Slashdot Mirror
Computer-Edited Photos Lead To Child-Porn Locale
Leilah writes "Toronto police have found a new application for computerized photo editing. The police released edited photos on Feb. 3 from a series of child pornography pics in an attempt to locate where the photos may have been taken. Two days later, they have identified the Port Orleans hotel in Disney World as being the location. This seems to be the first time photo editing has been used in law enforcement this way and strikes an interesting line between protecting the victims and being able to get public tips. It looks like it may be used quite heavily in the future given this success."
Will criminals take this as a warning and digitally edit out the background (or replace it with vanila ones)?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Man, the toronto police dept. seriously needs to hire a farker or two. Even the mediocre photoshoppers there do a better job than they did.
Of course, one of those photos would probably end up with Admiral Ackbar, Wil Wheaton or that over-endowed squirel.
If they DID use photoshop? Was it an illegal copy? =P
If they DID use photoshop?
They used Paint Shop Pro.
On a PlayStation Portable.
They needed information. Rather than blur out the subject (which then becomes the focus) they repaired, to the best of their ability, the scenes and posted them.
Frankly that's no different then sending out 'awards' to criminals and when they show up, arresting them.
There is no 'interesting line' between privacy and law enforcement. Law Enforcementis paid to lie to GET the 'bad guy'. And anyone that says sexually assaulting a 9 year old girl (or boy) isn't bad needs to post their home address.... so that that tip can be forwarded onto the appropriate authorities (or anyone else that owns a baseball bat).
Privacy of the victim is 100%, assuming they didn't include a 'thumbnail' of the original image embedded in the jpg.
Sometimes. I'm replying to a troll, I know... but.
A lot of statitory rape cases are bullshit. The parents get angry at the 19 year old having sex with the 16 year old or whatever. But then, there's always the cases of older women, in a very real way, sexually abusing younger children. It is a problem, but if some 15 year old gets with a MILF? I don't see a problem.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
Ask Mary Kay Letourneau (sp?)
Hex-editing arcade.jpg (the first of six photos) shows JFIF ... Ducky ... Adobe. Ducky is the code name for Adobe ImageReady.
This cannot be allowed to be considered evidence in any criminal case. We all know that software exists to place people in places they aren't.
I recently got an invitation from Guru.com to join a project that would create software that could insert a preloaded video clip into a live video stream in real time. Such software could only be used for false incrimination.
While child pornography is a terrible crime, governments must take care to ensure that such clips are not legal evidence, but used as "hints" in investigations.
On a PlayStation Portable.
While selling Paintball Sports Promotions.
It's a rather sad commentary on the /. crowd when I read a story about how someone MIGHT be helping sexually abused children by releasing pictures with the children editted out... and the comment board is, in the earliests posts, mostly filled with comments joking about getting the originals.
An interesting question arises though. How did they know that it was all the same scene? What if the kid was abducted, or moved around?
To the guy who blamed all of the jokes on Linux use... you must be new here
Are they sure they did not mix up this hotel in Disney World with the Neverland Ranch?
What kind of sicko would mod this Funny? It's in pretty poor taste if you ask me. There's a young girl out there being abused. What's so funny about that?
Yes you can download the orginals from here
I think this is clever, obviously productive, and pretty much (law-wise) in the same vein as releasing a sketch of a perp's face, per the victim's recollection (or an ATM camera shot, etc) - which we see on the news all the time.
<tinfoilhat> Now: how many people might get framed/harassed by having something like this mocked up by bad guys, placing someone/something into a false scene, or placing false thing in conspicuous, legit, easily recognized scene? I don't mean that in the sense of law enforcement doing it, but rather someone looking to screw someone else could - and with little resources, really. Think car tags, buildings with logos, other stuff that would very quickly draw scrutiny while also being easy to fake.</tinfoilhat>
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There's a story my boss told me, I don't know if it's true or not.
A 16 year old male is at a party and has sex with a 19 year old female. 3 months later she calls him and tells him she's pregnant, but not to worry about it. A few years down the road, he's about to graduate from college and her lawyer calls him up asking for child support, including back child support. As it turns out, the statutory rape statute of limitations had passed, and she waited until that time to ask for the child support. The guy had to drop out of school and get a job to pay the back child support.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I don't know what's creepier, the pictures themselves or the comments joking about the originals and downplaying kiddie porn/statutory rape...
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
This is true. I know the parent was talking about 14 and 15 year olds, but a 9 year old (4th grade) is a little different.
That said, in my school district, kids started screwing around with each other in fruition in 6th grade, so you know that there are kids intentionally messing around with each other in 4th.
Of course, there's a big difference between a college guy coming home and hooking up with a girl who he grew up with, and an adult trolling the playgrounds.
I think its pretty sad that some of the first few comments on this article are supposed to be funny. This is a serious issue, and I think even joking about it is bad for the morale of people who are trying to stop this sort of thing from happening. But then again this issue hits closer to home for me... My younger brother was sexually assualted many years ago, and honestly if I found the guy that did it, I would probably take his life.
She was nine when some of the photos were taken. And even if they were doing it willingly it's still abuse, adults should know better than that.
This one was 9 years old. Any witty comments about that?
TW
I agree that this use of technology is completely ok, and doesn't violate anyone's privacy, but your later comments are scary. When thoughtcrime becomes a reality we are all fucked, no matter how repulsive the thoughts.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
This should help police and I think its a good idea. It does raise another question. Would release a picture of the victim result in more leads? Not an unedited picture but just a face shot or something. I can't see myself ever being in favor of that because these victims deserves privacy but at the same time could this actually prevent further abuse by the perpetrator, whether on this victim or another? It's a interesting question to consider.
An article in the Montreal Gazette (that I just finished reading -- what a coincidence!) says that if necessary the police might release the photos with the girl's face, the reason being that they believe that it might help the girl escape a "life of abuse"...
Doomie
Closed source investigation proves more secure! The less eyes looking at these modified pictures the better! A small group of policemen and investigators working on a secret case would prove more efficient and better results than to open it to the public!
Am I correct, Mr. Anti-Open-Source Person?
FLR
And I'm sure they will be rushing into court to assert those rights.
If they were so foolhardy, I'd love to see some civil court judge (or jury) find for the plaintiff and award one dollar damages.
Maybe they could use the dollar to buy a tube of K-Y for their trip to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Dude that is just wrong. I know it was meant as a harmless joke but like making fun of the Holocaust some things are just not funny.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Maybe he should have been a little more careful with his sperm, then. No sympathy from me.
Editing the kids out of child porn replaces AOL phone support as the worst possible job in technology.
From the article...
"...prompted his team to alert the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which dispatched investigators to the alleged crime scene."
Um.. why would they have jurisdiction? I thought they were supposed to be protecting us from terrorists? Wouldn't the FBI be the ones working on this?
I sure don't know my legal jurisdiction rules, anyone care to explain?
~Z
But what proof do they have that it was an adult that took them rather than her friend, or a camera with a timer? Judging by the edited pictures, it all looks like she was solo in the pictures
what's the best part of having sex with a 9 year old...
I know this is going to lose me major karma and such but I don't care.
Anyone else want to see the originals (of course HEAVILY edited to hide the child's face and nudity, just an outline would do). Or another photo like this before and after. I do alot of photoshopping and I have to guess what's behind something I want to remove, surely the police couldn't get this so accurate they could pinpoint a place (taking into account Disney land would change their sheets obviously).
If this is the polices latest weapon next time I take a picture I'm making sure I'm in it just incase they decide to photoshop me into it because I'm not there..
I like muppets.
What the heck does "in fruition" mean? Bearing jam-faced sprogs?
I'm never sure if my finding sixteen to eighteen year olds sometimes hot is a sign that I'm normal, or a sign that I'm a disgusting perv on my way to a short but painful stay behind bars before being violently raped to death.
I suppose it doesn't matter, since I can't fucking stand teenagers. Annoying little buggers, all of 'em.
Where does that fit in on your grand scale of evil?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Actually, this is a good start, but not towards what they intended to do. Using photos like this, as well as ones taken specifically for this purpose, the international law enforcement community could start to construct a database of images of potential crimes scenes. Yes, I know, everywhere is a potential crime scene, but still, how wonderful would it be to able to use a computer algorythm to search for images with backgrounds matching those of a crime photo?
They show these but not others? I've seen a couple of these, they're even used a SPAM by a couple of "commercial" sites. I don't know if it's john law or the russian mafia, but if you use usenet and you've ever visited any group remotely about "teens" you've probably come across some of these, at least in thumbnails.
There are others that seem to show the inside of a home. Why the hell would they release these and not the ones that might actually be recognized by a neighbor or relative of the girl?
BTW some of us have been screaming for them to do this for years. Nice to see they're finally waking from that "protect the children by hiding them" stupor.
Of course, there's a big difference between a college guy coming home and hooking up with a girl who he grew up with, and an adult trolling the playgrounds.
;)
Yeah, but if he was trolling around the playground, he would just get modded -1, and all the parents would just set their kids' thresholds at +1 or something, and they wouldn't go near him.
Why does Michael Jackson like twenty nine year olds? ...
Because there are twenty of them!
See, I can make a joke about abusing nine year olds. And it's a pretty funny one. Neener.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
When I was 16 or so... I didn't see a problem either. But then you reach the same age they were and it dawns on you that you were with a fucking pevert.
But keep in mind that the subject is "Child-Porn"... not Teen sex or statitory rape. Mid to older teens are at the very least sexualy mature if not emotionaly mature. Child, as in ages under 13, is just sick and wrong.
I taught a computer forensics class to law enforcement a couple of years ago. Evil is just a four letter word until you listen to a few stories from your local state patrol child endangerment squad.
Child molestation is not something that someone does, it is an indelible part of who they are. They never, ever get better, and the compulsion doesn't go away. Civil commitment after the end of the required prison term is the only way to keep children safe.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
That's got to mess you up.
stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
There's a term called "informed consent". Even if a child gives their consent, the developmental stage of the child prevents them from fully understanding what it means to give consent and thus negates any consent they may give, even if it's given quite willingly.
Have you ever spent time relating to a nine-year-old child? They dont know what the hell they're doing. If they did, we'd let them vote, drink and buy property, as well as give their consent to engage in sexual activity. But they don't. Thats why we love them and protect them instead of subjecting them to situations that will give them nightmares as their lives progress.
People who believe like you do want it both ways. You want both to be able to manipulate children into doing things they don't understand, and at the same time you want to call it "consent" because they said "ok" when you asked them if they wanted candy and led them away to your house of pain. Or maybe that's not really you, just the guys you're defending... in either case you seriously need to re-examine what it means to hurt another.... and stay to your own kind until you find the right answer.
TW
the body is easy to hide when you kill them after fucking every tight orifice on their little prepubescent bodies.
Nope, not funny or witty. Too bad for me.
Humor is a way for sane people to deal with an insane world.
I can't believe I saw a story on TV before Slashdot talks about it!!!
And anyone that says sexually assaulting a 9 year old girl (or boy) isn't bad needs to post their home address.... so that that tip can be forwarded onto the appropriate authorities (or anyone else that owns a baseball bat).
You fucking moron. Here's an address for you:
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20520
There you go. I promise a child abuser lives there. Looks a bit like a monkey. Go nuts with your damn baseball bat.
Vigilante justice is WRONG. Vigilante justice is NOT JUSTICE. Suggesting it in response to child abuse just makes you look like yet another flaming THINK OF THE CHILDREN panic attack kneejerker.
I fully support using these measures to track down sex offenders and bring them to justice. But I'd rather they go free than we throw away the right to due process.
Maybe they could use the dollar to buy a tube of K-Y for their trip to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
I find it highly disturbing that people supposedly against child pornography don't seem to have an issue with jail rape. 2 wrongs doesn't make a right, and supposedly our judicial system isn't based on an eye-for-an-eye. Jail rape is not part of the punishment, and is not OK because the jerk was a criminal anyways.
I think it's pretty obvious to most that a 40+ year old grease ball having sex with a 9 year old is disgusting and wrong. But the same laws also apply to an 18 year old having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. There are cases of these people getting locked up. Is it fair? Do you still think jail rape is OK?
this might be a bad idea. I wonder...wouldn't this be enough to put reasonable doubt with the jury?
now any lawyer defending an accused child molester can say "well, if the police could remove a person from the picture, then they can put anybody in." defense.
IANAL so i hope someone who is can confirm.
What they were hoping, and what seems to have happened, is that someone who had been to the location would see it, recognise it, and call them. See any person who would be persuing these kind of pictures in their unedited form is not the kind of person who's going to be calling the police with a tip. So, they go and edit them to remove the illegal and offensive material. The repairs were done rather than just blocking the subject since most people find a black area very distracting, and focus on it rather than the information that is there.
Now it seems to have worked, normal people looked at the photos and some said "Hey! I recognise that place!" and called it in. It reamins to be seen if they are able to get any evidence from this, but it's a place ot start at least. Knowing where something took place gives you a good starting place to look.
The next step perhaps will be to again turn to computer editing (or maybe just old fashion sketch artists) and take the faces of the children in the photos and get them out ot people in the area, and see if anyone recognises them.
The edited photos will never see a court room for a trial, because it would be worthless to do so. "Here's a picture of an empty room", not going to matter. However it does seem to be a useful step in finding the person they need to bring them to trial.
Enlisting the public's help is a powerful tool often. Hence shows like America's Most Wanted. They actually do provide a useful service, in addtion to being entertianment. It's not a panacea, and you can't rely on 100% accurate and useful tips, but it can help police get pointed in the right direction on an investigation.
It's because he has a sense of humor, and you're an attention whore who likes to out-sensitive people in a pathetic attempt to leech off of the outpouring compassion that comes to those who deserve and need it.
