I have been thinking about this issue since November, when a US Attorney prosecuting Internet viewers of child pornography came to speak to one of my classes and mentioned this very issue. Thus, I do not feel conflicted in the least. Here are my thoughts.
(1) Child pornography, whether virtual or real, is reprehensible in the subject matter it portrays. There may be some questions at the line (e.g. is it REALLY reprehensible to fantasize about a 17 1/2 year old but not an 18 year old?) - but, for the most part, I think we can all agree on, say, a 13 year old. Here is the bottom line for me: there is some age below which a child does not have the capacity to consent to sexual intercourse - does not have the knowledge, the wisdom, the developmental growth, the sense of consequences, etc - that we deem necessary for someone to have before deciding to have sex. And to fantasize about having sex with a child incapable of consenting is unacceptable in our societal view.
(2) Many people have reprehensible thoughts. Point of fact, I can guarantee you that most of us have even had some. We don't punish people for those. We don't punish people for writing them. We don't punish people for talking about them. We don't punish people for reading about them. You may not want people to have reprehensible thoughts, but guess what? You don't get to dictate that. This is the United States of America, and we pride ourselves on free thought - and on respecting others' rights to free thought, no matter how nauseating we may find those thoughts (and trust me, I find child pornography so revolting that I can scarcely allow myself to think what it must be depicting). Sorry for that nation-centric thought - but I hope I am speaking for most free nations here.
(3) The reason that child pornography is worthy of punishment is that it exploits children who cannot possibly consent to being used for such...productions. It harms and injures them, certainly emotionally and perhaps physically as well.
(4) Thus, to punish "virtual" child pornography is not to punish the exploitation of any individuals under the age of consent. It is to punish people for the thought, the idea of having sex with others who cannot consent. This is impermissible. In my view, it is a violation of First Amendment rights (well, depending on which side of the obscenity line it falls under, which would vary depending on the specific nature of the work). Think about it. What thoughts, what ideas, do you want to punish people for promulgating? I do not know how many countless men and women are stimulated by the thought of dominance and submission scenarios (all versions, M/M, M/F, F/M, F/F). Others find these horrendously offensive, particularly the very common M/F, which some allege lead to higher incidences of rape/sexual assault, which are also illegal. Shall we ban those depictions and punish the people who produce or enjoy them? What of the people who advocate sheer violence of one form or another, which also leads to greater violence. What next? Does it matter if we write it in a nice book vs. if we make a movie?
(5) Once we start to censor ideas based on their potential harm, we are driving down a very dangerous road fullspeed ahead. Not sliding down a slope, but driving with the accelerator jammed to the floor. Let's protect the children, but let's not move to suppress only those ideas we find nauseating. Who knows what the next people in charge will find nauseating and threatening to the well-being of someone?
For some reason, I feel tempted to make a vineyard analogy, but I'll cease and desist.
- TP