Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
In the photo of a murder, the murder is the crime, not the photo. Therefore, the photo, while possibly tasteless, is not implicated in the crime.
In child photography, the photo itself is the crime. It is in the act of taking a picture of a child that commits the crime (amongst other things). In viewing the photo, your are implicated in sharing in the crime.
It doesn't matter if it was taken yesterday or 50 years ago. It's still participating in a crime.
|
excellent point! it brings up the question....*is* the photo the crime or is it only evidence of the crime? if the photo is the crime, why? isn't the act the crime, and the photo proof of the crime? what makes the photo the crime?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Push-Pull
Perhaps we could expand this to include those that use "look-alikes". Even though everyone is of age, and the persons obtaining such porn are not techincally breaking the law, is it still "wrong"?
On one hand, it seems that the end user has gone to length to be sure that nothing illegal has transpired.
One the other hand, I could never see myself considering it "acceptable".
|
i don't see how "look-alikes" would be wrong, or actually relevant to the original question of child porn. if a 25 year old girl looks 12, that's just a fantasy role, like people who dress up as cops or nurses or animals or whatever. i'm not dismissing or shooting you down, i just don't see your point. could you explain further in case i'm missing something?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Having/buying/viewing that picture is a part of the process by which the child was exploited. You are exploiting the child by looking at the child being exploited.
|
ok, then that goes along with charlatan's point of the picture as well as the act is the crime. at least i think that is your point? correct me if i misunderstand.