This is a great use of technology by government, and I'm suprised many people are commenting against it.
Law enforcement isn't editing people *into* pictures, they are removing the victims so that the public can help determine where the crime took place.
They see the child in the arcade, edit it so the public sees just the arcade. Someone recognizes it, and then they know exactly where to go next. A very elegant solution when public places are shown in the picture set.
If this makes criminals more wary about taking pictures...well...good. If all they can take is sick pictures against a vanilla background, well I think that would cause less people to be interested in them...so good.
I've been looking to the Disney site and there is no official statement from them either confirming or denying they were the alleged location of these crimes or promising any support to the authorities to help catch the perpetrators and protect our children from these sexual predators.
It's rather surprising but I suppose the corporate types at Disney are simply hiding in thier boardrooms hoping the whole mess will blow over. It's almost as bad as opening permitting this abuse to occur. Seems Disney Land is a predator's paradise just like the Never Land Ranch?
This seems pretty disturbing itself, looking at that picture of the bed you can see a ghostly outline just detailed enough to make out a person which somone obviously spent quite allot of time editing out with a clone tool when really a black box would have done. It just seems a little ott?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Paranormal experts have found evidence that the Port Orleans hotel in Disney World is haunted. :-o
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Stop thinking that. This isn't a slam at Disney about making money off of kids.
I work with people who investigate the child sex trade. It's not a surprise that those pictures showed a Disney hotel, as Disney resorts used to be a popular place for child peddlers to hand over the kids they were selling. There are so many kids running around there, who's going to notice that a little girl in a yellow dress comes in with one person and leaves with another?
Disney knew nothing of this at the time, though they're aware of it now. They have a great security team, but they're focused on pickpockets and and the garden variety perverts who want to cop a feel on Snow White, not child traders.
Child porn is a dirty business, perhaps the dirtiest. The people responsible probably get some perverse pleasure from trading their sex toys at a place like Disneyland.
Then again, one thing DHS has done right over the last 18 months is arrest and dispose of over 3,000 of the bastards who trade in kids. It's just too bad disposal only consists of deportation or detention. If any crime deserves the death penalty, sexual abuse of children is it.
(Yeah, I take it personally. I have a nine-year old daughter. If you'd seen what these bastards do with kids, you'd scratch their names on a few bullets, too.)
Sorry about the rant. But this subject touched a nerve or two.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
Have to ask, anyone have any suggestions for the best way to do this semi-automated? (Remove a person but recreate the background)
Most of the photos show the girl fully-clothed. For instance - do you believe she would be naked sitting on that fountain?
Many of the photos do show her in a state of undress though, although I can only recall one photo showing any hint of any sexual interference on the part of the photographer. For the most part she appears to like her photo being taken, although who can tell without asking her?
There is no sign in the photos of any force or coercion that I can remember, and nearly all the photos would be legal in many countries that do not have laws against COPINE "Level 1" images.
If you have further questions about the originals I can try and answer them in this thread.
They tried this in Australia, editing child porn to get public leads. Unfortunately they sent out the wrong copies. The AFP (Australian Federal Police) sent thousands of school principles a collection of child porn your average pornogapher would be jealous of. Here's the link to the news articals: Police send porn to schools.
This sig is false.
Right, because nine year olds usually take pictures of themselves naked, or have their friends do it, and then post it to the internet for all of the paedohiles in the world to swap and trade and rejoice.
What the fuck?
I'm sure some people remember the incident where Cat Schwartz (from TechTV) posted a couple of cropped photos on her website. The problem was that the data was still there and uncropping the photos showed her topless. I hope that these cops didn't make the same mistake.
In other news, local police in Mobile, Alabama released an edited photo showing a room with distinctive beige wallpaper with vertical striping. The original photo depicted a man engaged in a self-mutilating sexual activity which violates State Law. Readers who recognize the location are urged to contact the Mobile Police department.
This is a tad off topic but the last sentence of the 2nd story says
Gillespie said two phone tips naming the same hotel prompted his team to alert the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which dispatched investigators to the alleged crime scene.
What the hell does the DHS have to do with child porn?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't see any children...
KY-Jelly is like $4.00, even at Wal*Mart. :(
And were you the daddy doing the touching?
face the issue man.
Sure. But it's also a way for insane people to deal with a sane world.
"But the same laws also apply to an 18 year old having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend."
Actually they don't. In most states the age of consent is 16. http://ageofconsent.com/ Yes, some states are still 18, California for example. But most states have written in the law to be reasonable. Since a kid that just turned 18 having sex with his girlfriend who is still 17 and sending him to prison is obviously ridiculous.
Don't talk out of your ass.
Privacy of the victim is 100%, assuming they didn't include a 'thumbnail' of the original image embedded in the jpg.
And now that you've suggested it, there are probably a half-dozen people checking just that..
"If they were so foolhardy, I'd love to see some civil court judge (or jury) find for the plaintiff and award one dollar damages."
Statutory damages for copyright infringement are US$ 250,000 per incident. Or as Lessig puts it: share two songs with your friend and you will be paying more in damages than the surgeon who amputates the wrong leg.
I doubt, however, that a court would rule this copyright infringement. It would probably be considered fair use.
Go read the VBI's own reports on this. Depending on who you ask, 15 to 35 percent of college freshmen have reported being molested or abused at some time in their past.
As many as a third.
Most of those happen at the hands of parents or guardians or close relatives (who also may have kids - do the math)
The saddest part of this whole discussion is the truth so rarely gets reported. These aren't just one in a million cases, or even one in a hundred or even one in ten.
There are a LOT of people out there doing this crap. It's not just sick indiviudals, it's a sick society - and until we as a scoiety have the guts to address the problem objectively, it ain't gonna get better.
Knowing the perpetrator is going to be drinking his bunkmate's urine every morning (or get shanked) to be followed by licking his ass clean after he poops (or get shanked) followed by a North-Philly ass whooping each day in the yard (tell the guard, get shanked) has got to make it all worthwhile.
You know, maybe (s)he was. Does it matter?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
LOL, nice touch with the sad smiley at the end of your post, made me laugh. The next thought I had was, does Wal*Mart really sell them? Don't they play moral cop for their customers? (No nudie-mags, no offensive music?)
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
It's all fine and dandy doing this sort of thing but theres also many sites which sell themselvs as "Child super model" sites and feature little girls (preteen) in bikinis and panties. Quite often with camel toes and such, right now they are legal (as is buying a nudist video filmed at a 9 year old girl's birthday party!), as long as it isn't sexual then you can have any number of naked children in a photo.
Now I'm not trying to go "OMG KILL IT WITH FIRE!" here, but I think the law needs to be refined a bit to take this exploit out of it. I don't want it to become illegal to have a picture of your family nude (Hell my aunt has some of me and my cousin in the bath completely naked she brings out at "big" birthdays to embrass us both), but these sites are clearly ment to whack off too, it's plain disturbing yet totally legal.
I like muppets.
... They were trying to reconstruct the location, and using their best effort to make the room the focus of the picture rather than the incident. I can't see where ANYTHING improper or of sinister ramifications can come of this.
I'm pretty sure that all of those "statutes of limitations" basically "restart" when you turn 18. IE even if you were abused at 3, you can come out and go after the abuser when you're 20.
He should have hired a lawyer the instant he was hit with the child support demands.
How about the ones that have to take and archive the pictures of the deceased. I doubt most of the victims of such crimes are allowed to survive. Anything related to this field must be hell, though I'd expect the moral reward for nailing some of the sick bastards that do such things to childen comes as some compensation.
Isn't it a crime to look at child pornography? If this is the case, are cops comitting a felony by looking at these pics to edit them? I always wondered, if some pervert wanted in on child porn without the legal troubles, wouldn't he just have to become a cop dealing in this business? A detective can't kill a man in a murder investigation, why is this allowed in this case?
Photoshop Sleuths
Source: Popescu, A. C. and H. Farid. 2005. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of re-sampling. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing (in press).
Most likely this was an automated image inpainting technique based on image statistics, not some guy mucking about with the clone brush. If not, it should have been, since this is not new technology...
The OP really didn't explain this well, but the story I read today had to do with the possibility of the next step being releasing photos with the victim left in.
This of course would greatly increase the possibility of identifying the victim, but the trampling of the victim's privacy rights is also obvious.
So the question is, if a child is being held as a sex slave, would they really care if their rights are being trampled while being rescued?
So, yeah, there is a fine line.
Civil commitment after the end of the required prison term is simply Soviet! It is about the only thing scarier than child molesters. Why even have sentaneces and juries. Make the penalty Life in Prison or let them walk at the end of the term. Anything less is Unamerican, no matter how bad the crime.
The girl will have plenty of time for humiliation when she shows up in court to give her testimony.
Her pictures are already all over the internet. They're not all nude or pornographic, I recognized the picture of the fountain instantly because I've seen the picture myself. She's not naked, she's just a pretty little girl in an evening dress standing in front of the fountain. Maybe there are other more sinister things happening at that fountain in other pictures, but the fact is the horses are ALL out of the stable when it comes to "protecting" her by NOT having her pictures plastered all over the internet. Been there, done that, time to catch the bad guy (and ten bucks says it's her non-custodial dad).
Having worked in a computer store, you would be surprised what we have seen in the course of removing spyware and virii from clients computers. Gee, Norton won't let me delete this file, we'll have to deal with it manually. OMG, wtf is this? After doing that for a while, I can say that humans are the nastiest creatures on earth.
Sex abuse happens with both guys and girls.
In fact, prevaling notions about male sexuality probably contribute to a lack of recognition that abuse affects *both* genders.
Consider that, in many cultures, and even in the US of A at certain times in history, the idea of "male virginity" made people laugh; guys and girls are held to very different sexual standards. Both guys and girls get abused, but, because guys are supposed to "get action," guys will generally not admit to having problems later in life.
Do you think the Y chromosome has some sort of "violence" gene that makes some males perpetrate violent crimes? There are biological differences between guys and girls, but, psychological differences are primarily accounted for by culture.
Freud documented many sexual identity problems and sexual trauma in violent criminals.
People need to stop pretending like guys are never fragile. The ability to "bounce back" from problems is not drastically different between genders. The reason that sexually abused girls tend not to be violent is because society tells girls and guys to act different ways. Abuse victims have problems with boundaries; guys are supposed to act tough and macho, so if they have boundary issues, they could easily go too far, raping, assaulting, or murdering. Girls often have difficulties with relationships, either avoiding them entirely, clinging obsessively to one person, or becoming promiscuous.
(I know it's not *only* guys who perpetrate violent crimes, but there are far more guys than girls.)
I know this will get a lot of bitter replies. I probably am not going to come back to look at the replies; I'm mostly interested in starting a thread. I know I haven't given much support at all to my opinions; I'm hoping people who agree or disagree will be able to dig up quality information (educate each other!).
Oh I love how well these photos are edited. Not only can you make out the body but if you look close enough you can make out the facial features to some degree. I put together a very very quick "rough outline". Nice to see this is s good photoshop and just not ghost porn
http://www.boomspeed.com/akito/bededited.jpg
I like muppets.
I'd mark you as a friend if I could. If people are going to be so sensitive about child pornography, they need to be sensitive about state sponsored (or at least condoned) rape, too.
You are obviously an illiterate moron. Iliterate because you did not even read my comment which you responded to elsewhere, and a moron because you jump to sanctimonious conclusions without having absorbed a word of fact.
Have you ever spent time relating to a nine-year-old child? They dont know what the hell they're doing. If they did, we'd let them vote, drink and buy property, as well as give their consent to engage in sexual activity. But they don't
The hard part is figuring out at what age to draw the line. Most cultures agree that 9 is too young, but the age of consent where I live is 14. Many other places set it at 16, 18, or somewhere between.
The odd thing is that although a 14 year old can consent to sex in this country, taking pictures of that act would be illegal.
If two people under 18 videotape themselves having sex, they could be considered guilty of creating child pornography. A very strange world we live in.
To all the posts commenting on how f*'d up it would be having to look at these pictures to do the editing. I think this is a strong case for improving a computer's ability to recognize complex shapes, or some kind of very complex pattern recognition (skin color for instance). Even if the computer could only get most of the way there, it's better than nothing. Although I suppose there would be no way to remove people from the loop totally - as they would have to see the pictures in the first place to be sure they were indeed illicit - it's as i said, better than nothing. It is stories like these that make me think Skynet might not be such a bad idea after all....
...and right now the FBI is contacting Mr. Taco with a warrant for the IP of your ISP connection.
Have a nice day, Jackass.
"In their original forms, the pictures show the child being sexually assaulted." Learn how to fucking read.
Sane world?
Can you show me a sane world?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Normally the Disney cops hush up incidents like this, but I guess the Internet took them by surprise.
Yeah, that must be right because in real life kids don't get camel toe or even wear panties or swimsuits.
Dude, take your thought crimes and shove'em up your lily white self-rightcheous ass.
I think that ODCs (ordinary decent criminals) generally despise the really wacko mass-murderer types as much as they do a terrorist or child molestor. The more "identifiable" form of murderer is the guy who killed his drug hookup on a bad deal, or shot somebody while robbing a bank or something.
I'm not saying it isn't horrible, but that kind of crime has a reason behind it. Not like child molestation.
There you go. I promise a child abuser lives there. Looks a bit like a monkey.
Does Condoleezza (HAH! I love it when your American negroes try to come up with "African" names) Rice really live in the White House?
Once the culprits are found and their computers, chock full of pr0n, are seized, will the police place all the pr0n on the web as a reward to the law-abiding citizens who nark out the crooks?
