Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unccvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!unccvax!dsi
From: dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc)
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Kiddie Porn (Re: R. Draves)
Message-ID: <127@unccvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 11:55:02 EST
Article-I.D.: unccvax.127
Posted: Tue Jan 29 11:55:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 11:04:44 EST
References: <4608@cbscc.UUCP>, <1231@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: UNC-Charlotte
Lines: 44


    For that matter, how can a child make an informed decision (assuming
that constitutional rights extend to children, such as the power to enter
into a contract...) about consenting to kiddie porn when he or she has
imperfect knowledge about their own sexuality until puberty?

    It would seem to me that using whatever means to contractually engage
a child (even through their consenting parents) and bind him or her legally
to perform pornographic services would be in roughly the same ethical
catagory of deceiving someone who is legally retarded into purchasing
securites. ( I believe Ferraro's husband got nailed for doing something
similar while executor of an estate ??) 

    Since we do not allow children to purchase securities or mortgage
real estate (presumably due to their imperfect knowledge) I don't think
that children are able to make an informed and rational decision about
the effects (good, bad, and indifferent) of contractual engagement to
perform pornographic personal services.

     Acting and modeling are obstensibly NOT the same thing. Most children
can understand what is going on. On the other hand, there are few people
who are of the age of majority who would claim that they had as complete
an understanding of their sexuality at age 8 as they have now. No one
is going to condemn Emmanuel Lewis for appearing on "Webster" or modeling
the latest in fashions for the Sears catalogue. 

     People ** might ** (whether or not it is "right") condemn a child
who was a prior pornographic subject. This includes other children, BTW.
This would be true even if the child received no psychological damage
and actually enjoyed engaging sexual acts with adults for public consumption.

     It is in the spirit of PROTECTING the autonomy of the child -- for
it to live its adult life by making decisions based on good forward-thinking
behaviour -- that kiddie porn should be illegal. Autonomy (and all that
good First Amendment crap) is forefit when the child makes a decision 
based on imperfect (or nonexistent) knowledge. Due to biology, children
have an attenuated perception of this situation.  If children (even older
teenagers) had even semi-decent knowledge about their own sexuality, there
wouldn't only be as much kiddie porn, but the teenage pregnancy problem
would be greatly reduced.

dya
.