StreetVerse

Palpable Harm and Virtual Pornography

Posted By: Sally Vox
Filed Under: Opinion, Politics on March 15, 2010

I just finished reading this article on the Japanese government’s push to ban hentai which contains girls that appear to be under legal age from being created, sold, or otherwise peddled. Essentially, cartoons appearing to be minors(which to me encompasses almost all of Japanese animated females) in sexual acts would be banned from being sold, or shown in Japan.

Is this right, and could it happen here in America?

Depending on your perspective on the nature and purpose of law, your answer would vary. Many people in this country would say, hell yes, this is right! Any form of child pornography, even virtual /animated, is immoral and therefore illegal. People who watch this stuff are pedophiles or pedophiles-to-be and deserve to be locked up before they can rape my children.

This is what I think: Banning virtual kiddie porn is against the spirit of American law, and should never, ever happen.

Disclaimer: Now before you call the popo on my ass, know this much. I don’t watch or support kiddie porn, real or animated. I think it’s sick and deviant, and anyone who watches it is pretty much a pervert. What, what, what??! Isn’t that psychotically hypocritical? Let me explain.

It is my belief that America is built on an amoral legal system. We are a disestablishmentarianist government, we do not believe in a state church and try to distance ourselves from meddling with religious affairs. This suggests that our laws cannot be based on a particular religion’s moral code, though admittedly, our legal system isn’t a perfect vacuum, so legislation with obvious moral color has, and will continue to be, passed. Though certain individuals, erm parties even, seem to believe otherwise, America was built on law that was amoral. The Constitution was structured loosely and broadly in order to encompass the ideas of all religions, nationalities, and ideas, as long as the actions taken by these individuals did not infringe on the freedoms of anybody else. This is where we can find support for my argument: In the use of palpable harm as a measurement of infringement of personal rights of individuals.

Palpable harm is a real harm: emotional or physical, that is caused by an action or event. Though there is some stretch to this measure (Did that naked guy running through the street really cause palpable harm?), there is definitely a limit to its use. Back in the crazy fucked up 80’s, we had the case of Bower vs. Hardwick, wherein two gay guys were busted for having sex within the confines of a home, with the curtains drawn and the door closed. They were charged with sodomy (illegal in that state). The Supreme Court upheld this fucked up arrest, saying that nowhere in the Constitution did it allow (paraphrased) “butt fucking as a universal inalienable right under the Constitution”. The Court underestimated the righteous fury of gay men scorned. Seventeen long years later, Lawrence vs. Texas overturned this decision. Pretty much the same case as before, two gay guys doing it in a room, except it was even more fucked up this time because someone called in a robbery (he fucking knew they were having sex) in progress, just to stop these gays from making butt love. In a stunning 6-3 decision, the Court stated under the 14th amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, there is no legitimate state interest in banning sodomy, there is no palpable harm caused by consensual sex behind closed doors, and essentially: stop whining about mental images, you fucking pansies (I’m pretty sure he actually said this). Imagination does not create palpable harm. Yes, if the two gay guys were butt nekkid on the front porch with bright neon arrows pointing into their rectums, besides being completely psychotic, it would be illegal. Sex behind closed doors? Hey, let em do their thing. Imagined harm is not palpable harm. Just ‘cause I imagine two sweaty muscular dudes playing pocket pool with each other doesn’t mean they should be arrested. Now onto child porn.

First let’s talk about the difference between real child porn and virtual child porn. Real child porn causes palpable harm. How? Well, besides the little child getting abused in the video/picture, if you buy it, view it, give money to the person who made it somehow (advertisements etc.), you perpetuate abuse and create a real and palpable harm. Virtual porn, on the other hand, creates no palpable harm. No child is abused when pictures are drawn, and giving the hentai artist money won’t directly cause children to be hurt.

But Sally, what about those pedos who watch kiddie hentai, won’t this fuel their carnal desires to predate younglings? Well, the same can be said for violence, sex, and drugs in movies, video games, music, art…just because you see it, doesn’t necessarily make you more likely to do it. I love violent video games, but you don’t see me stabbing people with samurai swords.

If there is no one being physically harmed, and no one is being emotional harmed(no one is forcing you to view such objectional content), there is no palpable harm. We can’t punish the few in favor of the many cases that this decision would cause. Similar legislation has recently been overturned, so I am not alone in this. There are more complex ways of arguing the same point (rational basis, and strict scrutiny tests), but this is the simplest way I can put it.

Kiddie porn: bad. Banning something that does not cause palpable harm: also bad.

Hopefully you can see the broader implications of what this case means. E.g. Hey what else doesn’t cause palpable harm? *Smokes a J*

About the Author