The thing is that it is completely biologically normal to be attacted to a sexually mature person. If someone had gone through puberty, even if they are only 14 you are not a freak for being attracted to them. Its what nature intended. These laws are a throwback from a society that didn't want their children having kids of their own untill they were good and ready. Before that people had sex at exactly the same age as people these days, the only difference is that due to poor birth control people were married a lot younger.
My great grandmother was 14 when she was married, to a guy who was in his mid 30's no less, however this wasn't frowned upon, basically because there was an elegable 18 year old batchelor drought around the time with pesky wars thinning out the numbers and because my great grandfather had a stable job and could provide for her.
Child molestors are differnent in that they are attracted to prepubescent girls (or boys). Child porn laws are a crock and need revising, if not to avoid stupid situations where boyfriends are charged for taking photos of their girlfriends.
-
So the question is, if a child is being held as a sex slave, would they really care if their rights are being trampled while being rescued?
Not to dismiss the usefullness of what has been done with the photos released, but you're asking the wrong question here. The right question is: do we want to release those photos to the mass public so the girl's forever recognized as the victim of a sex crime? If she's been abused as a sex slave we want to rescue her and give her a normal life, not one where she knows she can never go out in public because she'll be recognized and humiliated because of her past.So the Toronto law finally caught up with the interweb quilt sewing trend equivalent of a Photoshop Friday, but what did that achieve to elevate this to newsworthiness?
.
.
What a moronic spin to an otherwise interesting milestone..
One should think that time to market (TTM) would be a pressing issue here, so wouldn't it be at least as effective to just blur out the alleged innocent parties?
The published pictures lead to something interesting - Not the fact that they were edited in the Something Awful tradition of a Quilt Friday.
As far as I know these are the first images made public on the interweb by the powers that may be (tm) in a case involving alleged sexual offences involving alleged minors.
That should have been the news - Not that the Toronto sketch artist just learned how to use the Stamp tool.
At first glance there's no other interesting line crossed here other than making alleged crime scenes allegedly involving alleged minors public.
As an interesting and controversial side note - I'll let you be the judge; Oh no! Wait. Toronto law enforcement just let you be! - there's nothing in the pictures to support the claims of any offences. These tactics could be used by the (*adorning lovely tinfoil hat*) powers that may be (tm) to instigate all sorts of pubic participation (ratting, snitching, et al.) under the guise of the top of the pops instant-news hysteria that any mention of paedophilia automatically carries in these nouveau middle ages..
Further more (or less) wouldn't this be a major problem to justice as we know it (For only a couple of hundred years, though. History is kind of interesting - It actually predates the Mayflower. Heretic, you might say, but hey!) - publishing key evidence pre-trial?
And by now one is expected to write something vile against child molestation.. . So yeah! Uh, no! But maybe! No. It's besides the point. So FCKU and your PC mindless irrelevant propaganda.
This space is powered by Google Ad-nauseam.
God you have to have a twisted mind to go to Disney World a shoot child pornography.
As the sign outside disney world says more or less: the outside world ends here.. but that doesn't mean wackos should be allowed to spoil the magic of the place.
Can you please rephrase youself? I have absolutly no idea what the hell you are on about.
I think we can agree we are talking about pre-teen child porn... not to be confused with teen child porn. I find it shocking that there is not a legal difference between sexual images of a person before the age of concent and a person after the age of consent.
No, they don't "restart", they are usually 4-5 years and that's final.
Molestation is the objectification and probable physical harm of someone nowhere near old enough to willing participate in consensual sex. I say harm because this isn't a sexual act exactly, its more the molester going through some ritual meant to undo some childhood harm they suffered - the fear and suffering of the victim is often the goal.
When I type evil I was thinking of the case described to me by the state patrol guys - a nine year old girl bound, suspended from the ceiling, and penetrated orally, analy, and vaginally.
Take a minute and imagine how that girl is going to feel when she is eighteen and wanting a normal relationship. She'll either be completely unable to interact with a man in any fashion, or she'll have no boundaries at all. She has been robbed of something that can never be replaced and the harm will never, ever be undone.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Who did this to porn shots ... removed the people from them and left just the surroundings. Had the same strange atmosphere. I wish I could remember who did it, and I'd post the link... :(
The cops have a technical term for that sort of behavior - a 'harmless pantysniffer'.
I like feminine underthings myself but I prefer the front end - off to Vickie's with credit card in hand, and I get to dress the aforementioned soccer mom
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
I took my son to Chucky Cheese (a pizza/arcade place), and on entering they stamped the three of us (my wife, son and I) with a hand stamp with an identical picture. At first I had no idea why they did this, but on exit they checked the stamps on our hands to see if they matched. Then I understood why, it would be really easy to take a kid away from there.
No she doesn't look like a monkey, she looks like a gorilla
When the authorities get involved with shutting down piracy rings, everyone here bitches and complains that they're focusing their resources on that while "rapists and molesters run free." As though it's a one-tier organization with 100% focused on one task at a time.
Yet here we that is clearly not the case, and in fact they are employing advanced technologies to enforce the law and protect people all over, even using the public to help them. I wonder if those sort of complaints mentioned above will cease, or will this article quickly get forgotten in the next round of timothy-posted pro-piracy articles?
Just askin'.
There is no reference to her, just some scenes from a hotel. She is not visible.
... not too many people resemble themselves at age 9. You'd have to know what you're looking for, similar to what teachers do in schools- posting their childhood photos and letting the kids guess who they are. Captive sampling permits this sort of 'mix and match' approach- some features that are discerned easily as an adult show only a hint as a child.
Now in 50 years who knows- maybe they'll be able to reconstruct the regions that were damaged. Doubtful due to the entropy increases in the compression and manipulation (Jpg typically destroys data rapidly on recompression after modification...)
Plus
KY actually has many legitimate medical uses.
Hmm... I was trying to find a link on the web site, but it seemed every product was billed as a "personal lubricant" which "allows you to reach a new level of intimacy."
Great, add the word medical to the search and you end up with a medical fetish/BDSM site as the first hit. Okay, maybe I should give up this argument.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
...what you need "informed consent" for is quite arbitrary. I would argue that quite a lot of the regligious techings *cough*indoctrination*cough*mind-washing*cough* should have required informed consent. Yet it is surprisingly easy how you can teach children about almost any other subject, except sexuality. Now, I live in a fairly liberal country, where I don't think that'd be a problem. But if I was living in the US, I'd be damn scared of the cops knocking down my door just because I explained about the bird and the bees to my children.
The truth is that even with adult supervision, children do a damn lot of things that they don't realize the full consequences of. Everything from eating candy (leading to obesity, "lifestyle" diseases++) to soccer practice (winning is everything) to sunday school (religious dogma should be followed without question). I've yet to see a convincing argument why sexuality is different from all other activities, and that no child may learn about it before the age of consent. I know what the law is, but I still haven't accepted the reasoning behind it.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ann Landers (her daughter) had that same dilemna- someone wrote in asking about urges for a child.
;P
She turned that person into the police.
That person hadn't abused anyone. But recognizing a deviate behavior and 'correcting' it before irreparable harm comes to a child is more important than fixing it after the fact. (and even then, can you really fix it?)
Have all the thoughts you want. But verbalizing them or being proud of them in a way that encourages you to act upon them... that is the actions that have crossed the line into dangerous territory. From there it is just a very small step to acting upon them.... whereas just thinking them is still a few more steps towards acting on them.
But I'm not a psyche major (engaged to one) and I'm not about to get into a discussion with her tonight on that topic
Okay. Here's the problem I have with the tactics the Toronto police used here. Nobody's going to want to stay in the hotel room where these indiscretions took place. Who would want to sleep on a bed where a 9 year old girl was raped? The hotel owner's not to blame, so why should they be penelized?
You might say the hotel owner should take some responsibility to police its guests. Fine, but do you want hidden security cameras in the hotel rooms you stay in? Would you mind if the midnight desk clerk sat in the back room secretly looking in on you to make sure you're not doing something illegal? The technology to do this is very inexpensive nowadays, and video cameras can be made incredibly small and easily hideable. We don't want to give hotel owners any incentive to do this, but if this kind of police work becomes routine, I fear it will be inevitable. So much for any privacy in your hotel room.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Nuclear missile ready.
Ghost reporting.
Deeee
Nuclear launch detected.
But they do this every week on CSI though. I don't see how this is a first.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
1981 Tommy Summers told of a satanic "gang" in the shareholders of Disney.(He worked in Imagineering)
Tommy Summers died in a car accident later that year on Disney prooperty in a Duster that would not go 80Mph (6 cyl) The official police report put him at 120Mph when he hit the bridge pylon.
These thought police crusaders don't understand logic nor fact...
I do, regurally.
It is sad beyond words to see those photos, where a child was once there, and now there are the scars of the crime left upon the photos as they have been left upon the child. This is Horror.
What do you do when you've finished with a 9 year old girl?
Flip her over and pretend she's a nine year old boy.
What did the Romans ever give us?
Baths, stone houses, culture, sex with children.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
The same sicko that will mod this funny?
Don't click the last link in parent post!! It's not gay porn!!!!
The problem comes when they act upon it against the consent of the child.
We have decided, as a society, that a child cannot consent to sex. When an adult is talking to a child, that is a power imbalance; the law does not recognize a child as being *able* to say no to an adult. All sex between an adult and a child is considered molestation.
It is also wrong for a psychiatrist to have sex with a needy patient. Even if the patient is an adult, can that patient really be considered to be consenting? The psychiatrist has all sorts of advantages over the patient. It's wrong. I don't know if it's actually illegal but I suspect it would be grounds for the psychiatrist getting his/her licence revoked.
Notice that the closer a teenager gets to the age of consent, the less seriously the law will take "statutory rape". If a 17-year-old has a 15-year-old sexual partner, how much trouble will the couple be in if discovered? How much will that change when the 17-year-old has a birthday and becomes 18? But if a 42-year-old has a 15-year-old sexual partner and is discovered, the law will hit like a hammer.
If you had any relatives who were in the concentration camps you wouldn't find it so funny you sick mother fucker.
Although obviously "rescued and given a normal life" is preferable, I suspect most people would choose "publicly rescued" over "not rescued at all."
Nudists do
Live journal is probably full of 12 year old girls semi dressed
Last year there was a newa article on kids using them phone cameras to snap shots of other girls changing and making websites full of people they hated..
so yea 9 year olds do at times do it!
I like muppets.
I'm not being a morale crusader. Nothing even remotely close. I'm saying this is very close to child porn to the point where it's softcore porn in some cases.
If you want to look at it then fine, go look at whatever you want and sing and dance about it in some weird troll ritual you obviously want to take part in.
All I'm saying is theres a loop hole here which is being exploited. Maybe you're one of the people who look at these things and so are upset *shrugs*
I like muppets.
sending out 'awards' to criminals and when they show up, arresting them
I never understood that. If they know where the criminals are (to send the notification), then why not just go there and arrest them? Why waste the money, time and effort to make a fake 'award ceremony' and send out invitations?
While this use of technology seems laudable, it does bring up one question - why do we automatically assume that just because the police say there was a sexual assault, that there actually was? By making even the possession of child pornography illegal, the State has made sure that there can be no legitimate discussion of the issue, because no one can look and see for themselves whether the pictures are pornographic, or actually show children, and if so, if they actually show an assault. Given the propensity of the police to describe EVERY sexual encounter between a child and an adult as assault, there is already sufficient evidence to be skeptical - and by doing this the government cheapens the experience both of those children who consented to sexual relations, and those who WERE actually the victims of assault. Consider this quote by a former FBI expert on child abuse, Kenneth Lanning: "It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing." Hmmn. Yes, that would be confusing. Lanning, "Child Sex Rings": http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/info-1076.html
points to a pdf - quote on p. 16 at bottom.
Baldur of Asgard
Okay. Here's the problem I have with the tactics the Toronto police used here. Nobody's going to want to stay in the hotel room where these indiscretions took place. Who would want to sleep on a bed where a 9 year old girl was raped? The hotel owner's not to blame, so why should they be penelized?
And? Who's fault is that? The police or the rapist? Why should a 9 year old girl be penalized for being a 9 year old girl? Who's fault is that? You can usually spot the bad guys because they leave a great deal of harm in their wake.
[i]I'm saying this is very close to child porn to the point where it's softcore porn in some cases.[/i]
Thanks for illustrating my point on a very personal level.
As I said: there are people who wank to pictures of kids in catalogs. There are people who don't even care about the stuff you're demonizing, they want kids wearing Bratz and Powerpuff Girls playing on swings and climbing on monkey bars. So when do we outlaw ALL pictures of children because some pervs want to wank to them?
It's not a fucking "loophole" you moron. It's called freedom of thought. I realize that's a challenge to folks like you, so think of it like this: you just admitted you found these pics akin to "softcore porn." So when do we call the thought police to come haul you in for re-education?
Most porn today is found in VIDEO FORMAT. What do you want, pedophiles recording the kids against BLUE SCREENS?
Pornographers won't be able to change the background on photos until automatic tools can do that. I'm sure you won't see one of those guys spending 4 hours with his mouse erasing the contour on a picture with photoshop.
Just googled for "child super models" and it's freaking sick! These sites have got to be an FBI honey pot or something for tracking kiddy-pervs. I mean little kids, even if not naked, in obvious sexually seductive poses with skimpy clothing is just plain wrong. *shudders*
Meh.
One of the problems with very high penalties for rape (and I assume with child molestation this is the same) is that your chances of getting caught go down considerably if you murder the victim. Lets assume that killing the eye witness cuts your chances of being caught / convicted by 50%. Then you don't want the penalty for rape / molestation to be any higher than twice the penalty for rape / molestation + a murder otherwise the criminal logically should commit the murder once they have decided to commit the sex crime.
In reality the number is much larger than 50%. We have a unpleasant choice between sex criminals repeat offending and turning lots of our sex criminals into murders.
