Because it in and of itself doesn't harm a non-consenting party. Providing a market for harm isn't the same thing as causing harm. Enjoying something, no matter how depraved it may be, isn't damaging. The rape is bad because the child is unconsenting. When you rape someone you deny them of their rights, you're impeding their freedom. That is why rape shouldn't be permissable. However, simply watching something doesn't take away any rights, and quite the opposite taking away someone's right to watch something impedes their freedoms.

Oh?

Non sequitur.

Yes, and when you hit the age of 16 you undergo, overnight, an incredible metamorphosis that turns you into a far more knowledgeable, responsible and mature human being.

If a person is emotionally mature enough to consent to sex, why does it matter the age of the person they're consenting to? They're either mature enough, or they're not.

you're right, simply watching something doens't take away any rights, but it condones the act of taking away someone's rights. It IS harful because it is the reason that kids are being harmed. Posessing child porn is making it easier for the makers to commit the crime. It puts money in their pockets, it gives them the resources to film children being raped and distribute it. You talk as if the pedophiles watching these tapes are watching actors, as if they are enjoying something that is sick and twisted but in reality, no one got hurt. Those kids aren't actors, and this is one of the very VERY few situations in life that is black and white. Those kids would not be hurt if there wasn't a reason to do it. The people who buy those tapes are giving the men raping them a reason to do it. We're not discussing the intricacies of guilt or harm in a legal textbook, we're discussing someone who is facilitating the rape of a child. It's wrong, it IS harmful though not by direct hand. Wheather directly or indirectly, people who make and people who WATCH child porn are all doing harm.

i dont really think its about the psyche of the child, but more about the adult,....

Surely it all boils down to the psyche of the child because that's the person that anti-pedophililia laws are there to protect. *If* a child is emotionally mature enough to not need the protection of such laws then as long as the adult has ensured that this is so before engaging in any activity, why is there an issue? The area that jibber is discussing regarding the circulation of paedophillic media is very black and white. The issue of a person to person relationship is not always so.

Because you can't start making exceptions or else people will start to think it is generally alright.

exept by supporting people who distribute child porn you are supporting those who raped the child

So that's why they don't let us play with the good toys.

This is bad how? You create a job market and strengthen the economy all without hurting someone. The people hurting the children should be punished, but the consumer and the market shouldn't be punished as they didn't actually do anything wrong. It'd be like penalizing someone because they laughed at a car wreck, or for downloading footage of someone being killed.

I agree they're not actors and that what is being done to them is very, very bad. To be honest it is probably one of the most disgusting examples of human depravity, and it churns my stomach just thinking about the sick bastards comitting such acts. However, I still stand by the idea that nobody should be punished for feeling enjoyment, or for owning something that brings said enjoyment as long as they themselves don't impede the rights and freedoms of others, and I'll be damned if watching a video in the privacy of my own home is damaging to anyone.

What if their reason isn't because its marketable, but rather the marketability is just an aside?

And this seems to be the notion we're not agreeing on.

Hitmen and assassins, should it be legal to give them money to kill someone?