Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Upholds Ban On Pseudo-Kiddie Porn
bmasel writes "The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has become the
third federal appeals court to uphold a federal law expanding the definition of child pornography to
include computer-generated images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct -- even if the images only appear to be of a minor." Once upon a time, the justification for bans on child pornography was that such a ban would reduce the abuse of children. Now the justification has changed to something along the lines of "These are ugly pictures, and so we should ban them." It's a major change, but the courts are supporting it.
Saying that there is nothing wrong with certain strings of 1's and 0's is like saying that there is nothing wrong with the certain way that light-waves bounce off a surface which retains certain waves and prevents them from escape so as to display what appears to be child pornography.
---
seumas.com
I thought that the problem with morality and ethics is that I'm always right? (Apply to each individual who comments on their own morality or ethics).
---
seumas.com
RE: :) I just wanted to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the term.
:)
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your attempts at being sympathetic to the devil are lost on me. Totally. If your friend has a picture of a little girl (or boy) being sexually interfered with or even if it's just she or he being exploited for erotic purposes, that means that somewhere there is a little girl or boy in the hands of people who are doing this to him or her. And if he's collecting, trading, enjoying, whatever said material, he's contributing to it. I don't know why you're having difficulty understanding this.
RE: In this, I expect that you will stop equating the word pedophila with 'abusers of children', because that can cause innocent people to be persecuted for the abuse of children.
And is he really innocent? He's somehow managed to get hold of child porn. I don't think it's something you wake up one morning and magically find on your hard drive. He's gone looking for it. Innocent is the little child who has no idea why the man with the camera is taking her clothes off, not the guy having totally inappopriate thoughts while looking at the picture.
RE: Here's the problem: I like my friend. I get drunk with him.. we go to clubs and talk about chicks.
Well, there are things about him you didn't know.
RE: He pays his taxes.. he loves his girlfriend.
Does SHE know there are pictures of little girls on his hard drive? I don't think so. Wow, this just gets better and better.
RE: He has lots of friends at work, and writes damned fine code.
I'm a fan of Java as well (bada, boom, ching), but this has nothing to do with the fact that he is involved in something very dark and abusive. Did you expect rapists and murderers to look like hunchbacked, evil people? Guess what, they're next door. There are children out there who are being physically abused and noone would ever guess cause Daddy's a fine upstanding pillar of the community active in his church etc etc etc dosen't fit the stereotype of the alcoholic in the trailer park.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I'm sorry. That was horrible humor. I'll stick the No Score +1 Bonus on right this damn minute...
---
seumas.com
Well, there are some problems with that too. First of all, everyone caught with diddler material will claim it's computer generated. That means all child pr0n will move to CDROMS and therefore noone will ever be charged or convicted, and the molestation will continue. In fact, it might get worse because with the legal risk removed, or worse, if the politically correct liberals poison the collective mind of this country and have everyone believe it's OK to have sex with children. Second of all, mocked up or not, that kind of material is used to get children to ACTUALLY perform those acts, so there's proven harm resulting from child pr0n production. I'm not even touching about effects of pr0nography on people's minds, cause it can't be proven either way, but there's enough sickos out there without society giving more people ideas...
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
You see, the idea of harm reduction comes into play, here. Someone on heroin has problems, and should be treated as such. Speech, depending on what it is, doesn't cause harm. Kiddie porn does cause harm, a lot of harm, a lot of irreperable harm. Stopping some kids from showing off they can copy a DVD is trivial. Stopping people from abusing and humiliating children for fun and profit is paramount. Most dangerous criminals were abused as children and there are proven links between abuse and violent behaviour later on in life. This isn't just some little girl's problem, it's everyone's problem.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Granted, images of child pornography have always been illegal, but the difference is that in the past it was impossible to create such images without actually abusing children.
What about drawings and paintings?
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Pictures of genital or anal region of any person under the age of 18.
It can't be literally so. How does the police document cases of abuse on children if they can not take pictures?
And it was also pointed the case of medical training.