4 of the six of the pictures that were posted on the linked website were in public places. Only two were from the inside of a hotel room. Those pics were undoubtedly the more "normal" pictures, i.e., just the girl by herself in public. The more graphic pictures would not have been modified since they would not have shown as much of the identifiable background scenery.
My other first post is car post.
"Given the propensity of the police to describe EVERY sexual encounter between a child and an adult as assault..." "...the government cheapens the experience both of those children who consented to sexual relations..."
Um, I don't know where you're from, but yes, every sexual encounter between a child and an adult *is* assault. No, children cannot consent to sexual relations. You sound like those creepy people who believe that pedastry (romantic relationships between men and boys, or more generally between adults and children) should be legally acceptable.
Finally, in regards to your nick (mods, if you'll indulge a religious criticism): When Balder was killed all of creation wept, for with his death the light had gone out of the world. I can assure you that nobody will weep when you likewise meet his fate. Your words bring shame on all *real* Asatruar.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
You are confusing the issue.
The photos were not posted to punish the hotel owner but rather to find the hotel so they could get a list of people staying and working at the hotel at the time the pictures appeared and get a list of people that they can start checking. This was just done to get leads in a cold case.
He looks at the pictures and sees porn It's all in his head and that's what he's scared of, people who think like he does.
He's not a moron, he's a purve, how else could he think that way.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I sort of see your point.
Having said that, I do not think it is any different than Newscasts disclosing the location of last night's murder when they happen in such and such hotel, or Mario's corner store, or Joe's bar or, heck, someone's home (who would want to buy that house?).
Who would want to visit a place where someone has been murdered? (very few people, save a few cults and other individuals with an interest in crime scenes). The thing is, it is only natural to want to avoid a place where violent crimes occur. I agree that it is not the hotel owner's fault, but neither it is the girl's fault.
Are you saying you would prefer the crime to go unsolved (meaning potentially other victims?) just to save the owner's pride in his business or to save him some money?
If the owner starts taking measures against one's privacy in your hotel room to protect his/her ass, then that's a different crime that can be addressed separately. If the crime is invasion of privacy from the hotel's owner, you can (almost) always go to another hotel less intrusive of your privacy (maybe not in Vegas).
I'll make it easier
half way down the page..
golden[shower] child.
where is my child
wild child
then a little later on
child is waiting
Child Abuse (good place to meet like minded folk)
USES YOUR CHILD'S PHOTO'S! Personalized Baby & Personalized Child book (bring it on baby (punn intended))
child's play series
Can't wait for page 2.
Here's one:
from a slashdot poster named 'danila' who quotes "There is nothing particularly bad about molesting children".
Unfortunately the dumbfuck quotes the usual bullshit I've had pushed at me to tell me why I shouldn't feel particularly bad about having been molested myself. What the dumbfuck doesn't realise, or conveniently ignores, is that as much as any psychological damage from the act, the psychological from the physical rape is horrific.
I was eight when I was molested the first time, and let me tell you the physical damage from having an adult male's dick crammed into my orifices left me with infections that continue on to my late 30s, left me needing more surgeries I can count to fix the rips and tears in my genitalia and asshole (I still can't shit properly, and that's not abnormal for 8 year olds who have been anally raped by adults) and left me unable to physically have sex. There are so many of us who were screwed over as kids who get ignored and have our conditions pushed down as 'not that bad', or 'it's all in our heads' when we are physically bleeding, ripped and broken in the most sensitive of areas and carry the permanent scars of those encounters. That's conveniently ignored by dumbfucks like 'danila'.
If there's nothing particularly wrong with child molesting then there mustn't be anything particularly wrong with going someone over with a baseball bat, it has to be one hell of a lot cleaner. Like dumbfuck danila's contribution, there's no evidence for any psychological damage from doing so (if you ignore the physical, as dumbfuck can conveniently do).
The next step perhaps will be to again turn to computer editing (or maybe just old fashion sketch artists) and take the faces of the children in the photos and get them out ot people in the area, and see if anyone recognises them.
You're forgetting something with this point -- and this actually highlights one of the difficulties of conducting these kinds of investigations. The photos of the victims need to be *very* carefully controlled, because it's essential to maintain the victim's privacy as much as possible.
The kid is already messed up from being abused -- telling the entire community about it would be awful, even if it helped track down the perp. Imagine being a 6th or 7th grader and having your classmates find out about something like this. I shudder to think.
In theory they could just publish the photo without explaining -- but people talk, and they'll figure it out; there are only so many possibilities when the police want to talk to a kid who *isn't* missing.
it would be great that this kind of technology would work out, but i am not sure, i don't like to tell this but i have been abused, its something that everyday,comes to my mind, physically and in my mind, and there's no way i can remove it, it makes me angry about my self, i would preffer to have been killed than to happen what happened to me,death penalty to who does it, because even it is not enought,
I'm not the original poster, but perhaps I can try.
What if the "molester" was innocent, hrm? What if it was just a big misunderstanding? What would occur then?
Don't believe that could happen? Okay, then imagine this: you get a divorce and your spouse loses custody of the children. Angry, (s)he starts spreading rumors. Maybe sets you up, or plants evidence. When the bat-wielding mob of vigilantes comes knocking at your door, what would you say then?
Human beings aren't rational. That's why we have a justice system. People accused of a crime get to see the evidence against them, and defend themselves. If their defense does not hold up then "the People," in the form of a Jury, will convict them.
Due process is about defending the rights of the innocent, not protecting the guilty.
Simple: it's entertaining. You know what else is entertaining? War movies. Crime dramas. Holocaust films. Scarface was a great movie. Maybe we should all be a bit more like Tony Montana?
Really, it's a ridiculous argument. It says a little about human nature alright, and the stories we find interesting, but nothing about whether vigilantism is right or wrong.
I hate how this subject is being trivialized by this thread. I am but a whisker away from have tears running down my face.
/ 13 313.html#cutid1
I think what the Toronto polic is trying to do is a good thing - BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH. These children are scarred for life. A life that's is incomprehensible especially for the average geek until you got to know someone who was abused and traumatized. Then the pain is REAL because the pain that the person faced is so deep and scarring that he or she cannot but help radiate that pain and misery. I felt the pain from a close friend of mine first hand. Just 6 months ago she committed suicide because she can't live with the pain and how it has scarred her anymore.
For anyone who think of this as a trivial manner, please read this entry of hers. She is dead now, but hopefully her words here will help people understand how important it is that we face up to these criminals and PREVENT them from ever committing them in the first place.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/comedotparvuli
...that is how Stalin got into power.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Child molesters are generally NOT pedophiles - they are teleiophiles with little self control, who, given the right situation, do whatever they feel like doing - which sometimes involves hurting children. Most crimes are committed by this type of person - those with little self-control.
p df
On the contrary, most pedophiles are not child molesters. They have normal or heightened levels of self-control (heightened from having to control what they say all their lives).
In both cases, recidivism rates are much lower than normal. One also has to ask about the nature of the crimes - there are plenty of cases where the child gave consent in their own mind, if not in the mind of the law, and in these cases the evidence suggests that they are worse off if they are found out. If they did not feel raped in the first case, they often feel raped by the investigators who barge into their life.
Even in the question of Child Pornography itself, we have to ask what we mean by Child Pornography. When mere possession is outlawed, it is impossible even to determine what the police are talking about - "sexual assault" sounds violent and unwanted to us, but this is not necessarily so.
Consider this quote by former FBI child abuse expert Kenneth Lanning, "It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling and laughing."
http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1076-1.
p. 16.
Baldur of Asgard
...with adult pornography. Viz.
Okay. Here's the problem I have with the tactics the Toronto police used here. Nobody's going to want to stay in the hotel room where these indiscretions took place. Who would want to sleep on a bed where a 9 year old girl was raped? The hotel owner's not to blame, so why should they be penelized?
This argument is stupid. If a murder took place in your hotel, then by golly your hotel will be all over the papers the next day. If a crazy man goes balistic with a gun in your store, then by golly your store will be all over the papers the next day. Similary, if shifty things like this occurs in your establishment and it gets found out, the press will know. Thats how the cookie crumbles, it's not your fault at all, but it's part of the many risks of running a business.
Loban Amaan Rahman ==> Anagram of ==> Aha! An Abnormal Man!
that joke was funnier when it was a priest and a rabbi. lawyer? puh-lease.
Those sites are a red herring. Nothing illegal is going on. The smart site operators know that law enfocement is watching them, so they always stay on the right side of the law. They never do anything overtly sexual. The wankers who use the site might as well be looking at the JC Penny advertisement in the Sunday newspaper. The girls are undoubtedly being exploited, but it's by their parents who sold their pictures that probably got resold to these sites. It's basically just stupid.
I have much more opposition to these sites than to x-rated comics involving children. For these sites, there are actual children involved. In comics, it's just ink on paper and some weirdo's fantasy.
My other first post is car post.
Many have alleged that child pornography is a huge, multi-billion dollar international business. None have proven it.
Fortunately for the police, they don't have to. By making even possession of CP illegal, and in the minds of the sheep worthy of death, they not only do not have to show any evidence, but the more evidence they don't show, the more the public believes them!
The same goes for the international child sex slave rings - very little evidence, almost none in the United States, and when a little evidence IS found, most of those child slaves are 17 years old.
Yes, the enemy is so sneaky one can't even find them! Very dangerous, indeed. Better give the police some more money to work on the problem.
Baldur of Asgard
What if the "molester" was innocent, hrm? What if it was just a big misunderstanding? What would occur then?
In many cases, a gov't agency is IMMUNE TO BEING SUED if they make a mistake and say someone is a molestor when they are not. That is dangerous. Some clerk transposes a couple of numbers on an SSN or address and some innocent person gets his house firebombed, etc and can't sue to recover damages.
Heck, people have been pruged from voter rolls for having committed a felony, when the year such felony was ostensibly committed was in the FUTURE.
Right - no one in prison cares that the other guy is a murderer who might kill their family, they're worried about the guy who might touch their daughter. Yeah, right.
How about this: people who are in prison for theft and murder know that they're scum, but they don't want to feel like scum. If they can find a scapegoat, however, they can feel like they are a part of society, and feel better about themselves. That's the REAL reason why society has chosen, in the past 30 years, to scapegoat child molesters, where for millenia beforehand they didn't much care. And it's why they don't care about confusing pedophiles with child molesters - because their real object is to feel better about themselves without having to deal with their own defects.
Baldur of Asgard
+----------+
.\|.||/..
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
I thought I was the only person who felt that way about the best feature of the death penalty - zero recividism.
I have very few qualms about executing child molesters in the most painful and excrutiating way possible, 8th amendment be damned. Once the sentence is passed, lead them outside to the television cameras, and begin the execution live on national television. Have a doctor on-hand to resuscitate the scumbag as many times as possible until his body simply cannot be repaired.
My one qualm is that children can be coached to say almost anything. The most famous case I'm aware of is the McMartin pre-school. I was a teenager at the time, but the news reports interested me greatly because of the satanic worship/human sacrifice angle. As the case progressed, it became plainly obvious to me that at least 98% of what the kids were claiming was total bullshit, and that put the other 2% seriously in doubt.
People confess to all kinds of things just to make the police shut up, and kids have a natural tendency to want to please authority figures anyway. Say Mr. Smith touched you and suddenly everyone is paying lots of attention to you. Say he did more, and you get even more attention.
I have a friend who works in the county sherrif's office. He said, "you'd be amazed what people will say to me in chat rooms when they think I'm a 14-year old boy." What a shitty job, says I. But these are dangerous and sick people, and a painful death, provided we're 100% sure of their guilt, is far too good for them.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
That we need to make multiple child rape a federal capital crime so they can be locked up for life or executed. State should handle it if theres only one victim though. They should also hunt down and destory all organization that support or promote having sex with children like NAMBLA.
The current laws are far to weak and the punishment is so not hard enough on the offender.
Other than the mixup in formatting, there was nothing wrong with it. If it is flamebait (as moderated) it is only because there are so many sheep unwilling to confront the facts.
Baldur of Asgard
Did they get the idea from here?
"by definition" - exactly. Adult-child sex MUST be abuse because the herd says it MUST be abuse. Never mind millenia of Western culture that says otherwise, never mind the many non-western cultures that say otherwise. Never mind the scientific evidence that says otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al.
All this must be suppressed, because the people need a Scapegoat - they need to feel better by blaming the innocent for all their problems - and for the present, pedophiles are It.
So we say that adult-child sex is sexual assault "by definition". We say that statutory rape is rape "by definition", and make it equivalent to forcible rape, although in fact it is very different. Yes, we can do a lot of things "by definition".
Black is White. War is Peace. Spam is Jell-o.
Baldur of Asgard
Child porn law's are absurd. The only necessary law regarding sexual activity should be a ban on rape. I agree that adults that have sex with young children are sick. (Adults that knowingly lie to children or force them to do useless or harmfull physical or mental activity....as many public school teachers do....are sick as well) I should be able to own any pictures I want. Teenagers have sex with each other. They always have; they always will. Defining an adult as one over 18 when humans generally become sexually mature at a much younger age is wrong. If teenagers (not 18 or 19 year olds like legit porn sites define teen, but real teenagers: 13-17) have consensual sex with each other and decide to take some pictures and upload them to the net, anyone who wants should be able to download them. I wonder what would happen if some minor took pictures of themselves and a parterner engaging in consentual sexual activity, and years later is caught with the images? There are all kinds of cases where noone is harmed by so called "child" pron. Safe trusting consentual sex is a fun and socially benificial activity. Excessive conservatism is just going to turn us into a more regressive backward god fearing people. Yes....many teens are not ready and do stupid things. Often this is because conservatives have sheltered them from pron, education, and frank discusions about fucking. Many "legal adults" are also too immature to have safe sex. When society arbritrarily sets 18 as the age of consent, we are just encouraging both minors and adults to not take the law serously.
