|
被禁止的性行為與性暴力
|
|
成人與兒童的性接觸:
兒童色情
4
|
|
各個國家各種各樣關於兒童的定義和不同的“允諾年齡”已經表明，抗擊兒童色情並不是一個簡簡單單和直接了當的問題。的確，這一舉措已經產生了其它懸而未決的技術和法律問題。例如： |
-
法院不得不釋放因收集兒童色情品而被指控的一些男人，原來一種特殊的電腦病毒（例如“特洛伊木馬病毒”）感染了這些男人的個人電腦，並在他們不知情的情況下下載了這些圖片。
-
民法自由主義者已經指出，懲罰僅僅為私人擁有色情圖片（無論它們的特點可能是什麼）是值得質疑的。這種政府侵犯私人領地的做法會樹立一個令人感到不安的先例，而且也許會樹立一個“思想警察”，這將試圖壓迫所有形式的不受歡迎的個人興趣與不同政見。
-
當場懲罰擁有兒童色情品，證明這會獎勵生產者犯罪，甚至促使他們傷害和剝削更多的兒童。不過，現代電腦技術可以創造“虛擬的”色情圖像，即人工合成的、卻看起來像寫實的、決不會在現實中存在的兒童圖像。試圖禁止這樣的圖像會產生全然不同的新問題。的確，美國最高法院已經否決了一個這樣的案例，判決它違反了言論自由的憲法保障條款（United
States Supreme Court in Ashcroft v.
Free Speech Coalition, 2002）。
|
|
考慮到這樣和那樣的有爭議的問題，私人公民權利組織試圖監控現時的事態發展，並且就權利與自由這兩個方面發出警告。
互聯網上監控權利與自由的公民自由機構網站 （請點擊圖示）
Web site of a civil liberties organization monitoring rights and liberties in the internet.
(Click on picture.). |
|
 |
|
Prohibited Sexual Behavior and Sexual Violence
|
|
Adult Sexual Contact with Children: Child Pornography 4
|
|
The varying definitions of childhood and the different “ages of consent” in different countries already indicate that the fight against child pornography is not a straightforward, simple matter. Indeed, it has raised several other unresolved technical and legal issues. For example:
|
-
Some men accused of having collected child pornography had to be cleared by the courts, because it turned out that a special computer virus (a “Trojan horse”) had infected their PCs and had downloaded the images without their knowledge.
-
Civil libertarians have pointed out that it is problematical to punish people for the mere private possession of pictures, whatever their character might be. This kind of governmental intrusion into the private sphere sets a worrisome precedent and might end up establishing a “thought police” that would try to suppress all kinds of unpopular interests and dissident opinions.
-
Punishing the possession of child pornography has been justified on the grounds that it rewards its producers for their crimes and encourages them to hurt and exploit even more children. However, modern computer technology allows the creation of “virtual” pornographic images, i.e. artificial, but realistic looking images of children who never existed in reality. Trying to prohibit such images raises entirely new questions. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has struck down such a prohibition as violating the constitutional guarantee of free speech. (United States Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 2002)
|
|
In view of these and other contentious issues, private civil rights groups try to monitor current developments and to warn of excesses in either direction.
|
