Wow, this thread blew up while I was gone. I managed to forget about this issue entirely - life came at me fast. I'm glad I managed to foster such extensive and spirited discussion. Sorry to necro the thread (as last I checked, there is nothing in the rules against it), but one thing in particular snagged my attention here:
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 18th, 2020, 11:28 pm
"What does federal law say?
In 2003, Congress passed the PROTECT Act, which stands for the, “Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today” Act. Under the Protect Act, it is illegal to create, possess, or distribute, "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is ‘obscene' or ‘depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in...sexual intercourse...and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” (18 U.S. Code § 1466A). To clarify, under federal law, drawing and animation are considered child pornography, and you can be convicted for possession or marketing of such material."
The Act already allows for the qualification of animated child porn as 'obscene', so it does not leave it open for interpretation:
"In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech does not include “obscene” language and material (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)). The PROTECT Act specifically and purposefully includes the word “obscene,” so that visual depictions of child pornography cannot be protected under the First Amendment. "
I agree with this legal and ethical approach.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑December 21st, 2020, 12:17 pm
I agree with that legal and ethical approach too
I can at least slightly comprehend the reasoning behind illegalizing creation or distribution of certain forms of harmful speech; that would be a similar principle to the illegalization of incitement to ethnic or racial hatred (as opposed to "mere" hate speech), which I wholeheartedly support due to my belief that such speech has the potential to incite harmful action or foster an environment in which harmful action is more likely to occur. However, the rationale behind illegalizing and, therefore, implicitly condemning as moral evil, mere
possession of this kind of "speech" escapes me; as the mere act of viewing a piece of speech, however disgusting or unethical in topic, constitutes no harm that I can think of and cannot in and of itself be considered proof of intent to commit harmful action. (Since this thread has already gotten the Godwin out of the way, perhaps possession of a drawn picture of a fictional child in a sexual situation could be compared to possessing a copy of Mein Kampf or a similar manifesto from a contemporary, still-living far-right agitator?)
Then again, I can see the case for this being treated similarly to, say, gun control, where the aim is not to punish or morally condemn hypothetical individual responsible gun users who don't commit crimes with their guns, but to make sure that
irresponsible gun users have a harder time acquiring guns; possession having repercussions would then serve as further deterrent. Under this model, I suppose that hypothetical """responsible drawn child pornography users""" who view these pictures and then go about their day without harming children would not matter; the point would then be to ensure that fewer people see this "speech" and, in some way or another, are driven by it to harm children.