Porn question

[Orleander]

If a child pornography movie was made using computer graphics (like Shrek), and using NO children, would it be illegal?

[Norm357]

If a child pornography movie was made using computer graphics (like Shrek), and using NO children, would it be illegal?

There was something in the news about this very question last year. If I recall correctly ( and feel free to correct me) I think that the courts found that to be NOT child porn. Disgusting aint it.

[Darin]

That's BS if you axe me. The intent to produce child porn was there when they made the CG or anime. I think they should be charged...and castrated.

[Norm357]

That's BS if you axe me. The intent to produce child porn was there when they made the CG or anime. I think they should be charged...and castrated.

I agree, Do you remember the case I am talking about? I tried to do a search, but no joy.

[Scruit]

Norm/Darin - Go to Hollywood and arrest the people who made the film "Traffic". It apparently shows an underage girl having sex... Also arrest the makers of the classic "Lolita".

SCOTUS said they saw no link between *FAKE* child porn and chid abuse, and absent such link the 1st amendement rights of the producers of such material must be preserved.

CNN reported "The supreme court sees no link between child porn and child abuse". A factually incorrect and borderline libelous reporting for while I presume they had to make an retraction.

[sbrad]

There was something in the news about this very question last year. If I recall correctly ( and feel free to correct me) I think that the courts found that to be NOT child porn. Disgusting aint it.

I think you're right about that. As far as I know right now, under federal law to get a child porn conviction you must be able to identify a victim. I think that's why the bill was shot down.
Of course, I could be wrong, too.

[JimDeGriz]

the supreme courts ruling on the CG child porn was based on the fact that there is no victim ie, child, being displayed in the pictures/film... yes, child porn is wrong and the future potential to commit a crime of that nature is still in that person but is the potential to do harm a crime?


honesty would you rather it be CG child porn or the real thing... if the CG porn is a deterant from harming a child or at least filling that market for child porn is it not better to have it instead....

darin said: That's BS if you axe me. The intent to produce child porn was there when they made the CG or anime. I think they should be charged...and castrated.

how do you define it as intent if there is no child involved just a few megabytes and pixels, intent to do harm there would have to be an entity present to do harm to.

*** I'm not advocating child pornography, to me its a very horible crime and as I do agree with you guys about the issue I am just trying to bring out the intelegence you guys have challenged me with before

[Darin]

how do you define it as intent if there is no child involved just a few megabytes and pixels, intent to do harm there would have to be an entity present to do harm to.

*** I'm not advocating child pornography, to me its a very horible crime and as I do agree with you guys about the issue I am just trying to bring out the intelegence you guys have challenged me with before

If you take those "megabytes and pixels" and make them into a character that looks like a child having sex. Then in my opinion you had the intent to make or look at child porn. Just because there isn't an actual child present or it isn't "real" should have no bearing. Just my $.02

[dragonspider]

I thought there was a law that implied that if the person was characterized to be under the legal age, then that would constitute a violation. For example, if Brittney Spears, who we all know is legal (thank God) was to play a 15 year old girl, and was displayed nude, or in a sex act, that would be a violation, because the character was not of legal age.

Now in a cartoon, I don't know... I agree, this in my opinion, should be considered a violation. The character was implied to be below legal age, and therefore, the filmmakers should be held to the same standards as one shooting a child-porn film.

I may be wrong on both points, but at least on #1, I though I'd heard this somewhere...

[Switchback]

I know federal law, and most state laws with which I am familiar, are very, VERY specific in their definitions and a CGI character would not qualify. Of course, these laws were made prior to many of these technologies.

[Orleander]

In movies there are rapes, murders, and many other crimes. None of it is real.
In a child porn CG movie none of it is real. I do think it 'feeds' their desires, but then that means people could say movies 'feed' rapists, murderers and other criminals and should be outlawed too.
I have read that men who watch A LOT of porn eventually use it as their main sexual outlet. They become addicted to it and can't relate to real women.

If you could find someone who made hi-quality CG child porn, would it eventually cut down on real child porn?

[Zendik]

Some fool made a 3D model of a kid at one of the artist joints I hang out at ( Here) and got banned. At least there this kind of crap will not be tolerated.

[Swat1]

We probably conduct more child pornography investigations than any other agency out there. (Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, formerly US Customs). Computer generated images are not considered child pornography. The laws are very specific when it comes to child pornography. As far as the identifiable victim issue, that is generally true. The DHS ICE Cybersmuggling Center maintains a database of all child pornography images seized by us over the last couple of decades (maybe more). We can send them an image and find out all the particulars, like who the victim was, where it occurred etc., if the information is available. In most cases, CP images are well known and we will find the same images over and over at multiple search warrants, because these guys trade the images over the internet. Sometimes we find new ones, but they are usually pictures taken by the suspect of a victim the suspect had access to.

Swat1*

[oscarmitre]

In my jurisdiction it would be illegal because of the wording of the legislation. To the best of my knowledge we haven't actually had a case where someone was charged relative to computer-generated images so we don't yet know the judicial view of the legislation.

[Orleander]

Wouldn't it be better if they traded computer generated images?
You will never stop pedophiles. But if they can be steered towards computer generated children, wouldn't that be better than real children?
I don't care about the pedophile. I want what is safest for the child. Can we give a pedophile what they want this way, so no child is harmed?