Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Kiddie Porn (Re: A. Albert)
Message-ID: <4657@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Jan-85 22:25:15 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4657
Posted: Wed Jan 23 22:25:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 19:29:05 EST
References: <4608@cbscc.UUCP>, <1231@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 236

A response to Andrea Albert's response to me:

}>As for the "consenting" part of your distinction, I have already
}>remarked that the fact that the kids aren't consenting is because
}>kiddie porn is illegal in the first place.  If it weren't it would
}>be done by "consenting" children.  I'll explain that by saying
}>that it is the parents who would give consent.
}
}I don't see how making kiddie porn legal would make kids (as free agents)
}consent to being the objects thereof.  We're having a small argument
}here as to what you mean, but here goes my answer...  Even though
}I may be wasting my time.

Your article is the most thoughtful response to me I have seen (really).
It's a shame to see you taking the attitude already toward me that you're
wasting your time.  Please don't.

}In many cases the child insists that s/he wants to be on TV, or wants
}to be a model.  Please spare me the example of the pushy parent.  No
}matter how the parent pushes, if the child does not want to be in
}pictures, the pictures will be awful and no one will hire him/her.
}... If what you say were true, and x number of parents
}would be willing to "consent" for their children to pose for legal
}"kiddie porn" shots, the market would weed most of them out because
}most kids would *refuse* to cooperate. The law does not grant a
}parent the right to sell a child's body.  It can be argued that
}the couple you mentioned in your article sold the child's body.

I'm not sure I know how many kids come to be used on TV, put you can't
exclude the case where the parent initiates the idea, especially with
very young kids.  I really doubt that most kids are the ones who get
the idea that they want to be models.  Their parents do.  And they
aren't necesarily being pushy.  They just think kids look good enough.

If kid porn were legal the fact that most kids were weeded out says 
nothing about the ones that aren't.  We are talking about kids that
are actually used.  Also the standard of what makes a picture awful
is different for TV commercials and publicity photos than it is for
kid porn.  They are used for totally different purposes.  The one
who buys kid porn doesn't care if the kid in the picture will sell
him baby food or whatever.

So we are left with the kids that aren't weeded out and are suitably
cooperative for kid porn.  It may be true that their bodies are being
sold, but is that any less true for the parent who lets his child be
used in a diaper commercial?  If so, what makes the difference?  The
content and purpose?  Then we are back to the need for a definition
to distinguish between the two.  And if we can do it here it is posible
also for adult porn.

}Consent in and of itself implies that both parties are in a position
}of equal power.  That is, that the first party has no leverage over
}the second party to tell him/her what to do or how.  This *never*
}applies to the relationship between children and adults.  Children
}are taught that they must respect, honor, and obey all adults.
}Therefore, children never can consent freely to sex with an
}adult.

Still for the kids to be used in legal porn the consent would be
between two adults: the pornographer and the parent or gaurdian acting
on the child's behalf.  Kid porn does not have to depict children in
sexual relations with adults just as all adult porn does not have to
depict adults in the act of sex.

}> Last week I heard
}>on the news of a couple who was arrested by an undercover agent
}>posing as a kiddie porn producer.  They "sold" their daught
}>(either 8 or 12 years old, I can't remember) over to him for
}>$300,000 saying that they could do anything they want to her.
}
}Even if "kiddie porn" were legal, this motivation would be
}removed.  There is a law (federal, I believe), against parents
}reaping the monetary benefits of having a child actor.  That is,
}the child earns the money, and the parents may not spend it.  I
}do not know whether the same arrangement exists for child models.

But if kid porn were legal then we still have to deal with parents
who have the same motives for putting their child in kid porn as they
would for using him on TV.  What about the parents that can't support
their children very well?  They are surely allowed to use the money
the child earns for support of that child.

}>I think we are being inconsistent in our judgement in comparing
}>kiddie porn with adult porn if when we don't take into account
}>the differences made by the fact that one is illegal and the other
}>not.  If kid porn were legal couples like the one above would
}>be granting consent for their children to be used.  It could also
}>be argued that the kids would suffer less abuse at the hands
}>of people they no rather than strangers (i.e. kidnapping would
}>be unecessary, the production would be less covert so abuse would
}>be easier to detect, parents could supervise, etc.)
}
}Not your argument, but an answer:  Children are most often abused
}by people they know and love.  A man in our own city published
}"kiddie porn" pictures of his own son.  This happens every day,
}in every city in the nation.  Children are not always kidnapped.
}Think also of the runaways who are led into prostitution, etc.

It can still be argued that the amount of abuse is aggravated by the
fact that it is an illegal activity no matter who takes the pictures.
Child abuse in itself is a slightly different matter.  The point is that
abuse is *always* involved in kiddie porn because it is illegal.  If it
weren't there would probably be much less physical abuse connected with
kid porn.  As it is the fact that some parents make porn with their own
kids still does not cover the whole issue.  As with any type of porn
a variety of subjects are needed to make it worth making.

}> What would
}>be the difference between that and granting consent for them to
}>be used in TV commercials or motion pictures?
}
}Plenty.  In commercials or motion pictures, it is the image of
}the child's body which is used, not his body.  Any motions he
}or she makes are of his or her own volition. ... In "kiddie porn,"
}the child's body is used for the sexual acts, as well as the image of
}its body for the production of the pornographic films or prints.  Again,
}the "selling the body" argument, which I will not develop for
}lack of adequate legal knowledge.

