Geeze, Tom, why didn't you submit it to "The Libertarian Enterprise"?
Ken,
Feel free to print it there!
Tom
Wow, I thought I was the only one that thought this to be true. I have had extensive conversations with people about this and they think I am radical but tend to agree on most points. If the laws were interpreted by libertarians, maybe I wouldn't have been called Jail-Bait in college.
Labeling something "taboo" is also a way of discounting any offhanded criticisms such as "that was totally fucked up."
That was totally fucked up.
I've never heard the argument that the child victim might want to grow up and sell the images or videos to make money off the crime-- that's interesting, although unlikely.
One big problem with the last section is that, even in the case of the guy who simply views images and never does any personal victimization himself, it could be harmful to the victim just to know that they are being viewed by people continuously. If I had been a victim of such events, I can imagine that I might walk around sometimes and wonder if people I saw had seen me being raped as a child. That's harmful. I don't think that merely possessing images is completely harmless and a victimless crime.
Finally, if former victims are allowed to sell their images legally and people are allowed to possess them legally, the ensuing bureaucratic nightmare of police trying to figure out which images are legal and which are not and which child is depicted in what photo is almost unimaginable. I can't imagine it working in any sort of reliable way, and since I'm for small government, I can't imagine it not creating a bigger government where you perhaps have some sort of licensing system for photos-- who knows what these politicians will come up with.
Thurs. 08/05/29 16:40 EDT
>a two-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to intercourse
A two-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to being spanked, either. Should we outlaw spanking? A two-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to most things adults do to him. Does that mean we should outlaw all things the two-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to?
What about a 4-month-old? Would you say a 4-month-old "meaningfully consents" to being breastfed? What does "meaningful consent" mean?
>a two-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to ... other sexual contact
What constitutes "other sexual contact"? If, as a result of breastfeeding, a woman becomes sexually aroused, does this then constitute "other sexual contact"? What if two 7-year-olds are "playing doctor"? Does this constitute "other sexual contact"? Does their sex-play involve "meaningful consent"?
I think the concepts of "other sexual contact" and "meaningful consent" have not been carefully defined.
While it could be argued that the child rape victim simply knowing a record of their assault is available for public consumption can possibly further traumatize the victim, that is more of a privacy issue not a sexual one. The question, again, is whether the person viewing the footage should be considered a criminal. Obviously, the answer is no, since he did nothing accept watch a recording of past events.
Commenting by HaloScan
