Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Kiddie Porn (Re: R. Draves)
Message-ID: <1231@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 00:23:50 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1231
Posted: Tue Jan 22 00:23:50 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 07:24:36 EST
References: <4608@cbscc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 206

[]
Paul Dubuc writes on Richard Draves:
>
>Since people are pressing me for definitions, I'll do the same.
>What definition of kiddie porn will distinguish effectively between
>it and "cute pictures of naked kids".  I think we will run into
>the same difficulties here as we would if we were to attempt a
>legal definition of adult porn.

This paragraph showed promise.  I was very disappointed, however,
when I continued reading.  (BTW, I hate "cute" pictures of naked
kids...  This happens when one sees too many such pictures of oneself.)

>As for the "consenting" part of your distinction, I have already
>remaked 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.

There are many ways a parent can give consent for a child to do one
thing or another.  A parent may, as you point out, consent for his
or her child's face, or name, to be used in an advertisement.  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.
(I have a friend who is a commercial photographer. He does
publicity shots for both adult and child models/actors.  He assures
me this is true.)  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 won't touch that one, however.  Another reader more familiar
with the law maybe could enlighten us on this point.

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.

There are adults who believe that it is possible:  The Rene Guyon
Society and NAMBLA come to mind.  I have heard the motto of the
former as "Sex by eight, or it's too late."  (Anyone knowledgeable
on the subject please correct me if I am wrong.)  The fact remains
however that the children are not in a position of equality to the
adults, and that the adults are using the children for their own
purposes, whether it is monetary gain, or sexual gratification.
Therefore, there can never be "kiddie porn" with consenting children,
whether or not the parents consent.

> 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.
I suspect it does, for the same reason the motion picture law was
enacted: abuse of children's earnings by parents (expert testimony,
please?).

>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.

> 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.  There are many
laws regarding the use of children in motion pictures because
of the abuses of the past.  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.  I would appreciate hearing
from someone with more knowledge than I have on this point.

> 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.

>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.  (Already born, that
is.  Please relegate all discussions as to the humanity of the unborn
to net.abortion).  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.  I say virtually, because
the aforementioned mother would never admit to being a pornographer,
nor would I accuse her of pornography (I try not to impose my views
on child-abuse/care/pornography on anyone.)

>I think that if we actually had the situation where kiddie porn
>was legal (to the same extent as adult porn) much of the basis
>for argument against it, used by those against restricting adult
>porn with similar content, would disappear.  My question then is,
>would that make kiddie porn acceptable?  I think it turns into
>an argument for the legalization of kiddie porn based on the same
>1st Amendment rights that are used to protect "normal" porn.
>It could be argued (though no one would dare) that keeping
>kiddie porn illegal only gives impetus to the mistreatment of
>the children used.  Since it is next to impossible to remove the
>demand for it, kids will inevitably be used.  Why not make it
>safer?

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.

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.

>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.
>--
>
>Paul Dubuc  cbscc!pmd

A right to buy kiddie porn?  I suppose the First Amendment covers
that.  I dispute that no one has a right to produce it.  As to
parental consent, note the discussion above referring to the difference
between consenting to the use of the image of the body, or the name, and
the actual use of the child's body.

It seems to me that you set up your little straw man and knocked it
down.  Do you know anything at all about pornography?

--
Flames to the address below,

Andrea Albert

The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer.

Posting for a friend, I remain,

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]