Euromutt (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-20-10 06:37 AM
Original message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x284381
Firearms and child pornography: are they really equivalent?
This a topic that's come up in various threads, most recently here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... (starting at post #5). I thought it'd be good to thrash the issue out in a dedicated thread (hopefully once and for all, but who am I kidding?), rather than piecemeal in other threads.
The argument, as posited by sharesunited, comes down to this:
Child pornography causes psychological harm to children, which is why it is prohibited, First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press notwithstanding.
Firearms cause physical harm to children, which is why we should restrict their possession, Second Amendment guarantees of the right of the people to keep and bear arms notwithstanding.
(Feel free to correct my paraphrasing if you feel I'm misrepresenting it, shares.)
The problem with the analogy is that shares is basically incoherent as to whence the harm derives that child pornography inflicts on children. Essentially, child pornography is banned because its manufacture involves the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor who is legally unable to consent. Its distribution and possession does not cause harm directly, but the fear is that it will stimulate demand for more to be manufactured, which will directly cause harm. So the criminalization of distributing and possessing pornography is intended to aid in the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of minors, the latter being the harm caused.
So here's the thing. In this post (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ), sharesunited asserts:
A consensus exists to protect that boy from sexual abuse and exploitation, but not from the gun which physically wounded him.
That's where we find the false equivalence: what is analogous to the sexual abuse and exploitation is not the gun, but (in this particular case) the act of aggravated assault perpetrated on the victim. Aggravated assault is, of course, illegal; in Washington state, it's a Class A felony, the most severe classification of crime. So the consensus to protect the boy from being physically injured with a firearm already exists.
What is analogous to the gun used to commit the assault is the tool used to record the child pornography, i.e. the camera. Does anyone think it's reasonable to ban the manufacture, and possibly private ownership, of cameras in order to prevent child pornography from being produced?
Gun rights is always a fun read in the DU basement.
depakid (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-20-10 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Not a false equivalent at all
not in the slightest.
Both are dealing with absolutist (or extreme) interpretations of a provision in the bill of rights- an interpretation that ends up causing harm (directly and indirectly) to others.
Moreover, in terms of direct textual references- the 1st Amendment case may well be the more compelling from a logical perspective.
as I said...a fun read. depakid is saying that kiddy porn is better protected in the bill of rights than gun ownership. One is stated, one is not...you can guess which one get's it's own ammendment.
paulsby (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-20-10 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. it's of course an absurd equivalency
firearms are morally neutral. they can help children, in the right hands, and harm them , in the wrong hands.
is there ANY juvenile in the US who benefited from child porn?
i guess one could argue traci lords, in a stretch.
child porn is not morally neutral. it's perverse, evil, and disgusting.
guns can empower the physically weak, the vulnerable, the stalked.
child porn cannot.
paulsby takes a stand against kiddyporn. I did not see that coming.
cognoscere (106 posts) Wed Jan-20-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. I would add to the definition
that they propel the projectile safely and accurately. The dictionaries I have looked at make no mention whatsoever about guns being designed to kill, but apparently the anti-gunners would rather make up their own definitions and meanings for words instead of using what society has agreed upon. And for those antis out there who keep parroting the "guns are made to kill" BS, here are a few things that ARE specifically and intentionally designed to kill. The electric chair; gas chamber; guillotine; hangman's noose; and the plumbing used for lethal injections. It's tempting to add the antis intentional intransigence to the list, but that only makes me want to puke.
This post comes from a discussion about the intent of guns vs the intent of kiddyporn. Of course, guns are the bad thing...
X_Digger (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-20-10 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
7. Child porn is to the first amendment as murder via gun is to the second amendment..
ie, the production and distribution of child porn is a non-protected exercise of rights normally protected by the first amendment. Murdering someone with a gun is a non-protected exercise of rights normally protected by the second amendment.
The tools used to produce and distribute child pornography include computers and cameras. The tools used to murder someone with a gun include guns and ammunition.
Until someone starts claiming that cameras and computers need to be limited in order to stop child pornography, the idea of limiting guns and ammunition to stop murder is a false analogy between child pornography and murder.
Somebody wanted to be lawyer SOOOOOOO bad.
