I don’t know if I think it should be legalized, I just think we need to approach the whole issue with less “Eew! Throw that pervert in prison!” and more “who’s being harmed?”

And I agree. My problem is not just that the guy has an unnatural attraction to underage kids, because the judge is right, if he gets therapy and doesn’t act on his urges that harm can be contained. My problem is that he’s consuming images that are produced under conditions of exploitation and abuse. The sweatshop analogy isn’t correct, because clothes can be produced under other conditions and when you buy an item of clothing the manner in which it’s produced isn’t automatically obvious. But unless this man is stealing people’s innocent “baby’s first bath” or similar photos from the lab and using those to wank off on, or creating computer generated images of children who don’t exist in reality, it’s pretty much inescapable and undeniable that they were produced under criminal conditions, making him some degree of an accessory.

It’s effectively outsourcing the exploitation of children. I’m not sure why the fact that you didn’t contract specifically for person X to commit a crime against person Y should mitigate your responsibility for a crime that was a precondition of whatever materials you consume. [General “you,” not specific.]

Exactly.

I mean, it’s a statutory rape case. This is what the laws were meant to keep from happening. If you start handing out passes to people who have sex with children because they’re upset and distraught that the child misled them, you might as well not bother.

Dear god, exactly.

Yes, the law should take both intent and effect into account – but it already does through the way statutory rape is defined and the fact that there are all kinds of other things you can be charged with with regards to sex with a minor. (molestation, solicitation, abduction, assault, just plain rape, etc.)

All this “well, he didn’t mean to…” is just another variation of “only monsters are capable of rape, (blank) is a normal guy, not a monster, therefore (blank) coulnd’t have raped anyone.”

Bullshit.

As far as the issue of him now being registered as a sexual offender, the major problems with the way we register sex offenders are mostly a result of the false “only monsters rape” mentality. For this reason, most feminists I know disagree with the way sex offender registries are currently done and would be more than willing to join forces to reform them.

Wait, wasn’t this rape, therefore, against her will (the 10 year-old)?

It doesn’t seem that way from the case. It appears only to be statutory rape.

I don’t disagree with this exactly, but I do think that people get all grossed out by child porn and then penalize possession of it overly harshly. The reasoning that it in fact supports the sexual exploitation of children is a somewhat post hoc justification for the punishment.

I don’t think it just supports post hoc the sexual exploitation of children. That’s an ex ante condition of the production of child pornography. It’s effectively outsourcing the exploitation of children. I’m not sure why the fact that you didn’t contract specifically for person X to commit a crime against person Y should mitigate your responsibility for a crime that was a precondition of whatever materials you consume. [General "you," not specific.]

After all, a lot of the things that we consume are produced through the exploitation of children (and adults), but I don’t see a lot of call for jailing people who knowingly buy from sweatshops.

True, but that’s tu quoque. It doesn’t mitigate the wrong done in the child pornography scenario and mean it shouldn’t be punished.