(even on slashdot its hard to speak out on free speech...when I defended the right to send any email your bandwidth would allow, I was accused of being a spammer...I would not be surprised if I were labeled a rapeist for defending "child" pronography)
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Indeed, they don't know where the criminals live. However, they do know where people live who probably know how to get in touch with the criminal, but are unwilling to help the police do so. They send a "You've won a free vacation!!!" flier to the criminal's mom, and she gives said criminal the flier. Yadda yadda yaddaa...
--why?
Here is one.
I'm not arguing that it's right or wrong, but I'd just like to raise the point that Vigilantes appoint themselves. They are not chosen by "the people".
Oh, and by the way, Batman is not super-normal. He is just highly trained, highly motivated, and very rich 'ordinary bloke'. No radioactive spider bites, not from another planet, nothing. (Sorry, bit of a pet peeve of mine, this calling Batman a superhero.)
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Congrats, yours is the most overrated post I've ever seen on /.
A photograph of a child at a beach can be labelled as child abuse. An adult can be charged with exploitation of a child for having a family photo album. Perhaps the person was reading between the lines.
fark.com should let police send them pics that have the people (victims/criminals) simply deleted - takes the cops 10 seconds to do this.
then farkers could re-construct the scene without people. image nuts like myself can rebuild scenes without the people really quickly and accurately and would love to help cops nab these assholes.
i'm sure police have to pay quite a bit to have these scenes reconstucted otherwise. this way more of their limited resources could go to catching the pervs.
Firstly, fuck off with your "A Canadian child pornography mecca." Look at your american churches for priests molesting young boys, pedophilia, mecca.
n /
The Disney empire use child labour to give you magical illusions. There's nothing magical about the place. It's also strange that fatalities there are largely unknown.
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue9_6/marti
Ignore the religious and the gay bashing sites.
That way ALL police departments would have access to this investigative technique. Someone should do this even if fark doesn't. Farkers would probably volunteer even if it wasn't on fark just to show off their skills. Should have a voting system like fark so best work is easy to find and self-ranking.
Okay, I've been affected somewhat by child abuse, so I don't really like to joke about it. But the brainless knee-jerk reactions some people have is ridiculous. Murder, that's nothing...Prison rape, they get what they deserve. But children being sexually abused is somehow the worse possible thing, and anyone who makes jokes about it is automatically a sick fucking paedo?!? There are alot of horrible and grotesque things that happen, but child rape is somehow exponentially worse? I do agree it's an awful and tragic thing...it ruins people's emotions forever. But do you think kids in Libya seeing there parents mutilated in front of them is any better. Or what about the poor SOB in prison, who get's raped every day and now will never know a day without fear, even when he is released. I hear people talk about children with no soul...but this isn't uncommon. Children in forced labor, bullied mercilessly at school, with a perfectionist family, severe depression, in a family where the parents abuse each other...in an extreme of any of these a child can be souless and scarred beyond repair for life. Also, I really hate to see the laws going psychotic on child nudity. There is a huge difference between nudity and pornography, there is nothing wrong with the human form, especially that of early youth, but obviously there is something wrong with a 9 year old having intercourse. Again, it makes me sad that people can be arrested for taking pictures of their children playing in the tub, just because sexually repressed, moral nazis, say it's sexual. By this logic, eventually it will be illegal for women to breast feed, since she's obviously coercing the child into a sexual position to satiate her own carnal desires. With all that said, I see where people with children or people who were severly abused are coming from. It would be strange for them not to hate paedophiles...but it still wouldn't make it okay to torture paedos.
Vigilantes tend not to follow the "due process of law", or have the necessary abilities of second-guessing and discrimination that a government's licensed-and-regulated legal system has.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
BURN!!!!!
LMAO Awesome man. You rule.
Or you'll obviously have a boner so long that you'll never get your pants off again. Jebus, I've seen those sites...they're not that bad. The preteen girls at the mall wear shit worse than half those pictures. I can agree, that those might be considered paedo fodder...but so is Mary Kate and Ashley, Hilary Duff, Amanda Bines...or any other manufactured teeny bopper pop idol. If you ban those sites, you might as well fucking ban Nickolodean as well. Your too goddamned sensitive, people have problems and find girls that are way too young attractive. Some people also find animals attractive, so we need to get rid of all those obvious zoophiliac sites like http://www.SandiegoZoo.org/ And also many of those sites are for 15+ girls...and when they reach sexaul maturation of course they will be attractive to the opposite sex. Just because a law says it's wrong doesn't change biology.
Be careful about making sweeping generalizations. In times of moral panic, sweeping generalizations have a way of getting enacted into law. And innocent lives get ruined.
Official DOJ reports show that recidivism amongst preferential child sexual abusers (ie pedophiles) is actually one of the LOWEST in all of the prison system.
It's an order of magnitude lower than those convicted for robbery and assault and lower than "other" types of sexual assault.
What you say is absurd.
Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
No, I'm not kidding:d iger_kan_pistool_declareren.html
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/17479421/Misda
(To cost According to director Gerard Sta of the office Ontnemingen Public Prosecution Service is it indeed possible that criminal cost that has been made for committing a indictable offence, can deduct. It concerns costs which have an direct relation with the indictable offence. Costs would not have made therefore that an offender differently. A second condition is that the indictable offence must be completed be, thus stands. The law goes there according to stands from that the financial situation of the bank robber after ' payment ' with justice the same must be as for the overval. The robber of the bank in Chaam had buy that weapon to be able rob that bank. It sounds perhaps a beetje oddly, but this way is the law. Director Sta gives still a another example: "if a hemp plantation is closed down the grower can indicate which onkosten he has made.")
Lousy translation, but you get the idea. The deduction should only be applied AFTER arrest, not before. The IRS are not stupid.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
Excuse me if this is out of line (I just smoked some opium), but I think the phrase "take his life" is a bullshit euphamism that should die. You would kill the motherfucker.
There are likely thousands of kids visiting this place every year that are being fucked by parents, coaches, uncles, moms, grandparents - and you think invasive crap like this that infringes on the liberties of our entire society is going to prevent that?
Man, the people of the US don't deserve the freedom they're now squandering out of irrational fear and resolute denial. I pity the future children of the US.
I think you're over-estimating the amount of people that this news will reach and the amount of people that go to Disney World. Even if it did, the general populace has a short memory.
No sig for you!!
For the benefit of those of us not in the U.S., what age is "6th grade"?
What if the "molester" was innocent, hrm? What if it was just a big misunderstanding? What would occur then?
What occurs NOW? What occurs is 'the State' falsely accuses someone?
When the bat-wielding mob of vigilantes comes knocking at your door, what would you say then?
The same thing I'd say NOW to the handgun-weilding police that would come knocking on my door- "I'm innocent." I expect I'd get the same response.
Simple: it's entertaining. You know what else is entertaining? War movies. Crime dramas. Holocaust films. Scarface was a great movie. Maybe we should all be a bit more like Tony Montana?
Screw TV and movies, look at history:
Like the traitor George Washington.
Or the terrorists who disguised themselves and participated in the Boston Tea Party.
Really, it's a ridiculous argument. It says a little about human nature alright, and the stories we find interesting,
Why do we find stories about vigilantes interesting?
Do we find stories about raping and torturing people "interesting"? No. Because those are bad. But we do find stories about vigilantes interesting. Hmmm.
...Vigilantes appoint themselves. They are not chosen by "the people".
Vigilantes are "the people".
Oh, and by the way, Batman is not super-normal. He is just highly trained, highly motivated, and very rich 'ordinary bloke'.
Are most people "highly trained, highly motivated, and very rich"? No. Then being so is 'more than normal', ie: super-normal. I didn't say "supernatural."
Vigilantes tend not to follow the "due process of law"
Which is why they are so effective.
Would Superman be effective if he had to get a search warrant before each and every time he used his x-ray vision?
Would we have cheered at Murtaugh if he honored that guy's "Diplomatic Immunity" in Lethal Weapon? (or was it LW2?)
Would we even be here if George Washington had followed "due process of law" to bring the Colony's grievences to the King of England??
.
Working outside the law has it's advantages.
Notice how the photos are editted and you can't see what was there? That's closed source and it is quite effective to protect the girl. Currently there are two replies basically calling you an idiot for trying to turn this into an open-source issue and I agree with them. I don't think I've ever met anyone who is Anti-Open-Source but there sure are a shitload of you anti-closed-source people out there. Use the right tool for the job and stop bitching about why open source is better than everything else. It isn't.
Then the rabbi said, "Ani lo kolno'a"
Why is it Okay for one group of people (the State) to capture and punish criminals, but not Okay for another group (the People) to do so?
It's called the social contract. Read up on your Enlightenment philosophy and you'll understand the answer to this question, but the simple form is:
Government (the State) is the result of an implied contract between the State and the People. In this contract, the people cede certain freedoms to the government in exchange for certain services performed by the government. For example, we cede our freedom to beat our neighbor bloody *for almost any reason*. In exchange, we receive a promise that those who break these aspects of the contract will be punished by the State. There is nothing inherently wrong with vigilante justice; HOWEVER, by participating in our state, you have agreed that you will not act in this fashion, and that if you do you are subject to the terms of the contract - to whit, prosecution for your actions.
By the way - the demands of fiction are not a good basis for reality. All of Shakespeare's tragic heros *die* before their time. Does that mean that you have to die before your time to be a hero?
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Yeah, I had a relative die in a concentration camp. He fell out of a guard tower. Pretty sad.
Parent is insightful, and the grandparent is an idiot. Of course these photos don't depict a crying child being raped; do you think there would be a lot a background to analyze in those photos?
There's a term called "informed consent". Even if a child gives their consent, the developmental stage of the child prevents them from fully understanding what it means to give consent and thus negates any consent they may give, even if it's given quite willingly.
Have you ever spent time relating to a nine-year-old child? They dont know what the hell they're doing. If they did, we'd let them vote, drink and buy property, as well as give their consent to engage in sexual activity. But they don't. Thats why we love them and protect them instead of subjecting them to situations that will give them nightmares as their lives progress.
Now I agree with you and the intentions of the law against statutory rape (which is what covers informed consent) and the like. Now I don't believe that something magical happens on someone's 18th birthday in the US or 16th birthday in the UK. The maturity required to give informed consent is gradual, and occurs at different times for different people. But the law requires an age to be set, so it quasi-arbitrarily sets an age. The fact that different countries draw the line at different places, but in roughly the same age range is a testament to the well-natured, but arbitrariness of any law drawing line between when someone is mature enough to make adult decisions, and when they are not.
Now here's where the fun begins.
In the United States we had a juvenile justice system. When a minor committed a crime, they were tried under a juvenile justice system. The idea was that kids aren't mature enough to make decisions, and as you said "Don't know what the hell they're doing." Also the kids are still young, so society can still "fix" them before they become an adult. Sentences were much lighter in the juvenile system, since society was dealing with kids and not adults. Another key component of the juvenile system was that all records were sealed on a kid-criminal's 18th birthday. The idea is that someone shouldn't be stigmatized and punished their entire lives for something they did when they were 12.
Then in the 80s, conservatives began to complain that the juvenile justice system was joke, and let repeat offenders out into society too early, and the sealed records harmed society and police. So under the guise of "We're only going to apply this to the hardest of the hard. We're only going to apply this to those that are almost 18," laws were passed that allowed kid defendents to be "tried as an adult". Upon conviction, these minors would be given adult prison sentences in adult jail. Society was scared of 16-17 year old black gang banging crack dealers, so the law was changed.
After the law was changed, the "adult trials" were few and far between. Were they in and out of juvenile hall most of their short lives? Yeah. Was it likely they were going to commit another crime in the future? Yeah. Did the defendents know what they were doing? Eh....maybe. They were going to be 18 in a year anyway. So society didn't have much qualms about trying these minors as adults.
Over the years since, society has pretty much gutted the juvenile justice system. Lots of kids are now being tried as adults. Lots of kids who never before committed a crime are being tried as adults. 10-12 year old kids are being tried as adults. In some states, kids can even be executed.
Right now there's a case being tried in Florida where a boy killed his grandparents when he was 12. He's now 15. If convicted, he will spend the rest of his life in jail. By all accounts, this kids was pretty messed up when he was 12. The kid was on Zoloft, for crying out loud. (I can't imagine how messed up he is now after being in police custody for 3 years.) The prosecution has been saying the 12 year old knew what he was doing, and killed his grandparents in cold blood. Furthermore, he knew it was wrong, and tha
God you have to have a twisted mind to go to Disney World a shoot child pornography.
It's where the children are and it's where they want to go. What better place to find or take children? Think about it. Would a child be more apt to go to your house to do some freaky shit, out in the woods to do some freaky shit, or go to Disney World to do some freaky shit? It's sick and twisted but the whole child-lover scene is sick and twisted to begin with.
Given how theme parks are on branding and paranoid about copyright infringement i.e. photographs i'm shocked they don't have their wallpaper watermarked.
"The girl next door to me is 14 and VERY hot (I'm in the UK she's legal in two years)." ...and? Your point that she's legal in two years is irrelevant. Obviously I don't know how old you might be (which could make a huge difference - I could probably accept somebody of 18/19 doing that, but not a 40 year old), but my sister is 14 (and in the UK), and I'd be coming round to punch you if stared at her chest like that.
"I've looked at her chest as she walked past, didn't get caught and got a little giggle out of it at best. Is this a problem? Does that make me a child molester?"
No. It makes you a voyeur.
