no-belgium-no-problem:

cuntpuppet:

logicallypositive:

One can perhaps make a reasonable case that taking pornographic photos of children should be illegal and immoral. I’d be more tempted to agree to that.

But the mere posession of such photographs? After that the damage has been done. Why should it be illegal to own the photo if you’re not the one who took it?

because you’re creating a potential market and audience for the child’s humiliation, degradation and abuse

 you don’t create markets, you pander to them. Those people already exist.

Or would you prefer “Ghettos exist, we do not profit from them, violence exists, we did not create it?”

ok, pandering to a market then

the main point is that if you went around shoving around (or even accidentally leaving) photos of some 3 year old being anally violated without impunity it’s going to expose more people to their humiliation and abuse

in the real world (aka not libertariania) nobody apart from the sick minded really wants to see that shit so the possession laws serve a purpose