Should viewing or possessing pornography be charged as a sex offense?

[Unification]

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

 

[Auld Phart]

no

 

[Unification]

no

If so, then why is it a crime to videotape a stranger naked in a bathroom or shower for one's viewing pleasure?

But if done via the internet, is not a sex crime? Is that not inconsistent?

 

[miketx]

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

If the pornography can articulate what it was used for then yes, by all means!

 

[mdk]

No, statist loon.

 

[Unification]

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

If the pornography can articulate what it was used for then yes, by all means!

I just point out in consistency in law, that is all. Given that a person

No, statist loon.

What is the "state's" job?

Job of state is to govern socially harmful and immoral behaviors, is it not?

So if people didn't engage in vices such as porn addiction, then the state wouldn't need to govern them, and they wouldn't have to worry about it.

I believe the nation of Iceland passed a ban against pornography and strip clubs recently, and I'm not aware of any adverse results from that, if anything it likely made their society much cleaner.

 

[Maxdeath]

You really can not be that stupid can you?

For one the person on the internet gave their consent to be photographed, video taped or whatever.
They also signed a release allowing it to be distributed.
In most if not all instances they were paid.

If you videotape someone in the shower did you get their signed permission?
Did you get their permission to possibly distribute or allow other people to view the videotape?
Did you pay them?
If you answered no to any one of those questions then you have committed a punishable offense.

 

[mdk]

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

If the pornography can articulate what it was used for then yes, by all means!

I just point out in consistency in law, that is all. Given that a person

No, statist loon.

What is the "state's" job?

Job of state is to govern socially harmful and immoral behaviors, is it not?

So if people didn't engage in vices such as porn addiction, then the state wouldn't need to govern them, and they wouldn't have to worry about it.

No thanks. I already have a mother. Perhaps you need the state to be yours, but I don’t.

 

[Unification]

You really can not be that stupid can you?

For one the person on the internet gave their consent to be photographed, video taped or whatever.
They also signed a release allowing it to be distributed.
In most if not all instances they were paid.

If you videotape someone in the shower did you get their signed permission?
Did you get their permission to possibly distribute or allow other people to view the videotape?
Did you pay them?
If you answered no to any one of those questions then you have committed a punishable offense.

If I am not mistaken, "consent" is irrelevant in many laws under US Common Law, and in many cases the state has a right to legislate against deviant behavior regardless of whether the individuals "consent" to it or not.

So I'd argue that "consent" is potentially irrelevant, and that the state might have a vested interest in legislating it to enforce morality and ethics, as opposed merely to protect the notion of "consent".

 

[Unification]

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

If the pornography can articulate what it was used for then yes, by all means!

I just point out in consistency in law, that is all. Given that a person

No, statist loon.

What is the "state's" job?

Job of state is to govern socially harmful and immoral behaviors, is it not?

So if people didn't engage in vices such as porn addiction, then the state wouldn't need to govern them, and they wouldn't have to worry about it.

No thanks. I already have a mother. Perhaps you need the state to be yours, but I don’t.

Well I believe American "democracy" and economy is dying because it tolerates materialism and immoral lifestyles in the name of the almighty $ - authoritarianism is what naturally happens in response to cultural degeneracy, much as in Rome before its fall, we are merely seeing the same cycle repeat.

I would think most people don't need a "mother", but this assumes they are self-responsible and not enabling immorality to begin with, if people such as those who produce or purchase porn on a frequent basis have no self-restraint of their own, I care not for their imagined "rights" - since "rights" are obviously a failed experiment in the modern world.

 

[Maxdeath]

You really can not be that stupid can you?

For one the person on the internet gave their consent to be photographed, video taped or whatever.
They also signed a release allowing it to be distributed.
In most if not all instances they were paid.

If you videotape someone in the shower did you get their signed permission?
Did you get their permission to possibly distribute or allow other people to view the videotape?
Did you pay them?
If you answered no to any one of those questions then you have committed a punishable offense.

If I am not mistaken, "consent" is irrelevant in many laws under US Common Law, and in many cases the state has a right to legislate against deviant behavior regardless of whether the individuals "consent" to it or not.