I know that a year back or so in the UK there was a call for all police assigned to the child protection unit who's job was to wade through thousands of images looking for clues to only be on the job for three years, before being transferred off to another department. The argument was they would become mentally disturbed as a result of looking through these pictures for so long - however, the police refused, saying they'd lose many valuable experts.
Your comment led me to take a look at the silhouettes to check my own reaction.
There was a mirror in one of the images, directly in view of the camera. They hadn't edited out what showed in the mirror.
Now THAT made me uneasy.
Blank!
I personally would replace it with "get medieval on his ass".I say victims rights.When they catch him let the meanest relative in the family have 24 hours with them.I would use a skill saw and a blow torch(wouldn't want them to bleed to death,just wish for it).
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
So molestation is wrong, but murder is okay? Of course it's a serious issue, but murder is even more so. If someone is molested you might say they have to remeber it for the rest of their life, but at least the HAVE a life still. I was molested as a child and I do remeber it, but I don't think about it much. It's really not that hard to move on with your life. I know one thing for certain, looking back I would not have rather been murdered. Nor would I want to take away the life of the person who molested me, even though it was wrong, I don't know what they were going through in their life that made them do it.
The Toronto police have never identified the hotel. Unless it's _very_ distinctive looking then you're just getting a bunch of people who don't want to sleep in hotel beds. Like everyone else.
Vigilante justice?How about family justice.If I had a little boy or girl and found them with blood between their legs and found out who did it I'd make sure to have my lawyers number in my front pocket for when the cops found me over the body. I could probably get off on the "he needed killin"technicality.Which,If you are not southern,Goes like this----Defendant-Your Honor,When I saw my little baby girl lying there with blood on her and she cried his name in pain I couldn't see anything but her blood or think of anything but her sobs and I had to make it go away.----Judge---I understand,The events of that night were more traumatic than your poor mind could comprehend or process.We're gonna send you to this nice doctor for six months and he will help you to deal with the awful things that happened that night.---NOT GUILTY
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I'd like to point out that the edited pictures being used to find the accused is a completely different act than using those edited pictures at trial. The originals (or copies thereof), even with black marker across necessary bits, should be used at trial to convict -- these are just being used to go out and grab the perp and get them away from the child in question.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I agree. I don't see why they needed to release the name of the hotel .. now the hotel owner and employees are going to suffer. If it was my hotel, I'd probably be busy making plans to change the name right now.
Me too. He was hit by someone who fell out of a guard tower.
The only realistic answer is that they OWN their kids.
That was classic intercourse!
... can you demonstrate that any of the girls on that site are being harmed? You seem to take it self-evident that this is "bad" .. I'm not so sure. Forget all your pre-existing notions about this subject and just try to focus on that one question.
I pretty much agree with everything you said and will clarify it further if I may. Attraction to Pre-Pubescents (pre puberty, i.e., usually under 10 or 11 years or so) is classified as "Paedophilia," and is considered a mental illness.
What the parent post described is called Ephebophilia, an attraction to post pubescent adolescents, this has never been and never will be considered an illness. 70% of the world's population can be classified as ephebophiles, we're wired that way. Only the relatively recent concept of Age of Consent has attached any stigma to this. Also, it'd be worth checking out your local age of consent (I'm NOT saying this to advocate anything inappropriate, just to educate yourself.) Turns out in a majority of countries and US states, the age of consent is below 18. I'm still curious to know how 18 has become the age below which it's unthinkable to sexualize someone...
Yup...
The thing is sites like those are far too easy to come accross. If i want to wank off over some girl at the mall i really have to go out of my way, but with the hyperweb, I can amass a thousand images of barely dressed sexually-posing kids wihin an hour. That has got to be a 'bad thing' if your trying to avoid the sexualisation of kids.
The possibilities are endless! Replace the background with:
Yeah, right.
Why do we assume that child porn is "evil"? Children reach sexual maturity at around the age of 13 or 14; why do we artificially prevent them revealing this fact for a further four or five years? Where is the scientific research that shows that engaging in sexual activity at the age of 13 harms the "victim"?
I'm not saying it's right. I don't use it myself. I'm just asking... why is there this kneejerk assumption that it's "evil", when there is absolutely no scientific evidence (that I'm aware of) that consensual sexual activity with "minors" causes harm?
What about comments equating statutory rape (i.e. having sex with a willing person who happens to be under the current age of consent) with child abuse (the wilful abuse of a non-consenting child)?
The moment you have children of your own, this naive right-wing passions of yours will go straight out the window. - Fromage
Child molesters are not in prison because they are mentally ill per se (an unproven premise by the way). They are there because of what they have done.
A simple idea with definite results, bravo to the law enforcement personnel who decided to utilize this technique.
Interesting to note that the moderators didn't like this user's comments. I guess you don't mind it if your daughter is in the same photo them?
My very first boyfriend, when I was 16, was a 20-year-old pedophile. I do not know if he ever abused any child, but his hard disk was full of child porn he downloaded from alt.binaries newsgroups. And when I say child, I mean child - no breasts, no pubic hair, something between 7 and 12 years old. Of course he got attracted to me because, even being 16, I looked younger. I never told his family about his pedophilia, but I feel a bit guilty for not telling them this. I'd not leave any child alone with him. We broke up some years later and I always think about his young cousins who might have been abused by him. And it was the very same story: when he was about 6, 7 years old, one of his aunts (he never told me wich aunt was, he had about 10 aunts :P) did some sexual stuff to him. That's so scary to imagine how many families have hidden stories like this. I have at least three friends who suffered some kind of abuse when they were young girls. That's awfully common - and the worst thing is that the abuser is usually a family member, or someone close to the victim. ::(
Why is it Okay for one group of people (the State) to capture and punish criminals, but not Okay for another group (the People) to do so?
The state is constructed by the people in such a way to be able to account for their actions and take responsibility for them, with things like due process, search warrants, etc. The entire voting public have a say in this with their votes.
Vigilante groups only justify their actions to themselves, they only take responsibility when they are caught, and nobody but them have a say in how they do things.
'The State' is appointed (directly via voting or indirectly) BY 'the People'. (Why can't 'the People' appoint an different subset ('Vigilantes')?)
Why can't they? They can. By voting representatives into office that would enact laws making vigilante justice legal. But they haven't. Vigilantes aren't "The People". Vigilantes are just some people.
Also, please reconcile the fact that, despite vigilantes being on the wrong side of the law, almost every single 'hero' in the past, or in fiction, or on TV/in movies is a Vigilante.
The point about vigilante justice being bad is not tied to the success stories. It's tied to the inherent lack of due process.
How many of those heroes made a mistake? None, because if they made a mistake, they wouldn't be heroes, would they? But how many vigilantes in general make mistakes?
Bear in mind a bunch of vigilantes have got hold of the address of a paediatrician and forced her out of the neighbourhood with repeated bricks through the windows of her house, filth painted up her walls and so on.
This is the kind of thing you open yourself up to when you accept vigilante justice. Sheer hatred blinds people, and when a kid has just been raped, people tend to look for somebody to hurt in retaliation, rather than look for somebody to bring to justice.
In many cases, a gov't agency is IMMUNE TO BEING SUED if they make a mistake and say someone is a molestor when they are not. That is dangerous. Some clerk transposes a couple of numbers on an SSN or address and some innocent person gets his house firebombed, etc and can't sue to recover damages.
Classic. You are arguing pro-vigilante justice because it's wrong that you can't sue the goverment when a vigilante firebombs your house. Nice troll.
The same thing I'd say NOW to the handgun-weilding police that would come knocking on my door- "I'm innocent." I expect I'd get the same response.
When vigilantes who think you are a child rapist arrive at your door, you'd honestly expect a trial where you are presumed innocent, where you have the right to a lawyer and the right to an appeal?
It seems to vary from state to state.
More information on child abuse statutes of limitation.
I agree. Police agencies surely have a large database of suspected or convicted child molesters. And the hotel should have a database of everyone who has stayed there. A simple SQL query should provide police with a very small, very helpful list of suspects deserving of home searches and interrogation.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
I think you're overestimating the value people (with some exceptions) attach to the history of a room. It's a motel/hotel room. Who knows what happened in it? No, I don't "want" to sleep in a room where someone was raped, or killed, or whatever. Assuming the establishment keeps up with cleaning however, I don't "not want" to sleep there either. It's a room I rent, for a night or a couple of nights. If it's clean, what happened prior or subsequent to my occupation of the room is of no concern to me.
bullshit
Gee, can I make inflammatory replies, while cursing and spewing trolling remarks and get modded insightful as well? Honestly the parent to all this has a point, but the counterpoint brought is borderline trolling. I didn't realize telling people to shove it up their ass and calling them morons was so insightful these days. And who are the mods that mod this drek up anyways ?
The main point being that these barely legal sites showing no-where near legal children done up like barbie dolls in their glamour shots/swimsuit shots are walking a fine line. Does it not make you wonder about the parents who put these children through this for their own desires? Is this not a form of child exploitation, or as said before, a form of soft-core child porn? Have you never seen the horrid HBO documentary that feature these goings on? Its bewildering that people do this to their children, and more so that you find it acceptable.
These child-glamour sites and sites featuring underage nudists are NOT your Sears catalogue or weekly Wal-Mart circular. Please save your thought-crime bs for a more appropriate and ontopic discussion.
Would you attitude remain the same if one of your kids was beaten to a pulp by a vigilante who'd made a mistake?
If anything, having P2P networks clogged with child porn is probably a good thing if you're thinking of the children. ...
If my goal was to minimise the number of children abused, I would ignore P2P since:
This is insane. You are saying pictures of children BEING ABUSED is perfectly fine to download and look at? Do you realize this will cause more people to ABUSE CHILDREN and post the pictures on the internet? I am going to guess that you just haven't thought this through because that idea is absolutely retarded, you are giving an air of legitimacy to the whole thing by making it OK to download.
Ann Landers (her daughter) had that same dilemna- someone wrote in asking about urges for a child.
She turned that person into the police.
That person hadn't abused anyone. But recognizing a deviate behavior and 'correcting' it before irreparable harm comes to a child is more important than fixing it after the fact. (and even then, can you really fix it?)
Attention molesters, the message is clear:
If you have impure thoughts about a minor, do not look for help before it's too late. No, just go ahead and act on these impulses, because you're gonna get punished wether you do them or not. So if you're gonna do the time anyway, might as well do the crime.
You can't take the sky from me...
Oh, and by the way, Batman is not super-normal. He is just highly trained, highly motivated, and very rich 'ordinary bloke'. No radioactive spider bites, not from another planet, nothing. (Sorry, bit of a pet peeve of mine, this calling Batman a superhero.)
He has a superhuman detective mind. Just saying.
And he can bring down the Kryptonian if need be... he's more than a hero: He's a superhero.
You can't take the sky from me...
batman may not be super-normal, but he can hardly be described as a normal 'ordinary bloke'... afterall, he dresses up as a 'bat' when he 'works' as a self-appointed vigilante..
..is all of this the behaviour of a sane and rational person?
despite him not coming from another planet, and not having special powers, he believes himself to be totally above and beyond the 'law', and repeatedly takes 'law enforcement' into his own hands.
I guess I can never stay at the Orleans now, because all I would be able to think about was if my room was one one where this took place. Ugh.
Try not to think too much about the fact that since they were around for hundreds of millions of years, and quite large, all of the earth's water was probably pissed by a dinosaur at some point.
Yup, you've been drinking giant lizard urine.
Now apply that to all public places you've been, think of all the unwashed hands that have touched what you are touching... what had they been scratching moments before? See these people leaving the public toilets without washing their hands? I woner if they'll be handling paper money anytime soon...
And now, the psychic taint that lewd sexual encounters between abusers and their underaged victims might have laid upon the rented rooms you're staying in are added to the vague conjectures about the possible contagious ailments the previous occupant might have had.
How long can chlamedia stay alive in sheets?
You can't take the sky from me...
So the police should avoid trying to catch the rapist so that the hotel owner's profits are unaffected?
I travel a lot on business. I've learned a few things:
1. Most hotel rooms are architected the same.
2. Furniture and electrical fittings in almost all hotel rooms seems to come from the same small handful of suppliers.
3. Same goes for bed linens.
Since the US is so huge, this means that there are potentially hundreds or thousands of matches for any set of hotel-room pictures.
So yeah, it may narrow the search space a little, and in this case maybe it's evident that it was Disney, but in the general case you won't learn much unless there are some exterior shots in the photo series. Therefore such information should be treated as far from conclusive.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
You watch Monk a lot don't you?
All kidding aside, those other things are trivial in my mind in comparison to the thought of a child being abused in the same room that I'm staying in. The water here tastes worse than dinosaur piss anyway, adding some more may actually improve the taste.
My younger brother was sexually assualted many years ago, and honestly if I found the guy that did it, I would probably take his life.
Would your brother want you to?
Shouldn't it be his demon to kill?
Things aren't always black and white, some people would rather forget and move on than get revenge.
Then again, I understand how you feel... it's awfull when someone harms soeone you care about and there's nothing you can do to make it better.
You can't take the sky from me...
You watch Monk a lot don't you?
No, but I've been carefull about doorknobs and shared keyboards forever. And the money thing really worries me...
You can't take the sky from me...
Government (the State) is the result of an implied contract between the State and the People. In this contract, the people cede certain freedoms to the government in exchange for certain services performed by the government.
"Government" is nothing more than a subset of "the People".
Besides, your explaination works just fine to support MY side, if you substitute "vigilantes" for "government":
In this contract, the people cede certain freedoms to the vigilantes in exchange for certain services performed by the vigilantes .