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Um.. not the article does not say that.. to quote the law as stated in the article.. "any visual depiction, including any photography, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture ... of sexually explicit conduct, where ... such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
Noticibally absent is any statement on the realism of the image in question, such as the word "actual" in addition the law also classes any image that...
"is advertised,promoted, presented, described or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." ...as child porn, so even animation could fall under that catagory if it's advertised that way.
In the not-so-ancient China, you are married off when you are 13 or 14. And have kids by 15.
I think this story is replicated many times through many other cultures : Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek etc..
Then came along Judeo-Christeo ethics, and there goes the neigbourhood.
You can say that out current cultural norms, of which the laws are based on, has the last say.
Not that that's anything bad of course : it's just a fact of life. If you want to whine about it, you had better start a new culture, or a new religion.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
There is no proof, or even reliable evidence, that homosexuality is not a (mental) disease/disorder
And just how, praytell, would one go about proving a negative anyway?
(it's easier to see if you take your head out of the sand, btw.)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
Yes, it is literally so. Here is the text from the bill (verbatim)
:o)
163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or
(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.
How does the police document cases of abuse on children if they can not take pictures?
Presumably, the police wouldn't arrest themselves.
This is just a bad law, plain and simple. The example of abuse documentation or medical training are just two examples of how poorly thought-out it is... the amazing thing is that the politicians who passed this piece of garbage were told that it needed to be fixed, but they passed it anyway.
I like to watch the sopranos on sunday nights.
does that make me a mobster? should i be thrown in prison?
As I've said before and will say AGAIN. Given that child pr0n is either evidence of a crime or used to get children to commit crimes, never mind the fact that wanting to look at same is unhealthy, very suspect, and might well push a "attracted to but wouldn't actually follow through on his desires" type over the edge...
I'm sure there are heroin addicts who get on with life quite fine, thanks. But many of them end up slumped behind dumpsters raging with HIV and hepatitis, which is why in the interest of the public and private good, heroin is illegal.
Everyone accused of real child pr0n will try and get it thrown out on a "this is digitally altered" technicality, which will make prosecuting the real producers next to impossible. Only the truly sick (child pr0n consumers) would support the notion of making fake child pr0n illegal.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I'm not saying he's evil, I'm saying he's sick. I'm saying that people who want to produce child pr0n are evil.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
When I was a kid I used to have toy guns that looked for all the world like Uzis, Colt 1911s, Beretta 92FSs, HK MP5s, you name what else too. Now they are all made using silly colored plastic, it's sad that things have changed so much that it's necessary to do that because it's now possible that a cop could encounter a kid with a REAL Beretta. Several kids have been killed over the years for brandishing real looking toy guns.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This will be a surefire way to assure molestation and child-rape continues on under the blankets of Canada. If you can't even write about it, then it's difficult to make people aware of it. Maybe the next step is to ban the publication of any books which talk about crimes. If people don't know that crimes are committed, they won't occur!
---
seumas.com
Its important to note that its the crown attornies that have appealed this to the supreme court, because the British Columbia court ruled in favour of the person charged. Hence, possesion of these images is not currently a crime in that province.
This is one area where the Canadian Alliance would invoke the NOT WITHSTANDING clause in the charter, and why I just cannot fathom voting for a party that endorses invoking this clause for every judgement they don't like.
What one person finds essential free speech someone else will always find offensive. Persecuted and paranoid individuals will always find something sick and disgusting about what you love. Kiddie porn is one case where almost everyone agrees that it is offensive. If you want to see what "offensive" means, take a look at this review of the Truman Show (actually the viewer responses). The site is full of them. Chip away at your freedoms and soon you will have none in the face of people like this.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Its hard to get indignant about emergent properties of the universe!
Once again, I say ... stop child abuse, not bit strings :)
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
I'd much rather have the pedophiles sitting home modelling 3D images than out abusing children...
If there's no victim, then what's to determine what's a crime and what isn't? Who is to judge which of the pictures I keep on my computer are illegal or not? And who's to judge what "looks like" child porn or not?
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
RE: I consider you to be a more dangerous person than my friend.
