zlacker

>>miohta+(OP)
To those asking you are right that there is no victim. The issue that they are trying to solve is that allowing this will (or at least may) harm society in the long term by normalizing the content. We've somewhat lost the way to communicate this idea in our current individualist society. In East Asia for example all porn is censored not because it is helping victims but as an attempt to enforce a certain level of morality in their societies. Even though in many of these places there is no real recourse for distributing uncensored porn and all those countries are generally atheist. It is more about having the law so as to keep it from becoming accepted in society. We can argue whether that is a desirable value for society but I don't think anyone is saying there is a victim for this crime. It may also be worthwhile to compare this with public indecency laws that exist here which range from prescribing minimum attire in public to the banning of public defecation. There are many differences in practice between all these points but I think they all touch on the point of victimless crimes to some extent.

>>fngjdf+Ke
I'll preface this by saying I am in favor of making AI child porn illegal. There are probably some details there that will need to be ironed out, but as a baseline it is a good idea.

In your text, however, there is something I find far more interesting for discussion:

> enforce a certain level of morality in their societies

I, personally, like this. I think a society should have a level of enforced moral behavior. But by going down this road, you can reach some undesirable conclusions super fast.

>>surgic+6l
> I think a society should have a level of enforced moral behavior.

I, as a person with superior moral principles, completely agree. Following an old tradition, we should also put some psychopaths in charge of enforcement.