You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

BarbaraB comments on Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Thomas 07 October 2013 02:52PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (312)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: BarbaraB 12 October 2013 06:19:33PM *  3 points [-]

Josh,

  1. My intuition is, that viewing pictures is more a tension relief and prevents the real offence, rather than stimulating the crime. I would prefer to have hard scientific data. However, without those data, I would bet money on my stated hypothesis, rather than the opposite.

  2. You should cite more sources, preferred are the research paper, and among them, metaanalyses, as ChristianKI correctly says.

  3. I am not from USA, but worked there for 2 years in the past. I remember hearing about people facing prison for the possession of children pornography, and was genuinely surprised and sorry for the offenders (although I am a standard heterosexual woman). We had a long discussion with my that day US boyfriend, why is the possession punished so severely. I was surprised by the unproven, but unquestioned assumption, that having pictures stimulates the owner to commit the actual crime. Of course, pictures of children molested or having sexual intercourse should not be taken, because children should not have sexual intercourse or be molested. However, some people define children pornography very broadly, even children taking a bath, running around naked in the garden etc. Some 35 years ago, my parents photographed me naked on the beaches of Yugoslavia and it was pretty normal at those times. I would not be happy, if they were selling those pictures to strangers for pornography. However, I believe, selling their own old pictures when the child becomes adult could become legal once - if it is proven that the pictures do not increase the crime.

Comment author: pragmatist 12 October 2013 06:28:25PM 1 point [-]

However, some people define children pornography very broadly, even children taking a bath, running around naked in the garden etc.

In the United States, at least, an image has to depict "sexually explicit conduct" in order to qualify as child pornography, so I don't think most images of the sort you describe would qualify. It is probably true, however, that "sexually explicit conduct" is quite often interpreted by the judiciary in an implausibly broad manner.

Comment author: JoshElders 12 October 2013 07:56:49PM -2 points [-]

I'm with you all the way on this. Your views are pretty far from the mainstream of US public opinion, though.

selling their own old pictures when the child becomes adult could become legal

That view in particular would make you a pariah in many social circles.

  • if it is proven that the pictures do not increase the crime.

All I want is the absence of proof that it increases the crime. Since Diamond has evidence that it decreases the crime, that's pretty clear.