In that you are wrong. If I was to know of someone out there molesting children, and do nothing, that would be the dangerous thing. Because those children grow up. And many of them become VERY ANGRY adults.
Normal human beings find kiddie porn sick and think that diddlers and those who agree with them should be locked up. Go into any prison system and you will find that diddlers do not last long. There was a case in france recently where some construction workers came across a guy trying to rape a little girl. They attached him to the wall with an air hammer until the cops arrived. Well, actually, until someone arrived with bolt cutters to get him off the wall. Were they jailed? No.
RE: Perhaps you are so insecure in yourself that you can't help announcing your rightousness to others, but that is no excuse.
Oh spare me. Hear that sound? It's the sound of the world's smallest violin, and it's playing for you. Your friend I advise to get help. Your response is to tell me that I'm not politically correct because I don't equate the desire to interfere sexually with children with normal, adult, consenting behaviour??? Well you my friend are very deluded. You have no idea how pervasive, how poisonous, and how very very serious this issue is.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Thanks.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
Alright, I'll freely admit I am not thinking straight, and in fact said some things I don't mean. I really wouldn't kill anyone. I might fly into a massive rage and smack them around before calling 911, but not kill.
This is a VERY sore subject with me, I was almost attacked myself at a young age. As far as I am concerned, if someone has urges then no, they shouldn't be jailed for it. But participating in kiddie porn isn't right. At all. And trafficking in it, or any reasonable facsimile thereof, should be a crime.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
That was an exaggeration and turn of phrase. I'm sorry, I want to make it clear I wouldn't physically kill someone. I meant it in the same way someone would say "I'll give them trouble" as in "I'll kill that kid when he gets home" meaning to ground, etc. but said as such for emphasis. Sorry for any fright, fear, worry, or pain that caused. I shouldn't argue about this, I have too strong an opinion about it.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
"tax-evasion, recreational drug use, bootlegging, copyright infingement, etc. all victimless crimes, all being prosecuted at this momment"
Is tax-evasion a victimless crime? Everyone else who pays taxes is a victim if someone fails to pay over an extended period of time, because budgets have to be adjusted and taxes have to meet those budgets.
Recreational drug use has arguments both ways. For example, if a person who is a parent with children home is using recreational drugs while their children are running about, Child Protective Services has every right to intervene citing the illicit and imparing substance is interfering with being a parent. I feel the same way about excessive alcohol consumption around kids. I don't know of very many situations like in "Eyes Wide Shut" where the couple engages in drug use because they can afford it and don't have to do anything f*ed up to get them...
Bootlegging and copyright infringement can be seen as turning the copyright holder and/or artist into a victim. If I were performing, I don't think I'd want people taperecording my performance and selling it, they didn't DO anything to deserve money from that. Copyright can be applied the same way. I do think there are abuses on the other side too, like CSS and the like, but these ALL generally have victims.
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Well, I've retracted the statement I made above.
Look, all I'm saying is this. There is really no argument for child pornography. At the very least, it encourages dangerous feelings in people, at the very most, it is literally evidence of a crime in as much as it is the result of crimes against a child. And it is used as a tool by child molesters to lure children into their webs.
Your friend needs to know this. And to get help. Please get him that help.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
What is a minor indeed? And what the fuck is pornography? When I was 12, I got on the internet for the first time, for obvious reasons: Because I'd heard that there was porn there. So I set out to get porn, and what kind of porn do you think I was looking for? I was looking for porn of kids my age, what you are so negatively calling kiddie-porn.
Now, I would be the first person to stand up and say that no children should be forced to do anything, including anything sexual. But if we've defining "children" as anyone under 18, then there are lots of "children" out there who have sex. Let me say that again, they have sex, totally voluntarily. Hell, they even enjoy it! I started having sex when I was 15, and I was trying to have sex since I was 12. This is natural, and I think the real change that needs to take place is not in legislation, but in our rediculous sexual taboos.
Joshua
BTW, it should be noted that this is not an attack on Seumas' post that I am replying to, this just seemed like a good place to put this.