Government is exactly what I said it was - the result of an implied contract. At first this contract is formed between the total set of the People; after it has been formed once, it is then modified by agreement between the Government (which has now become more than just a subset of the People) and the People. Like I said - read the original philosophers who proposed this model - Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau. Your argument is somewhat juvenile.
And, sure, my point works fine to support vigilantism... *if* the contract is with the vigilantes. Like I said, there is no inherent problem with vigilante justice, it is not inherently wrong. Further, if you made that social contract, with the vigilantes? You've just formed a part of your Government.
Even further, a vigilante is, by definition, "a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily". The minute they are doing it as a result of a contract, rather than voluntarily, the vigilantes are no longer vigilantes. They've become police. Police whose methods resemble those of third-world countries, but police nonetheless.
Additionally, it is breaking the established social contract. Unfortunately for you, you don't get a choice about making the contract with vigilantes, because the country as a whole is already under contract to the government. My explanation is designed to explain why vigilante justice is wrong in a country that already has a government. The idea of forming a social contract with vigilantes works fine if you currently have no contract, but you have a contract. If you don't like your contract, you're free to try to get out of it, but the odds of the rest of the People allowing you to both do so and remain on the land the State occupies are very, very low.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Vigilantes aren't "The People". Vigilantes are just some people.
The Government isn't "the People", either.
But how many vigilantes in general make mistakes?
I'm waiting to hear your statistics.
Bear in mind a bunch of vigilantes have got hold of the address of a paediatrician and forced her out of the neighbourhood with repeated bricks through the windows of her house, filth painted up her walls and so on.
And in my world, you and I would be able to slap a little sense into those idiots.
people tend to look for somebody to hurt in retaliation, rather than look for somebody to bring to justice.
THis applies equally well to cops.
I understand that, but as an unintended consequence, the hotel owner is punished since no one will want to stay in that room, or even that hotel since all the rooms probably look more or less alike.
As a result, hotel owners might take it upon themselves to police their guests through video surveillance in order to avoid such problems. That's the only point I was trying to make.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Well, that's not exactly the point I was trying to make. Yes it is tough luck for the hotel owner, but I am more concerned about the steps hotel owners might take in the future to prevent such things from happening in the first place and the loss of privacy for guests that result.
The situation with a grisly murder is different for two reasons. First, they generally happen rather suddenly, so covert surveillance is not likely to prevent them, and thus no incentive is provided for hotel owners to install secret surveillance cameras in rooms. Second, many people wouldn't be bothered by the fact that a grisly murder took place in their room. Some might even find it exciting. But most people would find it creepy to stay in a room where a child was raped, and others wouldn't want to stay there anyway for fear that people might conclude they requested that room specifically. Nobody wants to look like a creepy pedophile, but many would like to brag that they slept in a room where a grisly murder took place.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Here in Canada, "Child Pornography" is a similar bogeyman to "Terrorism" in the US.
I strongly urge you to read the relevant parts of our Criminal Code.
Particularly, PART V -Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct
and specifically Section 163.1.
For example, subsections (4.1) and (4.2) mean that you can spend 5 years in jail for clicking a link.
That, however, is not nearly enough for the OPP.
As part of their "Operation Snowball", the mere suspicion of posessing child pornography is grounds to denounce you as a paedophile in a public press conference.
Of course, that fact that you may be innocent is not enough to stop them from ruining your life. Don't believe me? Ask James LeCraw. Oh, sorry, you can't - he committed suicide, eight months after all charges against him were withdrawn.
The question or comments he asked was a cry for help. He got help. I have no idea if he was charged or what the outcome was, but verbalization is a call for assistance.
Trump it as a thought crime, fine. May you never experience your children being molested under the guise of 'free speech'.
"Personaly I think there is no tragety so sever that it should be barred from the realms of jokes."
Maybe you are wrong. I did not find that joke funny at all.
Notice that you would only post it as an AC.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The Government isn't "the People", either.
The government works on behalf of The People. Vigilantes work on behalf of themselves. Society has no agreement with vigilantes and vigilantes are accountable to nobody but themselves.
If you really can't see the difference, then not only do you have no sense of perspective, but you are entirely ignorant of practically all political theory. Get educated.
I'm waiting to hear your statistics.
You are the one asserting that a group of people with no authority, accountable to nobody, working to no fixed set of laws, is a suitable system for providing justice. The burden of proof rests with you to show that this is the case.
And in my world, you and I would be able to slap a little sense into those idiots.
Great! Now we have two injustices instead of none.
THis applies equally well to cops.
Police are held accountable when they infringe on somebody's right to due process.
At this moment I'm staying in a hotel where that is exactly what happened.
It took me a little over a day and half here for me to realize that it was in fact the same hotel, and furthermore, that the lobby was virtually unchanged. The only major change is the removal of all the suspended walkways, and the addition of a ground supported walkway between the second floor levels on opposite sides of the atrium. The walkways actually were quite functional, as the third floor was the only way to connect from guest rooms to the ballroom level, or the healthclub level. Now one has to go down to the lobby or second floor, to cross and go back up to the level you need.
No one else seems to notice, and lots of people take pictures of the (IMHO rather ugly) art that now decorates the lobby. There is no mention of it anywhere. I actually had to look up pictures on the internet to realize that virtually nothing had changed.
-Mikey P
I got that wrong .. my bad .. was reading too quickly and had just "scanned through" it, getting the wrong message .. *blush*. I guess trying to cram some slashdot reading in amongst tight work deadlines isn't the greatest idea.
You make an important point. I don't feel comfortable at all charging 12 year-olds, especially disturbed 12-year-olds (you mentioned zoloft) as adults. If they had the full judgement and wisdom of "adults", shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
On the other hand, it's a pretty good judgement call that someone at 17 years and 364 days will have about the same reasoning ability as an 18 year-old, baring individual variability of course. Why should they "get away with murder" because they're under 18?
But there's a difference when someone does something wrong and someone coerces someone into doing something wrong. If I say that you're responsible for what you do, that does not negate that fact that someone may be acting irresponsibly in coercing you to do something.
Here's an example. An executive has sex with his secretary, promotes her, and then gets fired for having sex with her. The secretary continues her employment.
In this case, the boss is considered to have overwhelming career power over the secretary and thus should keep his lust in check. The secretary, however is not in a position to influence the executive's career, so what she has done is not considered to be a fireing offence. Yes, she can giver her consent to sex. She may have even been the agressor leading toward the act. But the executive, since he is both in the posistion of power and should "know better" is expected to just say no.
Moving this to the matter at hand, a 16-year-old girl who is bright and understands the consequeses may indeed give her consent to have sex with a 40-year-old man. She has the body of an adult and, at least in this example, intelligence and wisdom at least of an 18-year-old. However, the 40-year-old man, by virtue of his social position vs. hers, is in a position to have coersive power over the girl. For that reason alone, I would find the act at least as wrong as that between the executive and his secretary and the guy should definately have to pay the piper. No, it's not as bad as him haveing sex with a nine-year-old, but the law wont treat it as bad either.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that yes our society does have a disconect when it comes to judging how responsible a minor should be for the things they do, but it doesn't have as big of a disconnect as it seems when it comes to sex. Yes, many minors know what they're doing and have a desire to have sex. However, the adults still need say a resounding NO if the subject comes up and the law will enforce the issue if they don't. Put another way, 16-year-olds can have sex with other 16-year-olds all day long and the law doesn't care. Keeping, often preditory, adults who probably have vast coersive powers out of the picture is still a very good thing.
TW
He's right on the money. While a lot of people believe sex offenders are the most likely criminals to reoffend, it really is just a myth. If you take a look at the evidence, you can see for yourself.
Just a small nitpick here, but Franklin at least, exhausted all due process available to the Crown of England before the revolution.
The American Revolution only happend because Colonists were treated like second class citizens who were not given the same rights, nor were their grievances addressed like other subjects of the Crown.
It wasn't a matter of "England sucks, but let's not bother trying to fix it by ASKING. Let's just revolt!"
Franklin was not the only prominent American to bring grievences to the Crown through due process, but I'm not aware if Washington himself did too.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
So we can't use a readily available technology to help curtail a horrible crime like this because it might hurt some guy's hotel business?
That's crazy, you are an idiot, and please learn how to reason. And who are the morons who modded this interesting?
About 11.
You're a fucking perv, and you prove it more with each sanctimonious "rebuttal."
Fuck you and your christian whorde of hypocrites and perverts.
I doubt it. Communities have been suspended in the past for that sort of thing (though since a suspended account leaves a smoking crater and no explanation, the story is hard to come by). As someone who co-moderates a porn community (kaizersoze125, one of the largest), believe me, it'd be pretty impossible to set one up with obviously underage kids. Seventeen year olds, I suppose, may have gotten away with it, because who would know?
But I tell you, there's enough community consensus against underage nudity that it's just not frickin' possible.
But, hey, if you post yourself nekkid in one of the show_your_ communities, you'll get guaranteed positive feedback. Folks're real nice.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
FBI: *knock* ... Well, crap.
Jackass: Yes?
FBI: We found your punk ass!
Jackass: What?
FBI: We know about that shit you said on Slashdot!
Jackass: Oh, damn.
FBI: You're goin' down, sicko.
Jackass: What am I being charged with?
FBI:
I know it's real hard to understand, but it's actually not illegal to talk a lot of offensive smack on the internet. Shocking, I know. I'm sure your local Congresscritter is working real hard on it. Worry not thine pretty little head.
Also, the FBI'd have a real hard time getting in touch with him if he's posting from Middle-Earth, I mean New Zealand. Way to be all US-centric, you insensitive clod!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
9/11 jokes, the first of which I heard just one day later...
You kidding? A friend of mine got a phone call saying "DUDE, TURN ON YOUR TV---SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB!"...
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You left out "you insensitive clod".
You make an important point. I don't feel comfortable at all charging 12 year-olds, especially disturbed 12-year-olds (you mentioned zoloft) as adults. If they had the full judgement and wisdom of "adults", shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
On the other hand, it's a pretty good judgement call that someone at 17 years and 364 days will have about the same reasoning ability as an 18 year-old, baring individual variability of course. Why should they "get away with murder" because they're under 18?
I completely agree. When I Asscend The Throne(tm) I would change the laws in this regard from an either-or proposition to a graduated scale. Maturity is a gradual process, and the laws should reflect this.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that yes our society does have a disconect when it comes to judging how responsible a minor should be for the things they do,
Yeah, that's my point.
but it doesn't have as big of a disconnect as it seems when it comes to sex. Yes, many minors know what they're doing and have a desire to have sex. However, the adults still need say a resounding NO if the subject comes up and the law will enforce the issue if they don't. Put another way, 16-year-olds can have sex with other 16-year-olds all day long and the law doesn't care. Keeping, often preditory, adults who probably have vast coersive powers out of the picture is still a very good thing.
As the more mature person, adults do have the responsibility in this case. But the law is written with this artificial boundrary which creates some interesting problems because of it. A couple of years ago (I'm sorry I can't find the link) an 18 year old boy was put on trial for having consensual sex with his 16 year old girl friend. (The girl's father pressed the charges for whatever reason.) The 18 year-old was convicted and was forced to become a registered sex offender. The good news is, that it did highlight where the law breaks down. Even the judge became one of the kids strongest allies for petitioning for a pardon. (I think the kid eventually got it.)
But, yes there is a big difference between a 40 year old with a 16 year old, and an 18 year old with a 16 year old.
Don't a lot of cameras encode their serial number onto the image. (The Canon Digital Rebel I have provides a way of tagging them all with your name, too, if you want.) I wonder if retailers or warranty service places can track that sort of thing.
It seems sort of obvious. They probably already do this sort of thing.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I belive molestation is wrong, murder is wrong, but murdering a molester to avoid other people being molested is pretty ok.
I almost was sexually assaulted when I was 13. My greatest fear was the mothafucka would not only "almost" rape others. I'd kill him not for revenge, but to make the world safer.
The same reason you'll be allowed to do it to yours.
I agree that it's a great use of police ingenuity, and that it makes for a very good lead to the case, but you've got several misconceptions that would cloud your analysis. Why do you assume that the man and girl in question registered as father and daughter, or that they were the only two registrants? Why do you assume the perpetrator is single or divorced? Perhaps the pictures were taken when mom and the siblings were elsewhere, or even (in the case of very young, infant, or co-abused siblings) when they weren't. A man who signed in with his wife, along with a nine-year-old daughter and infant son, could be the perpetrator.
So, a good lead, but not so good as you make it out.
Virg
Maybe there's good reason to be worried about money... Ask anyone who works with money all the time such as a cashier or, worse, a bank teller, and they'll tell you all money is very, very dirty.
> Vigilante justice?How about family justice.If I had...
Welcome to the land of missed-the-point. He's not talking about the sort of vigilante justice that you describe, where there's clear evidence of a crime and you know who did it. That's why he mentioned due process and then used the example of the White House. He's saying that most vigilante justice doesn't wait to find out if the person punished is actually the perpetrator before acting, and thus doesn't qualify as justice. Think about your example for a moment, considering the development that you find out after you killed the perpetrator that you were wrong and you killed the wrong person. Suddenly it's not justice any more, is it? This is why people taking the law into their own hands is generally a bad idea. Most people don't go to the lengths that the police do to solve a crime, because they think they don't need to, and this leads to retribution misplaced on to innocent bystanders.
Virg
> Vigilantes are "the people".
They are not. Because most people don't participate in vigilante justice, nor do they find it an acceptable norm, vigilantes are a fringe element. By your definition of the people, the pedophiles you're discussing are also "the people".
> Are most people "highly trained, highly motivated, and very rich"? No. Then being so is 'more than normal', ie: super-normal. I didn't say "supernatural."
The word you must remember to use when discussing Batman is "fictional". Try to keep that one firmly in mind.
