Surname 3
However, it can be argued that group polarization does not serve as a sufficient reason to
criminalize the virtual child pornography. This argument is on the basis that group polarization
emanates primarily out of speech through discussions by the like-minded. Viewing of imaging,
therefore, a negligible role player in the problem. Due to this, policies should thus be out in place
to prevent pedophiles from seeking each other out. However, such a move will result in the
conflict of freedom of speech with that of forestalling present and clear dangers. The argument of
virtual child pornography harming children is, therefore, weak.
The utilitarian view can be used to analyze the virtual child pornography. In this view,
the person viewing these images is considered as an upstanding citizen who rarely hurt anyone.
Such people use the materials for the control of their impulses and urge to avoid hurting other
people. From this standpoint, it is wrong to say that the act of entertaining virtual child
pornography is wrong. A utilitarian will, therefore, think that it is fine because the virtually
generated computer images are not hurt in any way (Sandin, 217-223). On such a ground, such a
person has produced the greatest good as per utilitarian requirement.
Conclusively, the virtual child pornography requires a detailed understanding of the
technology, ethics, social and the legal aspects. The US Supreme Court after analyzing the issue
opted to the utilitarian view in the ruling that free speech was of more importance compared to
the moral downsides of the children’s virtual pornography. The view, however, calls for an in-
depth understanding of the realization of the child pornography. The empirical questions
associating the virtual child pornography consumption with child abuse, however, calls for an
extensive research to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