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
I almost agreed with you till the last bit. If you want freedom of data for kiddie porn, then along with that copyright should be out the window completely. That's putting monitory interests above the interests of the children that were molested to create kiddie porn. If any control of data is allowed, things like kiddie porn where someone's rights were violated to create it should not be allowed.
Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on these issues.
IMHO of course.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Simply target these groups or remove them from society.
I realy hope that you're joking. Virtually ALL rapists are male. Do you wish to remove most of them from society and place the rest under constant police monitor to prevent them from raping anyone?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I despise Child Pornography as much as the next person. However, consider the following. If you have your closet pedophile, would you rather he A: look at pictures, whack off, and get it out of his system, or B: go find a child, violate him/her, and get it out of his system.
In case A, this person could otherwise be a functional, safe member of society. He has a problem and he has found a way to deal with it without hurting anyone in the process. He can't go to a psycologist about it anymore, because doctor/patient confidentiality in such cases isn't very solid. I could tell my doctor that I murdered 10 people and he couldnt' say anything about it. But if I tell him I touched a child he HAS to report it.
The REAL issue here isn't regarding actual porn but benign pictures of minors that aren't in any way involved in sexual situations, but someone PERCEIVES them to be sexual and a braindead judge agrees. Its not too hard in today's society of the easily offended that someone could look at a picture of a girl in a bikini and find it offending. To make matters worse, it doesn't even have to be a minor.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
AFAIK (I haven't used that in a while) Japanese hentai has a bunch of 15, 16 year old girls pretending to be barely 18 being gang raped by aliens. Isn't that also "against the law" or are drawings any different than CGI? Also, does that mean that if someone gets a Britney fake and says that she was 17 when that was made is it a crime? Damn, does that mean that everybody has to throw out their favorite Britney fake where Eminem is 'taking her roughly'?
Anyway, on a similar note, when two 16 year old kids are caught having sex should both of them be acused of abusing a minor? Times have changed people, 15 year old girls ARE NOT the same 15 year old girls of 15 years ago!
--
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
I'd have to say, if that kind of thing were prevented from ever happening again, that would be very very good.
Age of consent for vaginal intercourse is 14.
Age of consent for anal intercourse is 18. (Although this is being appealed as unconstitutional, apparently a guy thinks it discriminates against gay men)
Under bill C-128 (currently before the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional), the following is illegal:
The parts in bold are (supposedly) the reasons the laws are under appeal - in reality, the guy who took this to the supreme court got busted for real kiddie porn, but he's claiming that the law is unconstitutional (which it is), so he can't be charged under it.
There was a national cop convention last year, in which Chiefs of Police of various cities across the country said they are going to petition the government to raise the age of consent to 16 - whether they'll succeed or not is anyone's guess
The article states, "Congress passed the CPPA in 1996 to address new problems caused by technological advances, such as the digital alteration of photographic images to create child pornography." The author doesn't seem to appreciate the difference between altering real photos and completely synthetic imagery. And with good software there needn't be any "pornographic" files on the computer - just 3D models that software can cause to appear pornographic. The 3D models themselves might not be pornographic until altered by software. If nothing is saved to disk is this legal? Obviously the law isn't compatible with state of the art in computer graphics systems.
The point is, it's not illegal to own photographs of somebody murdering a person. Murder is just as illegal as conducting a kiddie porn photo shoot, but photographs of murders are not illegal to own. Why?
I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement that its wrong to abuse children...
But kiddy porn, is, just data. its 1's and 0's ... the fact that the court choses to view some 1's and 0's as kiddy porn, others as constitutionally protected speach, others as renegade code for pirating DVD's, and yet others as pattented (ie gif's) -- is wrong.
