The United States Federal Government should legalize child porn Wylted vs Bluesteel and Mikal

== Framework == Let's discuss what the resolution does and does not require. The resolution *requires* Wlyted to argue for full legalization of child porn. The resolution *does not* require Mikal and I to argue for the status quo. As long as child pornography is not completely "legalized," we are still negating the resolution. For example, marijuana is not considered to be "legalized" in California, even though it is *not* illegal in all circumstances (i. e. it is permitted for "medical" use). Thus, Mikal and I do not have to defend illegality in all circumstances. With this in mind, Mikal and I propose the following child porn law: (1) Knowingly producing or possessing pornographic images or videos of a child shall be illegal, subject to the following exceptions: (a) It shall not be illegal for a child to produce or possess pornographic images or videos of himself or herself. (b) It shall not be illegal for a romantic partner of a child to possess pornographic images or videos depicting the child, provided that at the time the romantic partner came into possession of the images or videos, the romantic partner was of an age at which a sexual relationship between the romantic partner and the child would have been permissible (under the relevant statutory rape law). (2) "Child" means a person below the age of consent. (3) "Knowingly" means having actual knowledge that the child is below the age of consent or acting with willful ignorance or extreme recklessness towards the age of the child. == Benefits of Our Regime == (1) No prosecution of children for producing images of themselves As Wylted points out, child pornography laws are problematic because under the current legal regime, a 14 year old who takes a naked picture of herself could theoretically be prosecuted for "producing child porn. " However, our first exception takes care of this problem. (2) No prosecution of boyfriends or girlfriends who share naked photos People in relationships sometimes share naked photos of themselves as a form of flirtation. Under our second exception, if both partners could legally have sex under statutory rape laws (e. g. they are both below the age of consent), then there"s no reason they can't also share naked photographs with each other. Wylted says statutory rape laws themselves are problematic, but that's outside the scope of this debate. The resolution allows us to craft these "exceptions" for two reasons. (1) Adding a few narrow exceptions to a criminal statute does not render the subject matter of the statute "legalized" (e. g. having a "self defense" exception to "murder" does not mean that murder has become "legalized"). We only need to argue for *some* illegality to prove that child porn should not be fully "legalized. " (2) Taking a naked selfie or sharing a naked photo only with an intimate partner is not considered "porn" within the meaning of the resolution. Google defines "pornography" as "printed or visual material containing the . . . display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. " Couples share intimate photos with each other not solely to stimulate arousal, but also to strengthen their emotional connection. This interpretation comports with common usage. For example, Jennifer Lawrence has defended taking naked photos of herself for her boyfriend by saying, "It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he's going to look at you. " Since such private photos are not considered "porn," the resolution does not require us to advocate that possessing them should be illegal. == Our Case Against Child Porn == (1) Children cannot consent In statutory rape law, there is something called the "age of consent," which is the age below which children are considered incapable of consenting to sex. The rationale behind the "age of consent" is that children below a certain age lack the maturity to consent to sex with an older person (who may be manipulating them) *and* that children who have not even hit puberty cannot fully understand the *significance* of sex because they have not even experienced sexual desire. Children lack the knowledge and awareness of how a naked photo of them might be put to nefarious uses by an adult. Child porn laws protect naive children from exploitation by adults. This problem is even more dire because a lot of child sexual abuse is committed by family members, whom the child is more likely to trust and obey than a stranger. Family members are responsible for up to 47 percent of child molestation cases. [1] There are sadly *multiple* accounts online of depraved parents sexually exploiting their young daughters by using them to make child porn (I"ve linked three separate examples). [2] Without child porn laws, parents could not be prosecuted for taking pornographic pictures of their children and posting them online. Uncles and aunts who exploit their nephews and nieces would be immune from prosecution. Because children sometimes need to be protected from adults, child porn laws are necessary. Wylted spends a lot of time in his case arguing why *possession* of child porn should be legalized, but offers *no* good reason that *production* of child porn should be legal, even though the resolution requires him to prove both. And production is definitely the more problematic aspect of child porn. (2) Viewing child porn increases the likelihood that the person will molest a child As James Wolak explains in American Psychologist, pedophiles who view images of child pornography become more likely to molest children because viewing such images serves to *normalize* their fetishization of children and strengthens their urges. [3] It is a common saying in psychology that "neurons that fire together, wire together. " When people masturbate to child porn regularly, they strengthen the association they have between sexual desire and "children. " One child molester (who is serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison) said that looking at child porn online made him more likely to molest children because, he said, "there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it. " [4] A report by Carr (2004) concluded, "Many pedophiles acknowledge that exposure to child abuse images fuels their sexual fantasies and plays an important part in leading them to commit hands-on sexual offenses against children. " The studies bear out these conclusions. A longitudinal study of convicted child molesters in the U. S. found that those who consumed more child porn were *more likely to reoffend* after their release. [5] A study by Butner et al estimated that 76 percent of people who consume child pornography have had some sort of illicit physical contact with a child. [6] The study Wylted cites *does not* prove that viewing child porn *causes* a reduction in molestations. The study essentially notes that the internet made porn widely available starting around 1989, and child molestation has also gone down since 1989. Wylted then assumes a *causal* connection from this. However, first, in most of the countries cited in the study (such as Canada, Germany, and the United States), child pornography is actually *illegal. * Therefore, one could just as easily conclude that when the internet made child porn more available, the police were able to lock up more dangerous pedophiles by catching them viewing child porn. Getting these pedophiles off the street made the molestation rate go down, not the viewing of the child porn itself. Second, correlation is not causation. *All* violent crime rates have been falling since 1989, not just rape and child molestation. The child molestation rate went down due to *overall* crime trends, which have been influenced by larger police forces, better investigative technology, and harsher penalties for all crimes (e. g. "three strikes" and "truth in sentencing" laws). (3) Child porn laws are a proxy for catching molesters Molesters are often hard to catch because children often stay silent about abuse. However, the high correlation between child porn and molestation means that locking up people caught with child porn *also* happens to catch a lot of molesters. In one study containing 115 offenders convicted of *only* possessing child porn, 91 offenders later admitted (in counseling) to having molested a child. [6] Based on this study, up to 79 percent of people convicted only of possessing child porn may *also* be molesters. The Federal Bureau of Prisons issued a report stating that "many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters. " Therefore, locking people up for a crime that is relatively easy to detect (downloading child porn) is a proxy for also catching people for a crime that is relatively hard to detect (molestation). Downloading child porn *is* easier to detect. The FBI has a lot of systems in place for catching people sending or receiving child porn (for example, they have a database that Google uses to scan Gmail accounts to see if any images sent or received match a known image of child porn). If you vote for Wylted's plan to legalize child porn, you are allowing a lot of child molesters to escape prosecution because the only crime the state could have actually convicted them for was possessing child porn, since their molestations have (as yet) gone undetected. [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com... . http://tinyurl.com... . http://tinyurl.com... [3] . http://tinyurl.com... [4] . http://tinyurl.com... [5] . http://tinyurl.com... [6] . http://tinyurl.com...