Child Porn Proposal

So I've been thinking of how we can try to fight the production of child porn more effectively and I came up with some ideas, and I wonder what you think.

All virtual child porn (drawings, sculptures, CGI images of kids getting screwed) should be legal as they harm no one and the evidence that they cause pedos to screw kids is very bad. If it's found that they made the images by first molesting a child than they should be arrested for molesting the child and not making an image.

Now anyway here's my bigger proposal (please read the entire thing before commenting).

The government should scour the internet for a week and find as much child porn as it can. It shall than prosecute the makers and consumers of said child porn but then it shall make all the images it finds public domain, legal to access and found in one convenient website (possibly with a .gov tag). All of the aforementioned images shall be tagged and if anyone is found with child porn that is not part of the public domain porn archives than they will be prosecuted, unless they can prove it was made before the one-week sweep. All makers of real child porn shall continue to be prosecuted.

Real child porn consists of images and video of kids being molested, as long as it's in demand kids will be molested for it at some rate. I'd love to go back in time and stop those kids from being molested but I can't and so we might as well use those images to lower demand. With this option the pedos into it have two options.
One. Search the internet for child porn created after the date in question and face the possibility of being persecuted.
2. Look at virtual child porn or go to the government's big stash of public domain kiddy porn and not face prosecution.

If they choose option number two they will not be feeding into the demand for videos of molested children and in theory the underground business of making such images and photos will videos and be easier to deal with.

So... any comments?

Just to let everyone know, virtual child porn is not legal, and a man in Utah has been prosecuted for owning virtual child porn (and nothing else).

Wouldn't work that way. All a lawyer must say is:

A shows X. B shows X. The courts have ruled that X is perfectly legal material to possess in the form of A. Since A ~ B, B must therefore be legal.

Your proposal flies in the face of reason and of how the system works.

I love the mindset that allows that the things that are really bad and criminal should be made legal to make the problem go away.

Kinda like, "murder is a problem..so let's make it legal to murder babies."

Yeah, that's done a lot of good. By all means, make it okay to create and distribute child porn to encourage and alleviate all pressure on the freaks who victimize kids.

Not quite. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional, including the ban on virtual child porn. However, now we come to the distinction between pornography and obscene material. Not all porn is legally obscene, and the definition of obscenity is still largely left up to the states. Virtual images of children engaged in sexual acts (where no harm to children is actually done) is not necessarily obscene under the law, though it might be. Utah happens to have very strict laws on obscenity, stemming from strict community standards. So, for the case you are referencing, and it would have been nice if you had an actual cite, the material in question was most likely ruled obscene and is illegal because of that, not strictly because it's virtual child porn.

One more time...virtual child porn is legal as long as it doesn't meet the community standards for obscene material.

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

Like I said...as long as it's not obscene. Read it again: "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" must also be obscene. The old law didn't require the obscenity standard. So it IS legal if it is NOT obscene, and the definition of obscenity is still ruled by the Miller decision.

As for the second part..again it must lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which is the general standard for obscenity. But if you've seen any porn post-Miller, the value test is not much of a bar and the porn industry has plenty of psychologists willing to sign off that a work, in its whole, can be of such value.

(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

Takes a real sh++head to be interested in child porn be it virtual or real. What's the attraction? I think child porn is pretty sick.

Sorry, but its you that needs to read it again.

Why?

I've never understood the temptation to insult people based on what they desire. Do people choose what they desire?/QUOTE]

If you're trying in anyway to defend child porn, or the creeps who like that kind of stuff, you're a big part of the problem. If you truly feel this way about child porn, be it real or virtual, I think you might need some serious kind of professional help.

Since I covered that, I'm not sure what part you think I missed....the criteria of "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" is generally part of the definition of obscene, and applies to adult porn as well, though it is easily gotten around. Adult porn for a while now has come with the disclaimer that it does have "serious scientific value" as determined by psychologists paid by the porn industry.