I feel in the long run its an abridgment of my rights not to be able to have ceartin types of data in my posession ... its all just data! If they want to stop child abuse -- stop drug use, which is responsible for something 80% of child abuse. It always easy to ring the kiddy porn bell for political reasons ... most people hate it, and those who don't, aren't very vocal :)
I'd like to see a couple ammendments to the constitution, something along the lines of the universal turing principle right ... the right to execute any algorithim! And the right to have to have any bit string (with modest exemptions for copyrighted material for say, 5 years :)
The measure of our freedom is now how we treat the speach we like, but how we tolerate the speach we hate.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Young teenagers may at least have enough world experence to be able to deal with the abuse to some degree.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
On a strictly moral or ethical standpoint I can understand the prohibition on kiddie porn. In cases of actual pictures, some child must be abused to create the images. In the case of cgi, it will be pedophiles who are seeking it out and it may embolden them to to take the step of making their fantasy reality.
On the other hand we have free speech issues. If we can decide that one type of image is illegal, how long until someone tries to draw a link between all types of images and sexual violence?
I can only resolve these two by thinking that each incident should be considered on a case by case basis.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
What next? Because murder is illegal, should we criminalize first-person shooters like Quake and Unreal because they contain computer-generated images of people being murdered? This ruling sets a dangerous precedent.
Also "only appear to be of a minor" means that you have an 18-year-old who looks 12.
I don't think computer graphics comes into this, to be honest. At least, that's not the impression I get from reading the article.
If you don't set the standard of proof in child pornography cases so that the offence is of possessing or making images of what appear to be children, those who have to detect and prosecute this stuff are left in the invidious position of, every time they bring charges, having to prove that Exhibit A is of an actual child or of someone who was a child at the time rather than something mocked up in PhotoShop or similar.
It's not about ensuring that ugly pictures get prosecuted, it's about denying those who make such pictures a plausible defence that'd get them away with it given a sufficiently suggestible jury (ie about 90% of them).
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
In the states, you become a legal adult at 18. You still can't drink or run for president, but you can certainly buy cigarettes, sign contracts, vote, or have nekkid pictures taken of you.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Also, since the law is open to interpretation but the judge/jury, I doubt either of you would have gotten in any trouble.
--
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
The dose of reality is that you have a friend who is sexually interested in children. He should get help. I know in this permissive age we seem to think everything's OK, but children do NOT have the same headspace as adults, and the taboo against exploiting children exists for a reason. Ask anyone dealing with the childhood trauma of abuse.
Child pornography is used to excite people who have an interest in molesting children. I refuse to use the term "pedophile" because that means "lover of children" and people who have TRUE love of children do not want to use them for their own gratification nor exploit them.
Child pornography is also used by abusers to lure children into performing certain acts. The rationale is "See, it's OK. Look at these pictures. These kids are doing it too."
Go read up on the issue, like I did (check out Andrew Vachss' web site, the Zero) and it'll become clear as to why every effort MUST be made to stamp out child pr0n. It is NOT an "alternative lifestyle" (there are not two consenting adults), it is NOT something cool or remotely healthy. Yes, call the cops. Because wherever that guy got those JPGs or whatever from, there are some little girls and boys being abused.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
There is no evidence suggesting that pedophilia can be "cured" any more than homosexuality, which most rational human beings don't consider a disease.
I know in this permissive age we seem to think everything's OK, but children do NOT have the same headspace as adults, and the taboo against exploiting children exists for a reason. Ask anyone dealing with the childhood trauma of abuse.
Huh?
Why are you intentionally blurring the lines between sex and abuse? This is exactly the type of shit that causes hateful agression in the first place! Dude - chill. Some times bad things happen to good people. People get shot, people get beaten, people lose all of their money, and sometimes people get raped. I don't dispute that. But the solution to this problem is *not* to redefine what we consider abuse! Just growing the set of actions which we consider "abuse" does not prevent it!
Child pornography is used to excite people who have an interest in molesting children.
It's also used by pedophiles. What's your point?
I refuse to use the term "pedophile" because that means "lover of children" and people who have TRUE love of children do not want to use them for their own gratification nor exploit them.
Child pornography is also used by abusers to lure children into performing certain acts. The rationale is "See, it's OK. Look at these pictures. These kids are doing it too."
Oh.. I get it.
Look. I don't think there's anything that I can say to inspire some sort of reason. You've been so hard-wired by 80's / 90's society that any citation of historical beliefs, situations, etc., would be of little relevance.
the following is illegal: Pictures of genital or anal region of any person under the age of 18.
