I don't see why non-consensual gore isn't treated the same as child porn.
Both are done without consent.
Both require someone to be hurt to be created.
Both either have a victim who is dead or who is harmed by the continue spread of the video for entertainment purposes.
Both cross the threshold for obscenity.
Political and historical exceptions would still apply, just like the photo taken of Phan Thi Kim Phuc fleeing a napalm attack is legal since it serves significant political and historic significance, despite it being a literal picture of a naked child being harmed.
> I don't see why non-consensual gore isn't treated the same as child porn.
Because then the video of George Floyd's murder would never have surfaced the way it did. The dissemination was driven by social media and those "bad" gore websites at first, and only later picked up by the professional media.
If there was such a law, even if it had exemptions for cases like the Floyd murder, social media companies would have put a lid on it "just to be safe legally" severely hurting dissemination, and professional media would have maybe reported on it, but wouldn't have shown it because their legal would never have OK'ed showing it.
Yes, it's bad that people use such videos for entertainment, but in my opinion it's worse to hide or penalize publication of videos and pictures of murders (like George Floyd's murder), war atrocities (like the naked Vietnamese girl), or terrorist attacks (like 9/11).
Is a lot of gore footage created for the sake of selling videos? Allowing child porn has the consequence of incentivizing more to be produced. Is anyone producing gore videos in any quantity?
The incentivizing argument seems to be a red herring because in no universe would we legalize some subset of child porn that is shown to not incentivize more being produced, no matter how clearly such a case was shown.
Drawn and computer generated images of that kind are legal under the First Amendment in the USA. I mention it because they are, in contrast, illegal in Canada.
The other argument is that it inflames and encourages desire to assault children in a significant subset (in the sense of risk; i.e. the population doesn't have to be large, only the risk) of those who consume it, and that it does so in a unique way, compared to other forms of media. The other argument is that it's a particularly grave violation of the child's privacy, one they cannot consent to.
Alternatively, we could just bite the bullet and conclude (perhaps rightly) that maybe porn in general has the same negative effects we allege CP to have. I'm not sure if that's true, but if it is, then I think it would make a good case for banning it.
Both are done without consent.
Both require someone to be hurt to be created.
Both either have a victim who is dead or who is harmed by the continue spread of the video for entertainment purposes.
Both cross the threshold for obscenity.
Political and historical exceptions would still apply, just like the photo taken of Phan Thi Kim Phuc fleeing a napalm attack is legal since it serves significant political and historic significance, despite it being a literal picture of a naked child being harmed.