Virg
Would Superman be effective if he had to get a search warrant before each and every time he used his x-ray vision?
Would we have cheered at Murtaugh if he honored that guy's "Diplomatic Immunity" in Lethal Weapon? (or was it LW2?)
Perhaps in the fictional world of well-defined villains and innocents, but in the real world of misconceptions, mistakes, gray areas, and lies, "Kill first, ask questions later" is by no means a reasonable policy of justice.
I'll give you some ground on Washington, although the final outcome of revolution was against the system of justice itself.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
> 4 of the six of the pictures that were posted on the linked website were in public places. Only two were from the inside of a hotel room. Those pics were undoubtedly the more "normal" pictures, i.e., just the girl by herself in public.
Why do you think this would preclude pornographic content? Sure, they're in public places, but there are plenty of web sites that have pictures of (grown) women exposing themselves in restaurants and parks and such. It's not such a stretch that dear old Dad could tell his kid not to wear any underwear and flash him for photo ops when the moment presented itself. Heck, one of the pictures is in an elevator, where it's not unusual to be alone with one or two others.
Virg
The guy was about to graduate from medical school, according to Mass, in the case of child abuse it is 3 years after the event and 3 years after the abused turns 18.
But the guy was older than that.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
> But these are dangerous and sick people, and a painful death, provided we're 100% sure of their guilt, is far too good for them.
The problem is in the highlighted section. In many cases of child sex abuse, the convicted person is convicted on preponderance of the evidence, but not with perfect knowledge they did it, and some are later exonerated. This makes your "zero recidivism rate" argument incorrect, and the reason is simple. Once someone is executed for a crime, the authorities stop looking for the perpetrator. In the cases where you execute the wrong person, you've not only killed an innocent person, but you've also allowed the real perpetrator to walk free, with no fear they'll ever be caught, to do it again.
I have always said that I'd allow the death penalty, with one proviso: if the executed person is later exonerated, everyone in the path, including the jury and the judge, should be executed to compensate. Then you'd never, ever give out the death penalty unless you were 100% sure.
So, don't be so fast to assume the the death penalty prevents recidivism. It would if it was perfectly applied, but that's not always the case.
Virg
I'll make it easier half way down the page.. golden[shower] child.
Umm, The Golden Child is an 80's Eddie Murphy movie.
You are truly the man with a hammer, and everything looks like nails to you.
Kids in real life don't parade around in thongs, lingerie (that fans have bought for them) and other revealing attire for money
You obviously have never watched Telemundo on a saturday night.
Considering the mother of the original star of one of the most popular "child super model" sites (Lil Amber might ring a bell) was a porn star...
Amber's mom "a porn star?" LOL. Got any proof? Clue: proof does not consist of an allegation made by a local two biut reporter with a self rightcheous stick up her butt. I looked for anything about this, found nothing.
And so what if she was? I know a former porn star - she was a penthouse model and now she's a fucking kindergarten teacher. Oooh my god! She sucked a dick and now she's teaching five year olds their colors!
Your allegation is irrelevant.
What I DID find was a website that protects the child's information and a two-bit MSNBC (the same people that brought us exploding pickups and airs a fucking yellow rag soap opera twice a week under the guise of "news magazine") story wherein THEY cast accusations upon this site as "endangering children" and then proceed to show up at the kids house with a fucking news crew.
DUH! Let's lead the world to the house of a child! Let's prove ourselves right when some sick fucker - who never even heard of amber before - turns on the news and sees his next "chosen one!"
Gee, I wonder why the fuck she retired.
Oh yeah... the comments I found on one of those discussion board archives mentions all the great new business Amber was sent by that sensationalistic bullshit, so congrats on your overzealous hypocritical indignance - you helped buy a kid a new car.
If you had any brains at all you'd realize you are simply confusing your right to be offended with an imagined right to censor speech that merely offends you. Frankly, I'm fucking offended by having to share ads for "self warming" K-Y jelly and "erectile dysfunction" pills with a teenage daughter when I sit down to the evening news. So when do I get to ban that? And what about those lying right wing cocksuckers on talk radio - when do I get to shut them up?
Like I said: take your self important self rightcheous perversion and shove it up your pasty white protestant ass. If the kid is "endangered" child services will take care of it. But if it's a nanny state you want, I suggest a move to Singapore and leave the rest of us, who still value what little liberty remains in this fucked up nation, the hell alone.
Yeah, those Ordinary Decent Criminals for whom a regular afternoon consists of tea, weightlifting and rape.
"Honor among thieves" is utter bullshit. Prisoners treat each other like animals; any morality they pretent to have is about as advanced as that of a five year old.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You know, this reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a professor who taught a queueing theory course.
He explained that in infectious diseases, like AIDS, there are three populations---the uninfected, the infected, and the dead. There are rates at which populations move from uninfected to infected to dead, and these define whether or not the epidemic will continue to rage.
For instance, if the new-infection rate is smaller than the death rate, the epidemic will die off. So it's a damn good public health idea to stave off new infections by a variety of means, like needle exchanges.
I then pointed out that it also follows that, in this simple model, treating the infected is a terrible idea, because if they live longer, the epidemic will not die out.
It was a depressing afternoon.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Don't you fucking talk to me about morality in the prisons. In prisons, the highest of the high is the rapist.
Do you still want to point to the prisons as a heroic example of morality that we should emulate?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I read "The Hot House". A friend of mine was in the process of becoming a lawyer, and that was part of his required reading. Fascinating story, but I didn't get the idea that prison society is anything more than middle school, for all eternity, but with more rape. I mean that there's this weird, constant demand for "fairness" from the prisoners. It really is like they're a bunch of children.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You know, every little brown-paper-bag "man, that was stupid" mistake I've ever, ever made seems not nearly as bad now. Thank you for the perspective.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Yeah, well, these things get stuck in peoples' minds.
Reminds me of a discussion I had in a Women's Studies course I took. (It was mostly a very interesting class, but this part stuck in my craw.) "Snuff" movies were mentioned. I raised my hand, and pointed out that despite all the hand-wringing and so forth, snuff films are nothing but an urban legend.
She paused, said that okay, that's an opinion, and went on with her point, as if I hadn't said a damn thing, as if there were snuff distributors under every rock, and that they're wildly popular, and wealthy. Mmm-hmm.
Damn, that pissed me off.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
What's a "COPINE Level 1 image"? The word sounds faintly familiar, but I can't place it.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Hope meta-mod gets you. There was nothing troll-ish about the question, and you clearly aren't able to answer the question, or perhaps you know the answer but don't like the answer.
Many girls like to dress up 'glamorously' and barbie doll like. There isn't necessarily any harm in it. Those girls are smiling and happy. In fact it would be pretty much impossible to prove harm is done here - I challenge you to do so. But I suppose instead of rationally demonstrating to me the proof of harm (because you can't), you're just going to call me a troll. You can dismiss me as a troll, but you know I'm right.
But when it comes to arguments like this you have to scream and kick below the waist to even be heard. Don't try rational thought on the holy crusaders, that's over their heads.
A guy named Edouard Levé did something like that. It's fallen off the internet, from what I can see, but some of it remains around.
It's like porn, but with clothes on.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
This has been a most edifying Slashdot discussion to read through. Thanks for giving your opinion---it's given me a lot to think about.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Yeah! Child molesters don't need due process!
Then they can go after the file sharers!
And then the liberals!
And then the homos!
And then the niggers!
And then the Slashdotters!
And then...
if these things would be legal to view, some capitalist would find a way to profit from it, and the market demand would go up.
Because heaven knows, the best way to stop people from profiting from something is to make it illegal. And the people who do profit from illegal things, well, they're invariably of the highest moral character. Worked wonders for booze and weed!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Doesn't Canon offer, with their newer models (EOS-1Ds Mark II, EOS-20D, I think), a system by which the images are signed by some sort of cryptographically secure method? There's a whole verification kit involved in it, and I'm not entirely sure how it works, but it sounds like it would be quite useful for making digital pictures stand out in court.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
If you ever need to get a sigmoidoscopy, you will thank the seven gods of chaos for K-Y. Trust me.
'Course, nothing really helps that incredibly unsettling feeling you get from having your intestines inflated. Ugh.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
$250,000 is an upper bound, a limit. It's not like they just go to court, do some simple multiplication and demand your life savings. They actually have to show damages.
Well, they show damages via an incredibly sketchy system of inference, but they're huge corporations and can get away with that.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The question of whether she was a "teen" or a "pre-teen" belongs to this funny little oddity of a human culture we live in, & strikes me as roughly as relevant, from a rational perspective, as whether she was a "punk" or a "goth."
If you were my sig, you'd be reading yourself right now.
Think about the South American tribes where men traditionally consider themselves "naked" if they aren't wearing a little string tied around their penis, & fully clothed if they are.
It's not completely arbitrary-- sex & death are more likely to accumulate taboos than other things, for instance-- but it is mostly arbitrary. That's just what human beings do.
If you were my sig, you'd be reading yourself right now.
Whatever chuckles.
How about this, prove to me where there isn't any harm done. (I bet you can't) and you are just going to call me a troll.
See, i can play the game as well as you. Strawman argument from you at best. You bring no proof, mine is from the HBO documentary where children as young as 2 years old are being paraded around, other children, such as one girl, was never allowed outside to play. In one scene the child is begging her mother for something to drink, the mother responds, NO, you will just mess up your dress. Normal childhood ? I think not.
But still, enjoy looking at your prepubescent darlings in their makup and tell yourself the children are just fine. Heck, make yourself believe that they enjoy it immensely. Easier to sleep at night that way.
most people don't participate in vigilante justice
Most people do not participate in government, either. Government is established and run by a small, vocal minority. They maintain power by catering to small, vocal minorities, while proclaiming they are doing whatever it is they are doing "for the good of all".
By your definition of the people, the pedophiles you're discussing are also "the people".
Indeed they are. However, government agents garner support from a greater number of people by prosecuting that "crime" than they piss off. Just like murder. Speeding tickets are getting closer to the breaking point: If the punishment for speeding were as severe as murder, a larger number of people who didn't like the law would revolt against those who enforce it. Just like the juries who refused to convict rum-runners during alcohol prohibition, or operators of the underground railway prior to the War of Northern Aggression.
That is one of the problems with statute law. By creating "crimes" out of acts that harm no one, such as drug use, speeding and prostitution, the crimes where individuals are actually harmed, like child molesting, are diluted. There is less respect for "the law" because "the law" covers so much that is not respectable. There is less room in prisons, because they are full of statute criminals.
You might be interested in an interesting little factoid: San Francisco is one of the most famous examples of "vigilante" action in the US. So what happened? In the year after the formation of the Vigilance Committees, there were fewer murders in San Francisco than there was in the month prior, including the actions of the Committees.
So please do decry the abuses of justice where ever they occur. Just don't limit yourself to only what the government schools told you was bad. Remember, government hates competition.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Whatever chuckles.
Dude, you're a fucking faggot.
How about this, prove to me where there isn't any harm done.
Prove a negative. Jesus, you're fucking stupid, too.
Therefore, YOU ARE A STUPID FUCKING FAGGOT -- the male version of Paris Hilton, I guess.
> Most people do not participate in government, either.
Incorrect. While the majority of the populace does not vote, the vast majority of the populace recognizes that the winners of the election get to hold the job. By the same token, the majority of society recognizes that vigilantism is not a normal or generally acceptable state of affairs, and therefore vigilantes cannot consider themselves representatives of the public at large.
> Indeed they are. However, government agents garner support from a greater number of people by prosecuting that "crime" than they piss off.
Fitting your particular complaints about government officials into this discussion does nothing to address the original discussion, so please try to stay on topic. The argument you made is that vigilantes represent "the people", and your usage implied that "the people" constituted a majority of the population. I refuted, saying that it's just as inaccurate as implying that child molesters constitute a majority of the population, but your definition allows this.
> That is one of the problems with statute law. By creating "crimes" out of acts that harm no one, such as drug use, speeding and prostitution,
Firstly, your argument requires that you first demonstrate that these crimes harm no one to those who believe they do. For myself, I don't believe that speeding is harmless, because of the externalities involved. I'm more with you on the other two, but that's not relevant to the fact that I disagree with your statement as a whole, and therefore you must justify the statement to proceed.
> If the punishment for speeding were as severe as murder, a larger number of people who didn't like the law would revolt against those who enforce it. Just like the juries who refused to convict rum-runners during alcohol prohibition, or operators of the underground railway prior to the War of Northern Aggression.
You see what I mean by staying on topic? Don't soapbox about some personal point that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (whether vigilantes represent a generally accepted practice or not). You may wish to tie back the concept of disrespect for the law into vigilantism, but that's a stretch considering your examples are of civil disobedience, not vigilantism.
> You might be interested in an interesting little factoid: San Francisco is one of the most famous examples of "vigilante" action in the US. So what happened? In the year after the formation of the Vigilance Committees, there were fewer murders in San Francisco than there was in the month prior, including the actions of the Committees.
Someone disagrees with your analysis about the good that came from this idea. I'm inclined to agree more with his side than yours considering that most of the violations of the committees were not murderous in nature but were just as egregious.
> So please do decry the abuses of justice where ever they occur. Just don't limit yourself to only what the government schools told you was bad.
Thanks for the tip, but it's been more than twenty years since government schools were my source for information about vigilantism, so I'll have to thank you not to pretend I'm a brainwashed fool because I don't agree with you. Go pick your bone with the government elsewhere, and come back when you're ready to present more than a refuted example from a hundred years ago and a lot of offtopic banter.
Virg
Considering that even the slightest suspect of having committed such a crime can ruin some innocent's life, I cannot see how this comment could be funny. Innocent until proven guilty might work in court, but public opinion does not work that way!