So how are pediatricians supposed to learn how to treat diseases in that area of a child's body?
Will I retire or break 10K?
There AREN'T any children actually in this at this point, that's what the entire basis for the discussion IS! Last time I checked, victimless crimes weren't crimes... The only major abuse of this that I am aware of is when recreational mary-jane users get busted. I have seen some really interesting character models and skins for Poser, and many of the images that people are making for the CGI erotica sites ARE of 'appearing underage' people. The thing that is ironic is that there were never any children involved in the first place. Yeah, I find some of the pictures distasteful, and I have been offended by some, but I don't have the right to not be offended. In fact, I don't even have to frequent sites like these if I don't want to.
/.
I personally doubt that images like these contribute to the criminal psyche, though not being a psychologist I cannot say definitively either way. I wish the court would join us and educate itself about technology and how technology works, so stupid judgements become less of a topic on
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Now it says the latter. Pictures don't have to be "taken" anymore, to become illegal. They merely need to cause arousal.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Agreed. But is it something you should be imprisoned for? That is, logically, the next step.
Anyway, you're probably right on target there. The funny thing is that most normal adults can be aroused by anything - a picture doesn't have to depict nudity to create arousal (actually, I find swimsuit/lingerie imagery to be more arousing than straight nudity). Do such pictures suddenly become pornography - or are they only pornographic to me - and who decides?
Good question... even better, now that the mere possession of a computer generated picture that someone finds offensive could land your ass in prison. :)
BTW - what I meant about being "taken" - I kinda meant in the general sense - I guess the correct word would have been "creation" - but even that doesn't work right with today's technology.
Oh - yeah, I know. I just wanted to exaggerate the distinction between being punished for hurting someone, and being punished for thinking something. Basically a rhetorical "me too." ;)
--
All men are great
before declaring war
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
If people don't know that crimes are committed, they won't occur!
Wasn't that one of the themes of the book? With Newspeak, there wasn't enough vocabulary to commit thoughtcrime, thus thoughtcrime would be abolished when Newspeak was completely adopted as the only language for communication.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
If they can crack down on anything that resembles kiddie porn, it makes it easier to crack down on kiddie porn. The purpose of this it so that the authorities don't have to find the poor kid in the picture to get a conviction.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
This is one more step toward American society becoming a police state. As the news post says, this is a major shift in the intent of the law here. I fully agree that child pornography should be illegal and that those who abuse children should be punished severely. However, the law has shifted from criminalizing abuse to criminalizing imagery. Granted, images of child pornography have always been illegal, but the difference is that in the past it was impossible to create such images without actually abusing children. Now that's all changed, yet the law does not recognize the distinction. I guess I'm not too surprised, though, as my understanding is that any images that appear to depict children in sexual situations - even if the models are of legal age - are illegal. The courts are basically attempting to criminalize being sexually aroused by children. Sure, it's easy to argue that that's a good thing, but where does it end? Whose rights to free thought will be taken away next?
That's actually... correct.
"No, officer, I really do have a kiddie porn anti-fetish! Seeing it turns me off!"
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
The children!!!
If it can be proven that a person was involved in taking pictures of children or knowingly distributing child porn then it should be illegal. If there is any question whatsoever that the girl is over 18 and they can't prove the person thought it was then I don't think they should be punished. Also even if they thought the girl was under 18, if it's proven she wasn't then I think they should have to let them go.
Imagine you have a multimedia authoring tool that lets you, at your own screen, adjust some controls and visualize whatever you specify.
Lets say you can tweak the age and appearance of each actor independantly. Also, you can play back "script templates", which tell the virtual actors what to do.
If the scripts include sexual scenarios (which would by far be the biggest market for this!), some states of this dynamic simulation could be illegal.
Are you a criminal if they bust on you when you have a dynamic kiddie-porn image on your screen?
What if its not up on the screen, but the log file shows you had the controls both set to "12" and "Fuck" at some time before?
The point I am driving at here is there is a subtle boundary between your fantasy realized in multimedia and in your own mind.