What forces us to conclude that all child pornography is forced acting
rather than volitional, and, for that matter, that all TV acting is
always volitional.  To what extent do the children act on their own
volition.  As I said before not all porn requires sexual activity although
photos may be retouched to depict it (that gets around your objection).
It seems to me that the "selling the body" distinction is a fuzzy line
requiring a legal definition.  Adults are not allowed to "sell their
bodies".  Prostitution is illegal most places.

}> If you say the
}>content of the material makes a difference then you must play
}>the definition game and, in doing so, you need to justify why
}>the distinction can be made based on content when consented
}>(by parents) children are used, but no such distinction can be
}>made for adults.
}
}I say it is the use that is made of the body and the image of
}the child and whether or not the child is in a position of
}equality to the pornographer.  If you want to call that content,
}fine.  I believe, however, that the mother who takes "cute pic-
}tures" of her naked child, while the child does not want them
}taken, and then calls the child "silly" (I am assuming no sexual
}content to the photographs) is playing the power games of the
}pornographer in that she is using the child's body, and the image
}of the child's body, against the child's consent.

What about children too young to refuse?  Is a parent playing the
power games of a pornographer any time there is a clash in the wills
of the parent and child?  No.  Again your distinction does seem to
reduce to one of content.  Kids get spankings or get sent to their
rooms (dictations of the child's bodily actions) against their consent.
But this control over the child is not illegal if it is not abusive
(another legal distinction in need of a defintion).  So why is porn
ruled out given that it is done without physical abuse?  I think it's
because we find the content and message of kiddie porn objectionable.
Yet the same standards are not applied to adult porn.

}>When the two types of porn are placed on an equal legal footing they
}>encounter the same problems (the only technical difference is
}>that a third party, the parents, need to grant consent when
}>kids are used).  In both cases, 1) the distinction between
}>artistic and pornographic content must be made.  2) Prohibiting
}>the production of what is considered pornographic supposedly
}>violates the rights of adults who like and want to buy the stuff.
}
}I differ.  A person's body is his/her own property to use as he or
}she wishes.  I extend those rights to the child.
}A parent can not sell a child's body, injure it
}in any way, or permit it to be injured (this all applies to use for
}personal gain, not medical treatment) without running into problems
}with the law.  Therefore, in the case of "kiddie porn," artistic
}considerations are virtually immaterial.

Kid porn can be done while getting around the "selling the body"
distinction you make (if it really is one) between it and commercial
pictures.  Also injury to the child does not have to be inherent
in the production of kid porn, especially if it were legal.

}First Amendment rights do not enter here because the parties
}can never be consenting.  We are abridging the rights of those
}who produce and consume kiddie porn, but only because the
}element  which makes the production of "normal porn" acceptable
}is absent:  That is, consent of all parties to participate in
}the activity.  Please notice that this also covers the production
}and consumption of "snuff" movies, in which the woman (almost
}always) is actually killed, and the murder recorded on the film.
}The woman may have consented to participate in a pornographic film,
}but she never consented to being murdered.  This is a case of breach of
}contract, therefore her consent is anulled.

One-year-olds do not consent to be used in diaper commercials either.
I think your criterion of consent breaks down when the child is too
young and when the consenting arrangement with parents meets the same
standards for porn as it does for TV acting (for example)--which is
entirely possible ... if kid porn were legal.  The consent standard is
immaterial in the case of "snuff" movies because even if the woman
were to give consent to her own killing (not inconcievable) her act
of doing so is illegal as is the murder itself.  Consent makes no
difference.

}As far as the consumption of kiddie porn is concerned, I would
}like to hear from someone well versed in psychology.  I would
}not want to harbor any guesses as to the normality or abnormality
}of being sexually attracted to children or adolescents (Oedipus
}complex, and all that), so I won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Many psychologists wouldn't touch it either.  It amounts to branding
certain types of sexual activity "abnormal".  Even if they did do this
it dosn't say a thing for what such people may read and look at.
That is supposedly protected by the Constitution.  Can you define
an abnormal person by his/her taste in literature?  That's like someone
else saying everyone who reads porn is a rapist.  That's not true.
But a case might be made on the content and message of the porn itself
and influence in that direction.  But that case would have to be
made on the content of the porn and not the character of everyone who
reads it.  If you wan't to find fault with kiddie porn based on
the character of those who are attracted to it (rather than the influence
its message has on those who use it) then you would have to prove
that *everyone* who read kid porn was "abnormal" and give a legal
definition of "abnormal" in order to justify banning it on that basis.

}>If the production of adult porn is as protected as that of non-
}>pornographic material, why does the situation change when kids
}>(with parental consent) are used?  Given that kiddie porn exists
}>it would seem that adults have as much right to buy it and look
}>at it as adult porn, if we accept the argument that porn may
}>not be restricted.
}
}A right to buy kiddie porn?  I suppose the First Amendment covers
}that.  I dispute that no one has a right to produce it.

If the First Amendment covers the right to buy it it covers the
right for it to be produced.

-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd