Slashdot Mirror
Senators OK $1 Billion for Online Child Porn Fight
A bill that could allocate more than $1 billion over the next eight years to combat those who trade in child pornography has been unanimously approved by a Senate panel. "The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted to send an amended version of the Combating Child Exploitation Act, chiefly sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), to the full slate of politicians for a vote. [...] An amendment adopted Thursday also adds new sections to the original bill that would rewrite existing child pornography laws. One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question." Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."
a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money
> "Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."
So it's the image that would be illegal as well as the act.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
So some bored kid using photoshop to cut a kid he hates head onto gay pron is going to be committing child porn crimes..... Damn revenge is getting harder every year
My initial reading of the title left off the "Fight" part - anyone else?
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
... This is great news! Oh wait... fight I thought it said night.
As repugnant as child pornography is, this seems to be overstepping the realm of protecting children. Why should the alteration of an image, even to a repugnant end, be illegal? Possession of child porn is illegal, so it's in the interest of the "alterer" not to create fake child porn. I know we find it morally reprehensible, but there is no harm coming to anyone in and of the act of alteration itself. This seems a tad intrusive, and an undesirable precedent if nothing else.
Because, you know... rebuilding bridges and roads and stuff like that wouldn't be a better use of the money than on combating some fuzzy crime (17 year old makes a tape with her boyfriend and it gets shared? they just molested each other!!! kiddy pr0n!!!), the definition of which seems to keep shifting constantly.
back in the 80s its like all they talked about was satan worshipers and commies... now its kiddy diddlers and terrorists.
Meanwhile, the people who aren't doing anything wrong get no attention AT ALL, when we could actually use a thing or two to get done around here, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO... they'll just take our money to go fight Russian criminals through the inner-tubes.
...that something like this would be proposed during an election year?
This space available.
Whoa there. Photoshopping up child porn is going to be a crime, even if no child abuse occurs?
I could see if *distributing* such an image was a crime (because of the use of a kid's likeness), but producing it in the first place? If the law says what TFA says it does, this is constitutionally VERY shaky.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
And how much of this is going to go into Chris Hansen's pocket?
One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question." Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted.
In other words, 17 year old highschool kids flashing their boobs on webcams or bored people modifying photos will now have their lives destroyed by these witchunts and blacklists even though they haven't abused anyone at all. Brilliant progress our society is making in the 21st century.
Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a billion dollars?
Senate: I'll tell you what I'd do, man: Online Child Porn Fight.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd have an online child porn fight?
Senate: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I were a billionaire I could hook that up, too; 'cause child porn fighters dig a dude with money.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.
"One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question.""
WTF - there's visual evidence of a crime being committed, right in front of everybody. Does making a live webcast of it relieve the perpetrator of the crime?
Or is the purpose to punish those who watch live webcasts? Lets' clue these dumbfucks in - if it's a webcast, A FILE IS BEING TRANSMITTED!. It's just not automatically saved on the computer in a readily accessible format. If the watcher is technically astute, he will erase what little evidence there is. If he is not, then that leaves files on the computer, which is already covered. I guess they are going after IP addresses, then.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
OK, child abuse is illegal for one thing, so if they're broadcasting an illegal act, what's the point of making the broadcast itself illegal. I guess so the prosecutor can add another charge to the list and eliminate it in the plea negotiation?
Fucking politicians....
is getting to be the cry of the modern fascist. Are out children really in more danger than they used to be? Is it worth throwing away our freedom and privacy to give them more protection? Does this "protection" actually serve our children's best interests?
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
OK, I try not to gripe about most of what the government wastes my tax dollars on, but seriously. Mod me down for redundant crybabying, but...... What on god's green earth could they actually need $1 Billion for? OK, I know that's redundant, in that they almost never need these amounts, and that it's mostly waste, but I am truly mystified as to how they can even PRETEND to need it. I RTFA and I can't even tell what they're planning to spend it on. 250 new agents beefing up the monitoring system, and a new "forensics" lab for past crimes (read: data mining)? That's not $1 Billion. I'm sure there are privacy threats in this too, but I have to say that one of the things that offends me most about this is that they're using MY tax dollars for this... and I get essentially no say in it whatsoever.
http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
How many pedophiles and child porn addicts are there in the USA?
Okay, let's say there 10,000. We could simply off $100,000 and amnesty (only for viewing not creating or abusing children) for them to turn themselves in to receive help.
Okay, so maybe there are more than 10,000 in the USA. Let's say there are a 100,000. In which case we could offer them all $10,000.
Heck, even if there were 1,000,000 we could offer them a $1,000 each. Of course, realize if there are that many in the USA we have a problem because that means 1 in 250 of us are the targets of this.
***
War on Drugs
War on Terror
War on Transfats
War on Child Porn
Not saying child porn is not insidiously evil. But it seems to be an extremely high ticket price. I'd really like to know how thought out this is.
Now if this is supposed to be against global child porn. Are we ready to invade Thailand and the rest of Asia in order to stop the child porn industries over there?
"Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."
Altering a picture digitally to show a crime being perpetrated on someone is protected under the first amendment - Ask Hollywood. Although some shoot-em-up movies are crimes against taste.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I don't see why this is so hard, all you have to do is take down 4chan.
And I'm sure they won't look for ANY copyrighted or potentially dangerous material in the process. Oh no, this is 100% child porn *rolls eyes* talk about a low down, dirty way to ID terrorists and sue people in the name of helping children. What do you really think would happen when they come across all those people who make "how to make a bomb" vids on p2p networks and all the copies of new movies floating around after they get funding for advanced p2p watching technologies. Btw I know it's part web, part p2p too so I'm sure they'll put a few extra terrorist and copyright keywords in that billion dollar web crawler too.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
In the meantime, we Americans are continually seeing politician anal porn. You know, they keep shoving it up our ass!
Where do I apply to become an FBI Child Porn Downloader?
Well, if the War on Drugs or the War on Terrorism are any indication then 1/4 of the population of the US will be fucking / abusing minors in 4 years.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I would wager than MOST pedophiles recognize the extreme stupidity of having child porn on Kaazaa.
But apparently there are 600,000 of them identified on Kaazaa in the US alone.
To me, that would imply there are probably 4-5x that many in the population.... which leads to a number of around 2.4 million people in the US have strong pedophile tendencies (on a low end).
Need I point out that this is a full 1% of the population?
Perhaps the approach of hunting them like they're cattle isn't the right one. I know the US is fully prepared to toss several percent of their population in prison (they already do that), but it also points out the concept that this battle is more akin to the "war on drugs" than most people are willing to admit.
In other words, there are simply too many to ever make a significant "dent" in the population with ad-hoc arrests and prosecutions.
So perhaps the approach is flawed?
I don't have any suggestions, but that's how it seems to me.
While we're on the concept of numbers, don't a bunch of wacko victim-advocate types parrot the idea that the average offender carries out 300-some assaults in their life.
With 2.4 million in the population if the US, wouldn't that come out to 720 million different children in the US subject to sexual assault? (o wait there are only 30 million of them in the US).
So one of the numbers is blatantly false.... probably the concept that every pedophile molests a kid is false. I would bet they run a whole spectrum from sorta good folks who hate being into kids... all the way to the sicko perverts who abduct and kill little girls in the night.
But wait.... Isn't the standard line in child-porn legislation the assumption that child porn creates real abuse? Isn't that the justification for some of the "virtual" porn laws and the "fictional porn" laws, etc?
Now seeing that there are 600,000 people with porn on Kaazaa (they must represent the stupider portion of the population who views child porn).... wouldn't that suddenly imply that either there should be more sexual assault.... or, the common assumption is false?
Whenever I see real numbers on child sex and child porn, my eyes glaze over and cross because they're all so contradictory.
But if someone asks questions they get branded "pedophile sympathizer"..... you can lose your job with that brand following you around...
So which is it.... pedophiles are drooling lunatics with no self-control? Or... there are millions of pedophiles in the US.
You have to pick one, you can't have your pie and eat it too.
Just execute people who produce it for profit on their first offense.
Stop.
Don't pass go.
Firing squad.
Get Thailand and few of the other offending countries in on it.
If you think I'm being inhumane by suggesting execution, then please explain how living life as a social leper is any less inhumane or exposing them to the general prison population for life isn't basically asking for them to be raped repeatedly and murdered. See, from where I'm standing, people who joke about prison rape and murder don't exactly have moral standing to say that a clean execution is inhumane.
As to why I said "for profit," it's because they'll never take things like two teens making a sex tape off the books as a serious felony. I don't want to give them license to execute teens for getting it on.
That arguments ridiculous. There's nothing inherent in being black that makes them more likely to commit crimes, the root cause is in society and culture. Also, they don't actively seek out being black, whereas you're not born with a thumb drive full of kiddie porn. This is closer to speeding laws, where a certain behavior hasn't harmed someone else yet, but it's increasing the probability of you hurting someone in the future.
Besides, these people aren't just being put into prison because they might abuse children, they're actively supporting and distributing these acts to other people. Putting someone in jail for kiddie porn is completely reasonable to me, although I do think the process is emotionally charged to the point that it's hard for justice to be done in these cases. It ends up smelling like more of a witch hunt than anything, but, as CS Lewis said, witch hunts are completely reasonable if witches exist.
From the article:
Then they download files--frequently videos, sometimes as long as 20 to 30 minutes, with names like "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" and much more obscene--to their own machines.
It doesn't seem like someone would name a file "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" if they were really trying to share child pornography on a P2P network, especially if they were planning on not getting caught. I mean, that file name tells you nothing about the file other than that it's illegal and involves children. It doesn't even actually mention sex, although I guess it kind of implies it. Although I definitely don't have any first hand experience, I would imagine that pedophiles, like other people, would have specific preferences in their pornography and would want to know at least a little bit about the content before they download a file. I mean, I'm not going to download a file that's simply called "hardcore adult.mpg" when I'm looking for porn. What if it's two dudes? What if it's 2 girls 1 cup? Anyway, the example file name they gave sounds more like a file shared by someone who is trying to catch pedophiles than an actual pedophile trying to share child pornography.
Somebody keep an eye on Fark and SomethingAwful. I'll bet the next Photoshop challenge that has anything to do with children will give the FBI plenty of evidence... like that one about board games with the kids playing "Scat Orgies".
So what kind of riders will be on this bill? Adding them to a child porn bill is a slam dunk.
All that's important to them is a nice headline like this one during an election year. Beats doing any REAL work. Oversight? Investigations? Fuck that, that's hard work. Budgets? Infrastructure appropriations? Screw that, makes voters yawn.
It's just a BS game, happens every election year. Voter Exploitation. "Fighting Child Abuse" gets more votes than fighting executive abuse of power.
This space available.
One billion dollars to fight something we can't consistently or accurately define.
Assuming there's a thousand of these illegal acts performed this year, that's a million dollars per act. This is nearly 7000 houses that could be bought outright and then given away in my neighborhood.
What a waste of money. It's nearly $3.32 of every man, woman, and child in the U.S.A (from 2007 population estimates). Somehow I don't think child pornography is so widespread that it requires this kind of money.
Sure, there will be people saying it's worth $3.32 to know that no child is being molested, but that's not what we're buying here. At best we're buying that people will fight children being exploited; something that we've been paying for already.
I'd like to be able to have exit polls and if they get a high enough disapproval rating there is the death penalty for being stupid in office. It would take something drastic like that to at least make them think a tad before passing this crap.
Actually, it would take something even more drastic. Any government official submitting/making/altering any new laws/rules can and will instantly have the death penalty applied by any citizen though government officials are allowed to remove laws/rules.
Federal Bureau of Instigators
Soon, if you look at a underaged teen the wrong way, even if by accident, you will get picked up and tossed in the can.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
God i hate that old CS Lewis line.
A witch hunt is generally defined, in it's normal emotive context, by the prosecution and identification of witches with a complete and utter lack of regard for any standards of evidence, justice, fairness or internal consistency.
It reminds me of the old monty python skit.
(I paraphrase from memory)
She's a witch!
how do you know?
Because she burns!
What else do we burn?
Wood!
So she is made of wood!
Yes, and wood floats!
aha! what else floats?
ducks!
Yes! Therefore witches are lighter than ducks!
(puts the witch on a broken scale which shows she is lighter than a duck)
Burn her!!!
What is child porn exactly?
Most attorneys will tell you that in most US states, that question is nonsensical when you approach the "border line".
It used to be defined (the first child porn laws came about in 1976, before which it was entirely legal in every way).... that child porn was a child "engaged in sexual contact". That was very shortly later amended to "or showing obvious arousal".
That's a pretty simple definition and the border-cases are rare.
But today, child porn in most states is defined as
"any image of a child, or someone appearing to be a child (or fictionally created to represent a child) which is viewed with the intent to cause arousal or sexual satisfaction"
There are a number of men in prison for things like.... owning a collection of boys underwear catalogs. Or taking photos of girls in bathing suits.
What it comes down to, and the issue that I have with these laws, is that it is impossible to know whether you are possessing child pornography BEFORE the jury reaches a verdict.
In fact, a given image can both be simultaneously porn and not-porn depending on who is looking at it.
In fact, the jury is instructed to divine the "intent" of the viewer of the image, often years after the actual "viewing" took place.
Obviously, there are plenty of cases with dudes downloading videos of 5 year olds being penetrated and I guess there's no argument in that case, but the cultural climate which allows laws that allow statements to enter a US court room such as "jury divined intent", "illegal fiction" and "simultaneous porn and not-porn" are the sort of things that lead us hand-in-hand toward the collapse of our fundamental structures of justice and freedom.
The fact that laws are allowed with these sorts of phrases are a travesty to our judicial and government systems and represent a black-eye to the framing of the constitution and modern law.
That's just my opinion, but I'm sticking to it.
I'm all for fighting child pornography, as I have a child myself. However, these unanimous approvals of such HUGE amounts of money ALWAYS end up lining some corrupt politicians pockets. Please, fight child porn! Just make sure this money isn't going to end up paying for some guys Ferrari.
Honestly, what do they need to make something like this happen in reality? Or is it even possible? How do they expect to control the flow of millions upon billions of images floating around the internet and filter out only child porn? Let alone investigate and prosecute every single instance that they find? No amount of money is going to make this any more effective than it already is or can be, with the funding they already have, in my opinion.
If they are going to be allocating funding like this based on their own personal feelings on the topic, then they need to make sure that the agencies using this money aren't paying 10 times more for equipment that would otherwise be much cheaper in the real world.
Am I implying corruption?? Why yes, yes I am, because I have worked for the Government before and I have seen it happen. The agency that worked on the floor right below my office got in trouble for similar reasons. Millions of dollars were allocated to improve safety across the state, but instead went to buy things like "company cars" that cost twice as much as they should, and computer equipment that never even made it out in to the field and disappeared immediately upon delivery.
The only reason I rant is because that is a BILLION freakin dollars! Most people cant even fathom that amount of money. And the senate is just throwing it around like our hard earned, reluctantly paid taxes simply fall out of the sky. And yet, somehow, they still cant seem to find money for more simple and obvious necessities.
penalty for digitally altering an otherwise innocent picture of a senator to depict taking bribes or other sexually depraved bahavior?
Take this money and fund fusion, you stupid beast!
The problem with child pornography is that it's too easy to frame someone for. Up to a quarter of all computers may be part of botnets (source). For every compromised computer, there exists a person who could be paid to frame the computer's owner for pedophilia. If we spend a billion dollars on hunting down people with child porn on their computers, we're going to find a lot of people who didn't put it there but can't prove that they didn't. In other words, we will falsely accuse a lot of people, and ruin their lives and reputations. That will be a travesty.
Here's another waste of taxpayer's money. It would do much more good to take that billion and invest it into public education.
to invide your privacy and spy on everything on the internet.
disclaimer: I don't give a fuck about the children
Just like the RICO act was used to prosecute pro-life protesters and the Patriot Act has primarily resulted in arrests unrelated to terrorism, this funding will be used to dig up any manner of crime, not just child porn.
The real title of this bill should be "$1bln to scour the internet for whatever we want and prosecute whatever turns up." Whenever the government says its "for the children," beware.
nao
One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question."
That is not an open question. The broadcast is evidence of a crime. As are the photos -- criminally charging someone for digitally altering the photos is just an excuse to tack on extra charges to perps who are creating or trafficking child porn (offenses they could already be indicted for). These are just a few rosy-sounding additions to the bill to make people more likely to vote for it. After all, it's harder to vote against a bill that spends $1 billion on combating child porn, when your opponent can retort by saying "so, you don't think it's a crime to broadcast child porn?" And it is in many people's interest to see this bill passed -- after all, a large portion of that $1 billion will likely be spent on gov't employee salaries. Hm, I wonder what senator's son might use his Dad as a reference to get a job in the newly created or expanded this-or-that department, administration, or bureau?
There is a concept trotted out by law enforcement now and then that when a child is viewed in a sexual content, that child is "victimized by proxy".
This is most frequently used when discussing "real" (obvious) child porn.
They state that the viewing of porn (even child porn made back when it was legal to make without distribution of any kind) constitutes a "re-victimization" of the person in the image.
This is so they can get around the shady and un-proven idea that porn somehow leads to rape (or child porn leads to child rape), which is the original justification behind the laws.... but that nobody can admit because it's a flawed, emotive argument.
In fact, the real reason for these laws is that most people find pedophiles iicky and it makes their skin crawl to think that someone get a boner while thinking about their kid. Frankly, it's that personal discomfort that causes people to applaud when our legislator seek out new and creative ways to ensure they aren't allowed to continue being creepy (by thinking those creepy thoughts).
That is the REAL basis of these laws.
How do you define "child pornography"? The law doesn't just cover people who produce images of children being raped. A significant number of prosecutions are based solely upon images which don't depict any sexual activity at all.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
I'm ready to offer my technical services in exchange for some of that billion in cash. A child porn bounty hunter is going to be my new night job. It's all for the children. Oh, as a citizen, will I get to see where this billion is spent? Or is that top secret too?
-- Wondering how long until the internet becomes fully corporatist, like television.
1. Legalize childporn
2. Buy the rights to all of it
3. Let the MPAA do what its good at
How will this pass/fail the test?
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Around 5% of adult males are paedophiles; around 33% of adult men have some attraction to pre-pubescent children. [1]
See my comment here.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
The objective is clear: Fed.gov spams you with a single thumbnail that might be kiddie porn, and you disappear to Camp Gitmo.
We have 2 options:
(1) Learn to shoot, then kick in their doors at 3am
or
(2) Stay helpless, and have them kick in our doors at 3am.
Millitia practice Saturday.
Andy Out!
Whenever some program gives more money to cops, my life gets a little more oppressive and dingy.
Honestly, who thinks this money will completely stop, or even sufficiently curb child porn?
The problem isn't child porn. The problem is that some twisted people like child porn. The porn itself is a symptom of the problem. Offensive, yes, but attacking the symptom of the problem never solves the problem.
The only way to locate people who like child porn - so you could treat the problem, not the symptom - would be to install brain monitors in every human being. Then the cure becomes worse than the disease.
Go back to the drawing boards folks, this isn't a solution at all. And it wastes a ton of taxpayer money that could be better spent on education.
Question everything
There were some precedent-setting cases prior to 2003 in which digital child porn, cartoon child porn, or any other kind of porn that did not involve real children in any way, was found to be legal (or rather, the laws that made it illegal were found to be unconstitutional).
The protect act of 2003 explicitly made cartoon images, sculptures, or fictitious written accounts, of children performing sexual activities illegal.
There was a case in 2004 (can't remember the details offhand) in which a person was convicted for owning cartoon child porn. That case did not go all the way up to the supreme court, however.
So, it seems to me that the issue is still kind of muddy. There are obviously strong opinions on both sides, and proponents of these opinions will continue to throw more legislation at it, so I expect that the door will swing back and forth, and the issue will remain muddy, indefinitely.
One thing is clear, however: this is a freedom vs security issue.
Anytime the US government mentions "fight against" or "war on", I can't help but cringe... What other infringements on our web rights/privacy will come out of this?
I'm all FOR castrating the sick fucks who look at this kind of crap, but aren't there supposed to be agancies in place ALREADY dealing with this?
Throwing more money at it does what?
Besides raising my taxes to fight yet another war that we cannot win... Fucking SIGH!
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
...the teenyboppers (still statutory children) who are recording and distributing themselves on the /chans/ anonib, etc.?
Is that $1 billion going to catch them and put them in jail for exploiting themselves?
And when the recipient of said material is also a statutory minor?
This legislative puritanical sex panic bullshit has got to stop. Deborah Jeane Palfrey (the DC Madam) just hung herself while her Congressional clientele faded into the woodwork, we've got closeted Senators cruising for mansex in public restrooms...these people are supposed to be the arbiters of public sexual morality? The protectors of our children?
Fuck them.
I wonder how many false-positives they have
Shoudln't you be masturbating to The O'reilly Factor?
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
...and probably have to change my name afterwards.
I'm single, and I look at a lot of porn. A *lot*. Nothing too deranged, but let's just say I know my way around the net that you use when you're looking for binaries. In my experience, real child porn is damned hard to find. Jailbait / "lolita" porn that features girls who are post-pubescent and legal in their home countries gets spammed to damned near eve4ry binaries group in existence on a daily basis, but *real* child porn? The kind that really damages kids? I just don't see it. The people who produce it have gone way underground compared to just a few years ago. You used to be able to see some pretty horrifying stuff in every group on any day, but that seems to have been driven out. It seems to me that the billions of dollars that are "needed" to fight "child pornography" are really fear-mongering dollars that we have to spend in an effort to pretend that 16-year-olds are as tingly and curious as *we* were when we were 16. If anything, I think that this whole campaign is making our (US-ian) culture even more damaged and sex-phobic. Do we really need specific legislation to outlaw webcam broadcasts of baby rape? Seriously? How often does that happen, and how is it not covered by existing statutes?
Seriously, how many children will be saved the pain of child abuse because of this? How much will be gained from the productive adults who don't need to be in therapy for years?
While you can't put a fair price tag on pain and suffering, you can put a price tag on lost productivity and resources spent helping adults recover from past child abuse. If this amount is over a billion, then it's a no-brainer: spend the cash. If it's less than a billion, then you have to ask yourself: Is the difference worth it? Are there better things to spend the money on, like automobile safety, clean water for the third world, education, or simply paying down the national debt? If not, let the taxpayers keep the money.
Spending a billion dollars preventing child abuse may be worthwhile, but it needs to be a financial calculation, not an emotional one.
Can someone with the data run the numbers?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
In the USA, there's no legal way to fight 100%-virtual KP, where no child was involved at all.
But you can use privacy, rights-of-likeness, copyright, and other laws to prevent people from being used in doctored-up-image porn against their will. You can also use "thinkofthechildren" to declare that allowing a child's picture to be used in such a way before the child turns 18 and both the grown-child affirmatively consents is both a privacy violation and, if the child is known to the person possessing the image or the image is posted in a public place, a form of child endangerment. In their infinite wisdom, Congress will also require the copyright holder's consent, which for family photo albums will typically be the parents.
Where will this leave those who want to look at kiddie porn legally? They'll have to settle for pure virtual stuff, films made by young adult women with Turner syndrome, and adults willing to sell G-rated pictures of themselves to pornification artists who will put real grown-up-kids' faces on virtual bodies. All I can say is: Far better for them to be looking at virtual porn than sleeping with their own children, or yours or mine.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Paedophiles aren't inherently driven to commit crimes, because most of us have restraint. I like the idea of having sex with young boys, but I don't go out and do that for the same reasons that you don't rape women.
As far as child pornography is concerned.. a few months ago, I was staying in a country where accessing child pornography is not a criminal offence. At the time, it was not illegal to act contrary to my home jurisdiction's laws abroad (unless the act also constituted an offence in the foreign jurisdiction). While I was in the foreign jurisdiction, I bought a hard drive to use only in said foreign jurisdiction. I was legally able to browse without restriction (although the cache etc had to be disabled due to the strange laws of the foreign jurisdiction). Although there was virtually no "pornographic child pornography" to be found on the internet, it was possible to find a lot of posed images which would be illegal if I'd viewed them in my home jurisdiction.
And I can still control myself around children....
The problem with applying the "supply and demand" theory to people who possess but don't purchase child pornography is that they are not contributing to demand, because the supplier is not interested in producing images for people who are effectively "stealing" them by viewing them for free, for the same reasons that artists don't record music for people downloading it from file sharing networks. Supply and demand is an economic theory - a buyer-seller relationship - which applies to commercial sale, not products being used for free. Producers of any material do not want their material to be used freely, so an increased interest in freely available pornography is going to harm them. People will be less likely to purchase child pornography if viewing freely available child pornography is legalised, as viewing freely available child pornography will become the safe and legal option. Production of child pornography will therefore fall because of a lack of demand, meaning that less children will be abused by child pornographers.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
What's funny is that the stats haven't changed, and they probably won't.
Fighting child pornography online will do nothing whatsoever to protect children in real abuse cases.
Almost every case of abuse is by close relatives.
The whole "roaming predator" is a flat out myth. Every once in a while it happens, just as every once in a while there's a serial killer.
What they should focus on is not to try and kill off anyone who's ever seen an image that would be considered illegal. They should focus on recognition and tracking down (which they have been, and this is good) the kids IN THE PICTURES.
To put it in other words.
Who here hasn't been on a *chan board and seen some questionable stuff?
Would you consider yourself a danger to kids? Well, as it stands now, apparantly the mainstream view is that you are - this is the problem.
>> prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a
>> child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/pedobear/
I believe "thinking of the children" might actually be the core problem here...
Particles, stuff that matters.
Since I'm pretty certain kiddy porn isn't protected by copyright in any country; wouldn't it be cheaper just to confiscate any porn as soon as it is detected, then release it for free to everyone via a bit torrent, thereby eliminating the profit motive to create more porn? In fact, shouldn't any material that is deemed harmful to society be explicitly exempt from copyright (including a lot of the material the RIAA is suing people for "making available")?
Why don't you have a seat right over there?
They are failing to prove in court that people downloaded music, using the same techniques (even when it has been illegal to use them), and prosecuted by multibillion-dollar corporations using as aggressive and nefarious methods as they have been able to concoct!
So, what? Are we going to waste a BILLION DOLLARS failing the same way with this plan?
Give me a break.
Of all the times to waste a great opportunity for a headline. "Senators OK $1 Billion for Online Child Porn"
Biggest Waste of Money ever!!!
We have so many other more important concerns than an idiotic push to 'PROTECT THE CHILDREN AT ALL COSTS!!!'
It's a waste of money really. Sex offenders of today have no chance for rehabilitation with the way the laws govern the rest of their lives. We may as well give them all the death penalty. Because, society certainly doesn't give them a chance at reform.
I'd say for every convicted pedophile there's about fifty other guys who have a closet fetish for the young'uns, but have enough morals to know it's wrong and not act on it...but that's exactly what some porns are for right? To act out the fantasies that you'd never really do in real life?
What about rape or S&M themed porn? It's not like people are gonna start going out on the street and start doing it for real because they saw it in a porno. It's all about *fantasy*.
No, what these laws are aimed at is not getting rid of people who are pedophiles who actually go out there and *do* ugly shit to children; this is aimed at all pedophiles. It's going after thought crime.
Not everyone is unable to hold down their fantasies...
~Jarik
(7484) Apr 21, 2006 http://www.pagecache.info/pagecache/page7484/ (www.theinquirer.net) -- US plans more internet monitoring laws. Gonzales is sending to Congress a legislative package that includes greater penalties and "improved cooperation" from Internet service providers. The laws will mean that ISPs will have to monitor their systems for child porn or else face criminal action for failing to report it.
(11533) Aug 25, 2006 http://www.pagecache.info/pagecache/page11533/ (en.wikipedia.org) -- The National Child Victim Identification Program (NCVIP) is the world's largest database of child pornography, maintained by the Department of Justice. In early 2006, United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales used images from the NCVIP database to view child pornography, as part of a campaign for his Project Safe Childhood initiative.
(12279) Sep 19, 2006 http://www.pagecache.info/pagecache/page12279/ (www.washingtonpost.com) -- Alberto Gonzales Wants Internet Records Saved. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that Congress should require Internet providers to preserve customer records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child pornography.
Remember former AG Alberto Gonzales, who watches the watchers?
*Satan Laughs As You Eternally Rot*
Imagine if we had a senate that would try to spend $1 billion on aid to sexual assault and molestation victims instead of SenateCorp's invisible solution.
prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted.
Well, there goes Fark and Something Awful
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Best joke account ever.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
They don't. The way they apply the law, if the person in the picture could in any way possibly be a minor they go ahead and prosecute. Then it becomes the responsibility of the person who had the picture to provide the affadavit or other proof that the model was legal at the time the work was created.
What's more, such an affadavit might not help any more, since the application of the law has so widened that if the model looks young enough, whether or not he or she actually is, bang goes the gavel. And it's no help when there is no model in the first place (digital art, painting, etc).
It's a subtle, clever erosion of that whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty" that people like to wave around when they're obviously guilty of something.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
This is starting to look dangerous. I mean, seriously, I'm all for stopping people from doing harm to younger children (yeah, sexing up 10 year olds is psychologically warping); but the digital alteration thing only has half ground. We can already swing that under generic defamation; why do we need to police this specifically?
I've done some research on my own, asked around 'cause well... kids these days, have you looked? 13 year olds easily have a nice handful and a full curvy body, and they're upity and playful, all nice characteristics in any girl. Turns out I'm not the only one that's noticed... in fact, a LOT of "normal" guys have passive sexual urges towards young teenage girls.
Think about this for a minute... when is it going to go from raping a child, to having photoshopped pictures of a child, to getting caught giving a second glance at a child, to someone thinks you're a pedo and so you have to be removed from society "before you bring harm to those around you"? From where I stand, you can easily ding a LOT of people with that last one....
wtf?
"any image of a child, or someone appearing to be a child (or fictionally created to represent a child) which is viewed with the intent to cause arousal or sexual satisfaction"
Wow... that would be very troubling with so many ambiguous cartoons / mangas (okay, hentai).
I looked it up with Google, and here's what Cornell has to say about it:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html (8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where--
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9) "identifiable minor"--
(A) means a person-- (i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor. (10) "graphic", when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
(11) the term "indistinguishable" used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
It's the US code, which I don't know how it works in the US, but state laws take precedence over it? Or it's a diferent jury, prision, sentence, etc? Apparently it's not illegal (whether it's amoral or unethical is another matter)
"Supreme Court strikes down ban on 'virtual child porn'":
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/
WASHINGTON (CNN) April 18, 2002 -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a 6-year-old law that prohibits the distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears to -- but does not -- depict real children.
I'm not an US citizen (but my country usually follows any "suggestion" by the US anyway), but all this is troubling. I can certainly imagine ways these laws could be abused - what happened to the teacher that had popups showing up during class? (Oh, apparently she was not imprisioned after a retrial) Teacher story on Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/articles/07/01/13/0753209.shtml http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/06/1917255
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
So what if I go onto 4chan and see some Child Porno some other guy posted? Am I going to Jail?
As in, to normal people this is just an image of children playing, but if you turn it this way and use your imagination it can obviously be viewed as sexual, which is what this pedophile must have been doing, therefore this pedophile is guilty of being a pedophile for being in possession of this image, but it is alright for you or I to have it.
(also note the assumed guilt and circular logic, it is because they are accused that the accused is said to view the image differently, even if they really are innocent)
...Or is this simply the pet project of those who want to put our rights to privacy, liberty, and freedom on the butcher block?
What senator wants to be known for vetoing the "anti-child pornography" bill.
The country is $10 trillion in debt, and falling deeper by $500 billion every year, but Americans will only vote in the "tax cut" candidate.
Exactly how much of a child's image would be enough to run afoul of this proposed law? Could you still get in trouble simply by placing a child's head on a South Park-style body hidden behind a digital mosaic? What if you create a child-like composite similar to Betty Crocker from dozens of people at random?
For that matter, does the image even need to involve an actual child at all or even be photo-realistic to get busted under this?
Just wait until some poor anime / hentai fan has their stash of fictitious "child porn" used against them for a lengthy prison term, followed by a life of hell, blacklisted from society for liking scantily-clad drawings of young girls...
8==8 Bones 8==8
This is far too reasonable and rational to have been posted anonymously. We must conclude, therefore, that you have an evil intent, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is...
Coming from a government who knowingly puts a rat poison (sodium fluoride) in kids toothpastes and water supply, as well as mercury and formaldehyde in their vaccines. Goes on record in approval of torturing children in front of their parents.
Amongst other things they shouldn't be doing, which we won't mention here.
And what about the adults rights? You know the person or persons who have guaranteed rights under the constitution whose life is over the moment they are accused. Not guilty just accused under laws that are definitely rights violations. The possessing the image and doing the act are two different things, one doesn't harm anyone and the other does, that separation exist in law and using the possession of one to link to the other is extremely dangerous. What's next regular porn or guns or maybe common sense(too late). Just because the rest disagree with something you don't doesn't make it illegal, that's the point of the various constitutional amendments otherwise they're just words and its time to get out the guns. And codifying it into law doesn't make it any more right, just harder to get rid off. I don't care about porn, I'm just worried about how far this can be taken and how twisted it can become. Linking one thing to another in this manner is actually illegal by innocent until proven guilty definition and law having to be broken by action, possession isn't it("safety in our possessions and effects" loose quote 4th ammend, doesn't say 'legal possessions and effects'). Of course with the way the courts interpret constitutional gun law, the rest of the constitution is probably little more than a compromised joke as well. Anything to keep power and at the same time avoid getting lynched.
Bitchin! Those politicians are finally gettin creative.
Oops, I misread the title... Hey! Put your clothes back on, they said they're NOT gonna pay to watch you fight.
TFA claims govt "investigators have identified more than 600,000 unique computers allegedly trafficking in child pornography and traced them to the United States."
According to the US Census Bureau there are somewhere between 108 and 115 million households in the US and about 75% (my projection based on their last records) own a computer. Assuming botnets in corporate settings spreading don't spread CP (Hah!), and assuming only one computer in a CP household contains CP, this means the Fed. wants to spend a billion dollars on a problem that comes from a max of 0.7% of households.
7 tenths of one percent of all American households at max and they want to spend a billion dollars on it.
Of course with the new bill this means they'll want to investigate all the middle school kids playing photoshop the cock on their first ex's face.
This is nothing more than pork for the police state. Pork that those in elected offices don't have the guts to stop.
I know it's rich AC talking about guts. I'm AC because I'm lazy and don't want to register.
It is not thought crime to change the image of a child into something pornographic. A doctored photograph would be legitimate grounds for civil and criminal action under many other circumstances. Why not this?
The geek deals in urban legends.
I prefer a show of facts.
Names, dates, and places. The charges for which these men were convicted. The prisons where they are serving time.
Ugh, I have a friend in prison for 'distribution of child pornography' because he got a bot on his computer and didn't find the hidden mIRC directory he didn't create until long after the FBI tagged him. What makes it even worse is there were 5 people in his family that used that computer but he was the one who got carted off for more time that manslaughter because he was the most likely person to be involved because he was the only one who knew how to really use a computer.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Where do we place bets?
Oh... wait... not that kind of porn fight.
Most insightful comment I've seen on this topic in a while.
Or to broaden the scope a bit: you support castration for people that look at pictures? Fucking sigh indeed.
My company nitpicks about a few thousand in travel costs, because it knows its investors will act if money is spent unnecessarily.