To me, if no child was actually exploited in the physical world, then there are no grounds for prosecution.
Look, nowhere at all do I suggest jailing someone for BEING anything. And you can knock off the "pedophiles are misunderstood, snif, they're people, just like you and me" crap for a moment.
There are also people who have homicidal urges. And strangely enough, when we identify people who do these kinds of things, we take em out of society. I'm waiting for you to bleeding heart that "homicidal people are people too, snif, they're people just like you and me."
RE: Why are you intentionally blurring the lines between sex and abuse? This is exactly the type of shit that causes hateful agression in the first place! Dude - chill.
Sexually interfering with a child IS abusive. Period. I know that some lib lefty thinktank has said that it's OK, but lib lefty thinktanks have also produced reports saying that it's an act of violence to teach your child to read. I suggest quite strongly that you wake up. Whereas I wasn't sexually interfered with as a child, I went to a school where it went on. And some of those people tried to kill themselves. One tried to kill someone else.
It repulses me that while there's ample evidence that using a child for sexual gratification is wrong and hurtful, we like to use "nicey nicey" words like FONDLING rather than SEXUAL ASSAULT, and "paedophile" rather than "sick bastard who wants to diddle kids."
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
If the police ask this man whether he has ever seen dirty pictures in that house, he might be legally obliged to answer truthfully, but he is NO required to report every possible crime.
Since possession of images of immoral acts is so terribly wrong, by the way, I take it you have ripped out all the pages in your history texts that picture, or even describe, Nazi death camps, the Inquisition, etc? Obviously you can't read the paper or watch TV news, because all sorts of crimes are displayed there.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
That's what a paedophile is. That's like saying "I don't understand why you equate being a thief with stealing stuff."
Even if your friend only has pornography lying around, he's TECHNICALLY SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO ABUSE CHILDREN. It's just as much a crime to pay someone to make a snuff video and watch it as it is to actually kill someone yourself.
Clue train pulled into the station yet?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
According to the Webster's (online) pedophile: one afflicted with pedophilia: Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.
Now, this technically in and of itself doesn't warrant censure - the person is mentally ill (note that you suggested Webster's, and it says perversion - not quite what you anticipated!). However, your friend (assuming it's you - you AC's look all alike) who collects pedophilic material is contributing to the abuse of children, (if noone buys it, then they won't make it) and has evidence of a crime in his house. You are enabling him by supporting his position and not reporting him to the authorities, just like not reporting a drunk driver who hasn't killed anyone yet. Intervene for this person's own good, and because there are children in the area.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Sorry, explain who benefits again?
--
Xenu loves you!
pedophiles are not a problem. pedosexuals are. it's perfectly alright to love kids. it is not alright to fuck kids.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
That would except abuse documentation and medical teaching, in my understanding.
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Well, I hope you don't discover someone you care about is a Nazi! How would you ever have a deep, caring, and meaningful philosophical discussion on Slashdot about Nazis? It's impossible -- people have learned to just SHUT THE FUCK UP when the conversation turns to Nazis. We just don't talk about Nazis any more. And its really, really sad -- Nazis are people with feelings too! Just like pedophiles!
Shut up, guys. Blue, stop arguing with the AC Troll. Troll, go boil your head in acid. We all know the fat gay pedophile "friends" you keep talking about are really just you. And any of you other Humbert Humberts out there reading this -- go douse yourself with gas, and set yourself on fire.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Well, let's put it this way. The girl in realdoll who wanted a child one so her father would leave her alone - isn't that statement alone a testament to how evil attacking children this way is? I hate to say this, but having fake child pr0n will NOT stop predatory behavior. In fact, it will feed it, and aid and abet it, for reasons I have already gone into. The response to "I like to hurt children" isn't "well hey, let's feed this fantasy of yours" it should be some kind of therapy.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
If you are offended by people's opinions which differ substantially from the norm, please move along to the next comment. You may become as ill as I did, reading the article. :)
This law is almost beyond comprehension to me, a person who identifies with people stricken with pedophilia. You see, I used to be a gay basher. I used to make fun of fags all the time. They seriously used to scare me. One day, I found out that one of my best friends was gay.