So I'd argue that "consent" is potentially irrelevant, and that the state might have a vested interest in legislating it to enforce morality and ethics, as opposed merely to protect the notion of "consent".

And you yourself stated the reason your second statement is irrelevant in your very first paragraph. "In many laws" you might note it is not all laws.

States can and do legislate some things a deviant. Quit often they are taken to court over those very same laws.

You can try and make your case any way you want but here in lies the rub. The largest share of people do not look down on those who give consent to be filmed. While the largest share of people look upon those that do not get consent as deviants.

In your case I doubt you can use your crazy ideas as a defense when you get caught

 

[shockedcanadian]

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

Of course not, this isn't China. Unless it's illegal and creep pedo stuff which is an entirely different situation obviously. Otherwise, why would anyone viewing consenting adults be considered a criminal?

Are you trolling us?

 

[depotoo]

We aren’t a democracy. We are a Republic. Seems you are making observations on things pertaining to the US you don’t even understand.

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

If the pornography can articulate what it was used for then yes, by all means!

I just point out in consistency in law, that is all. Given that a person

No, statist loon.

What is the "state's" job?

Job of state is to govern socially harmful and immoral behaviors, is it not?

So if people didn't engage in vices such as porn addiction, then the state wouldn't need to govern them, and they wouldn't have to worry about it.

No thanks. I already have a mother. Perhaps you need the state to be yours, but I don’t.

Well I believe American "democracy" and economy is dying because it tolerates materialism and immoral lifestyles in the name of the almighty $ - authoritarianism is what naturally happens in response to cultural degeneracy, much as in Rome before its fall, we are merely seeing the same cycle repeat.

I would think most people don't need a "mother", but this assumes they are self-responsible and not enabling immorality to begin with, if people such as those who produce or purchase porn on a frequent basis have no self-restraint of their own, I care not for their imagined "rights" - since "rights" are obviously a failed experiment in the modern world.

 

[DGS49]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (wrongly) that the First Amendment protects any communication, however repulsive, except that which actively promotes violence or mayhem (defamation aside). Viewing porn cannot be punished.

Child porn is the noteworthy exception, because it has been determined by our Government Nannies that viewing such is, in effect, supporting it. Viewing child porn is a serious, serious felony, and viewers are treated much the same as child molesters.

 

[rightwinger]

We never would have had the Interweb without porn

 

[yiostheoy]

In most states that I am aware of, there are laws within Common Law against sex crimes such as "voyeurism".

When one is viewing pornography via the internet or a magazine, one could argue that they are engaging in voyeurism by viewing a stranger in an uncompromising situation, and that this is a legal loophole in the law, so if the law punished the viewing of porn the same as it does voyeuristic behavior such as videotaping a stranger in a shower, would this not be consistent?

By voyeurism I presume you mean "peeping".

That is illegal everywhere.

The rest of your syllogism is flawed.

 

[Likkmee]

We never would have had the Interweb without porn

And we'da never had porn if it wasn't for The Chosen(self chosen)

 

[yiostheoy]

Another one bites the iggy list.

 

[Unification]

We never would have had the Interweb without porn

And your point? We would never have had modern America without slavery, but that doesn't mean the demons of one's past shouldn't be eradicated.

Porn, whether "consensual" or not is merely a form of human trafficking and propagation of materialistic behavior, and has no place in any civil society, I'd argue - it is but the refuge of the weak and sexually repressed males.

 

[Unification]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (wrongly) that the First Amendment protects any communication, however repulsive, except that which actively promotes violence or mayhem (defamation aside). Viewing porn cannot be punished.

Child porn is the noteworthy exception, because it has been determined by our Government Nannies that viewing such is, in effect, supporting it. Viewing child porn is a serious, serious felony, and viewers are treated much the same as child molesters.

I agree, the first Amendment has been perverted in the name of vice and degeneracy, such as porn, modern television, popular music, and whatnot, under the false name of "art", when in civilized nations it would be burned rather than propagaded to masses.

I wonder if the first Amendment is reedemable, or if it will have to be axed in the future once consumer capitalism and its evils collapses like the fall of rome, and authoritarian government becomes status quo, do to materialistic rabble being unwilling to govern themselves, or live naught but as beasts begging to be controlled by superiors.