Wikipedia has a quite frank discussion of child porn laws. Even Human-Stupidity is cited.
We reprint the entire Wikipedia article here because we fear this will be repressed and edited out. Further down, after the reprint we point out where we would go much further then this Wikipedia article dares to tread.
Debate regarding child pornography laws | Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main article: Laws regarding child pornography
While laws criminalizing child sexual abuse now exist in all countries of the world,[1][2] more diversity of views exists on questions like exactly how young those depicted in pornography should be allowed to be, whether the mere possession of child pornography should be a crime, or whether sentences for such possession should be modified.
Specific laws
In 1999, in the case of R. v. Sharpe, British Columbia’s highest court struck down a law against possessing child pornography as unconstitutional.[3] That opinion, issued by Justice Duncan Shaw, held, "There is no evidence that demonstrates a significant increase in the danger to children caused by pornography," and "A person who is prone to act on his fantasies will likely do so irrespective of the availability of pornography." [4]
Academic Milton Diamond has shown that availability of child pornography REDUCES child abuse, because pedophiles can act out their fantasies and possibly masturbate to fantasy child porn acts. His suggestion is, for this purpose, to create specific artificial child pornography under circumstances that does not traumatize children.
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Debate regarding child pornography laws | Wikipedia” »
Debate regarding child pornography laws | Wikipedia
» continues here »