|
被禁止的性行为与性暴力
|
|
成人与儿童的性接触:
儿童色情
4
|
|
各个国家各种各样关于儿童的定义和不同的“允诺年龄”已经表明，抗击儿童色情并不是一个简简单单和直接了当的问题。的确，这一举措已经产生了其他悬而未决的技术和法律问题。例如：
|
-
色情品而被指控的一些男人，原来一种特殊的电脑病毒(例如“特洛伊木马病毒”)感染了这些男人的个人电脑，并在他们不知情的情况下下载了这些图片。
-
民法自由主义者已经指出，惩罚仅仅为私人拥有色情图片（无论它们的特点可能是什么）是值得质疑的。这种政府侵犯私人空间的做法会树立一个令人感到不安的先例，而且也许会树立一个“思想警察”，这将试图压迫所有形式的不受欢迎的个人兴趣与不同政见。
-
当场惩罚拥有儿童色情品，证明这会奖励生产者犯罪，甚至促使他们伤害和剥削更多的儿童。不过，现代电脑技术可以创造”虚拟的“色情图像，即人工合成的、却看起来像写实的、决不会在现实中存在的儿童图像。试图禁止这样的图像会产生全然不同的新问题。的确，美国最高法院已经否决了个这样的案例，判决它违反了言论自由的宪法保障条款
(United States Supreme Court in
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,
2002)
|
|
考虑到这样和那样的有争议的问题，私人公民权利组织试图监控现时的事态发展，并且就权利与自由这两个方面发出警告。
互联网上监控权利与自由的公民自由机构网站(请点击图标)
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.
|