It was like a blow to the mind. I was like.. holy shit. Man.. what should I do? This faggot .. this stupid shitpacking faggot is my best friend. Does that make me a fag too?
You have to understand. I was only 15.. and people made fun of me for being slightly overweight. Any chance I'd get to poke fun at a group of people, I'd do it - this raised my own status. Anyway... In the course of a few seconds (which seemed like an eternity).. I realised that I was a stupid person. I was the one who was derranged - attacking something because it was popular to do so. My friend told me what it was like. And I accepted that. Bam.. just like that. It's like.. something you believe in your heart - something you'd beat up someone for.. something which inspires your hate so much.. it was all so wrong.
I'm grown up now. And I found out that one of my other friends I had known for years has an attraction to young girls. I was searching through his hard disk for mp3s (while he was out pickin up a case of beer) and found some .jpg's that were poorly hidden. You know what?
I used to hate on pedophiles too, cause that was the hip thing to do. But instead of barfing at the thought, I checked them out. Hmm. Not much to comment on. Most were pictures of girls, clothed, non clothed, a few engauged in 'sexual acts'. None of them violent, or even what (if it were older people) any would consider reprehensible.
Ok.. so I'm faced with a decision. Do I pick up the phone and call the cops on a friend? No. Cause that .. just .. ain't .. cool. Instead, I closed it all, sat on his couch, waited for him to get home, then carefully asked him about it.
You know what I found?
He's still a pretty decent guy.
He told me about this realization that he came to when he was like 16. That he found younger girls more attractive. He told me about the frustration he went through for years; something this horrible beyond comprehension is nigh impossible to even *discuss* with other people. I mean... not confess, discuss .
I was the first person (outside the Internet) who found out about this hidden reality.
Were this channel .. this.. doorway of the Internet, unfettered, private communications, unavailable, he would have lived his entire life in miserable silence. No one deserves that, for being something. Not niggers, not faggots, not jews, ... not anything that people, without provocation, are able to hate. Like that.
My friend has never, and does not plan to ever have sexual contact with a real child, with or without consent.
Ok - so.. the moral of the story. :)
Please. Stop the hatered. Stop the propaganda. Stop the fanatacism. Not all 'fags' are rapists. Not all niggers are counterproductive banes on society, and not all pedophiles are child molesters.
This law is intended to punish people for what they are . Not what they do. - Posting anonymously, for obvious reasons.
When I was 17 and my girlfriend at the time was 22, I was a minor. If she and I both posessed a picture of us half-nude, nude or even just sexually suggestive, she would technically be in trouble with the law over this.
However, in the states, you are a minor until the age of 21. You may be old enough at 18,19 or 20 to smoke, drive, vote, pay taxes, be charged as an adult in any crime or even die for your country -- but you can't drink or appear nude in a photo?
So to continue the story above into something real.
When I was 20, the girl I was with at the time was 25. We were playing around at a party and some friends snapped a few incriminating photos. Again, being 20 -- I'm a minor and she's an adult. Does this mean that I'm being sexually exploited and that she (who posesses a few copies of these photos) and our friends (who also posess them) are sick pedophiles?
I'm not arguing with anything else here, although I think we have to draw the line of criminalization while the act being criminalized is still a crime and not (although potentially detestible) speech. I'm just curious of the wording they used in this.
---
seumas.com
#include
I'd like to create a parallel-world where the law said that CGI images do not meet the legal definition of kiddie porn.
In this hypothetical world, a citizen has just been arrested for having lots of sexually-oriented pictures of very young children (obviously under-18) on said citizen's computer.
The legal defense: All the pictures are CGI images. No real underage children were used in the creation of these images.
Under the common-law system in use in most of the United States, the burden of proof now falls on the prosecution to prove that the images are NOT CGI.
It's pretty easy to show that an image is a CGI, but how do you prove that something is not one? Especially something which is not a dead-tree image but a jpeg?
Would this make it difficult (if not impossible) to prosecute child pornography at the current state of the art in CGI?
j.