This is more of a 2 part question. Should child porn that does not include a real child be illegal? If so, who is being harmed by it?

The other question is; does giving a pedophile access to “imitation” children give them an outlet for their desire, so they won’t try to engage with real children, or does it just reinforce their desire, thus helping them to rationalize their behavior and lead to them being more encouraged to harm real children?

I’ve heard psychologists discuss both sides, but I don’t think we have any real life studies to go off of because the technology is so new.

I’m just curious what the other thought out there are from people who are more liberty minded.

  • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    In the first case you gave, the fact that it’s a child is hardly the relevant aspect as much as publishing false and misleading imagery of someone. At least to me, the problem with children being involved in sexual things is that children can’t properly give consent, and since we’re looking at a situation without consent (regardless of the age of the person), it’s not something that would change if a kid is involved, whether you think it should be legal or not.

    Personally, I lean towards the idea that it should be legal since I don’t support the idea that someone “owns” their own image, and that so long as it isn’t being presented as true information, which would be defamation, people are free to make whatever content they like featuring someone’s image, even if the subject doesn’t like it.

    Regarding the example of joyriding, there is harm done. The joyrider deprived me of my rightfully owned property for some period of time, and used it against my interests. That’s a specific and provable harm inherent to the crime. This is the entire principle behind the concept of “conversion”. Even if you rightfully have possession of something I own, it’s still illegal for you to use it in a manner I have not approved of.

    • LouNeko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Personally, I lean towards the idea that it should be legal since I don’t support the idea that someone “owns” their own image, and that so long as it isn’t being presented as true information, which would be defamation, people are free to make whatever content they like featuring someone’s image, even if the subject doesn’t like it.

      I guess this is where our opinions differ, because I lean towards the contrary.

      If you rephrase:

      The joyrider deprived me of my rightfully owned property for some period of time, and used it against my interests.

      To:

      The deepfaker deprived me of my rightfully owned property for some period of time, and used it against my interests.

      under consideration that I see images as intellectual property, you can see where my approach to this problem came from and why I specifically used joyriding as a fitting example.

      • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        True. Our difference in opinion largely stems from how we view intellectual property. Personally, I believe that intellectual property should be extremely limited in scope, such that it only amounts to a limited ability for distribution of works.

        • LouNeko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve already had this debate once about similar topic regarding AI. There are certainly very good arguments for both points of view (especial when it comes to music, I’m more on your side). I’m ready to agree to disagree.