to deliberate? Are they committing a crime?
The person who creates CP is committing a crime. But simply watching a video of a crime is not, in itself, a crime. What about the prosecutor who has to watch the tape to try the criminal? Is he committing a crime? What about the jurors who have to watch the tape to deliberate? Are they committing a crime?
The Prosecutor and the jury aren’t sitting around beating off to the damn videos, either. You have no argument.
Update: the guy found out that we found out (one of his friends called his mom and told her). He proceeded to get hysterical and destroyed the evidence. Nothing to report now unfortunately.
So then you’re saying the real crime is masturabtion? As far as I can see, you have no argument right now.
What are you talking about? CP is created so that freaks can get off to it. The process of creating it violates the rights of a child and frequently destroys certain aspects of their lives. Those who possess it are committing what is rightly classified as a crime.
You seem to be making the claim that simply looking at something (in this case, a child being raped) doesn’t hurt anyone and so no crime is being committed. My response to that is the creation of CP violates rights and those who possess it are encouraging its creation. They are encouraging it whether they actually pay money for the CP or whether they simply give the creator the sick satisfaction that some of his co-perverts are getting off on the slime that he is spreading around.
Be specific. What is that person robbing? By what means?
The person who creates CP is committing a crime. But simply watching a video of a crime is not, in itself, a crime. What about the prosecutor who has to watch the tape to try the criminal? Is he committing a crime? What about the jurors who have to watch the tape to deliberate? Are they committing a crime?
The right to life. The child is being abused and filmed/photographed for the express purpose of sexual gratification of the person doing the act AND so he can share the sexual debasement and perversion with fellow criminals.
Equating the rational need to view the crime in order to render a verdict of guilt or innocence with the viewing and downloading of a crime to derive perverse sexual gratification from the most vulnerable people in our society is the most convoluted example of moral gymnastics I’ve ever encountered on this board.
Update: the guy found out that we found out (someone told his mom for Christ’s sake). He proceeded to get hysterical and destroyed the evidence. Nothing to report now unfortunately.
This whole thing sounds fishy to me. By the way, unless the computer’s hard drive is physically destroyed, there are ways to extract its contents.
In my state, it’s legal to have sex with a 16 year old girl, but if you watch a video of her having sex, then it’s child pornography and you’re a sexual predator?
You’ll have to look at your state’s laws to determine if someone who views pornography involving a 16 year old is a sexual predator. In the state of Florida, where I used to live, anyone who committed a felony act concerning any one of various sexual offenses, including child pornography–a felony of the third degree–is a sexual predator upon conviction.
Jake’s reply is similar to my line of thinking:
You’re a sexual predator if the person in the video did not give her fully rational consent. In the case of a 16 year old, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that she might not be capable to fully understand what she is doing, so yes, you could be a sexual predator. I certainly can’t fault any law that sets the age of consent at 18. (and it even makes sense to set the age of consent for porn at 18 even though the sex one is 16, since porn has implications beyond just having sex)
You seem to be making the claim that simply looking at something (in this case, a child being raped) doesn’t hurt anyone and so no crime is being committed. My response to that is the creation of CP violates rights and those who possess it are encouraging its creation. They are encouraging it whether they actually pay money for the CP or whether they simply give the creator the sick satisfaction that some of his co-perverts are getting off on the slime that he is spreading around.
How is “giving the creator…sick satisfaction” a crime? What does his mental state have to do with whether a crime is committed?
The right to life. The child is being abused and filmed/photographed for the express purpose of sexual gratification of the person doing the act AND so he can share the sexual debasement and perversion with fellow criminals.
Equating the rational need to view the crime in order to render a verdict of guilt or innocence with the viewing and downloading of a crime to derive perverse sexual gratification from the most vulnerable people in our society is the most convoluted example of moral gymnastics I’ve ever encountered on this board.
You didn’t answer my question. How is someone who views CP depriving the child of it’s right to life? What is he doing that deprives it?
It’s not moral gymnastics. You claim it is a violation of the victim’s rights to view a video of their rights being violated. I say otherwise. You are the one making the positive claim. The burden of proof is on you.
You didn’t answer my question. How is someone who views CP depriving the child of it’s right to life? What is he doing that deprives it?
It’s not moral gymnastics. You claim it is a violation of the victim’s rights to view a video of their rights being violated. I say otherwise. You are the one making the positive claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Fast forward. The child grows up. His/her pictures as a dehumanized victim of a child rapist are all over the net. Do you still hold that their rights are not being violated?
Anyone who has had exposure to these sorts of crimes can tell you that a child victim of this kind of abuse will suffer for years to come and you want to tell us all that there is no crime involved in perpetrating the initial crime?
How about you prove that the individual rights of the person being exploited by the dissemination of products produced in the commission of a rights offense are not being violated.