Then there's the government. It is supposed to work the same way, as an organization that could have its ass handed to it at any moment by its "investors", so it had better do well. Especially since it has WAY more money, and WAY more "shareholders".
Instead, the government has no fear. It can write a check for a billion dollars, without anywhere near as much scrutiny as a company applies to a stupid plane ticket. You know the people in government haven't done the homework, a billion dollars is just a "nice round number" to make politicians look tough on crime. And if anyone were to stand up and protest this spending, they'd probably be labelled a pornographer themselves and bashed into oblivion. (That reminds me of the equal bull of committing "treason" for opposing any and all military spending.)
Companies like to encourage employees to help them save, to nickel and dime things, acting "like it's your own money". And ridiculously, I've seen people who put real effort into helping their stupid company, on a scale that is insignificant compared to government spending; while those same people have never lifted a finger to question the government. They give a huge percentage of their money away and don't care what happens to it. What's wrong here?
"Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
Number of children, erotic images of whom end up on the net every year: 100?
Number of children living in famine every year: hundreds of millions
And what is the western world outraged about?
It is possible for a senior to be 18 while in high school. Either that, or else there is an implicit understanding that anyone else portrayed could have "stayed back" a grade or two, thus being 18.
..........FULL STOP.
They need to spend this one billion developing better behavioral profiling techniques rather than to spend billions fighting the internet.
Child porn is not made on the net, it's made in person, so the problem exists in the offline world.
To spend a billion dollars to combat a problem in the virtual world is like spending a billion dollars to fight child pornography in Second Life.
I'm all for ending the production of child pornography and I support any agenda which attacks or stops the producers of child pornography. However I don't see a point to wasting a billion dollars fighting child pornography on the internet, that's just going to be a witchunt, and it's going to be filled with entrapment and excuses to create more illegal hyperlinks.
I guess the war on the internet continues.
I don't see how this would prevent the production of child pornography.
Actually, it's confusing. Usually they claim that when pictures or media are traded online without paying for it, it's copyright infringement and does all this damage to the industry, but in this case of child pornography we are supposed to make an exception and believe that viewing it increases the demand for production.
The question is, whats in this for the producers? If people are trading it online then the producers don't get paid. However if it's too dangerous to trade online, the producers get to create a black market and actually get paid again.
Nothing is going to stop these people from thinking about or even viewing child pornography. Driving them underground doesn't help trace it back to the producers either.
The reasoning doesn't have to be all that reasonable because it feels good emotionally to attack people who think that way. People who are attracted to children need help, and need to be encouraged to seek help. Criminalizing their thinking will not encourage them to seek help, it will just drive them further underground and make the problem worse.
So I think this is a mental health problem that is being turned into something criminal. The source of their problem is that they are addicted to a certain kind of thinking. I'm sure that some who think like this will probably be disgusted at their own thoughts, and want to seek help for their addiction to these thoughts, and really these laws criminalize thoughts.
In the end, I don't think these laws are rational, and so they do not serve any rational purpose. These laws are emotional, likely revenge laws, or laws passed because we "hate" pedophiles, and find child pornography disgusting, not because we are actually trying to solve anything.
So as a result, this law will solve nothing at all. The end result will be an expanded sex offender database, more people to fill up the prison (probably helps the prison industrial complex), and also it's a backdoor to other types of censorship in the future. So it's probably more about politics of emotion than anything reasonable.
I wouldn't be surprised if a law was passed to allow us to simply kill all who think like pedophiles with no trial or jury, you know, just consider them as terrorists.
In fact, we should have a poll and just ask, how many believe people with pedophile thoughts should just be killed on the spot with no trial whatsoever? I'm sure a lot of people would consider this swift justice.
But then again what about those people who use Google to search for ways to murder their wife?
If they can outlaw the images of virtual child porn, why not outlaw the stories too?
I don't see why there should be a loophole for text based child pornography. The law is irrational enough, do we need to make it even more irrational by leaving this loophole?
If you want to compare it, it's more like outlawing GTA as a way to prevent people from becoming criminals.
The people who think this way are morons. Criminals are generated more by environmental pollution in their environment causing them to have brain damage than by text, video games, and movies. Most people who are criminals have brains which are physically different from people who are not, their brains develop completely differently.
So to think that you can fight child pornography by banning the images is like thinking you can fight murder by outlawing violent movies. The way to solve this problem is to study the people who think in this way to figure out whats wrong with them, and then offer them treatment.
If they dont get treatment then you can lock them up, but treatment should at least be offered.
While the United States is making strides in reducing lead pollution -- primarily by phasing out leaded gasoline and paint -- a recent report notes that "an estimated 3 to 4 million American preschool children have blood lead levels above 10 micrograms/dl, a level now recognized to be associated with subclinical neurologic impairment." The report, by Philip Landrigan and Andrew Todd, adds that as many as 68% of poor, minority children in inner cities may have unsafe lead levels.
That's alarming news, because research suggests lead poisoning is a major risk factor for behavior problems and criminality. One study by Deborah Denno, in fact, found that lead poisoning was the strongest predictor of disciplinary problems in school, which in turn were the strongest predictor of arrests between the ages of 7 and 22. Another study, of 501 boys in Edinburgh, Scotland, found that blood lead levels correlated strongly with measures of psychological deviance.
The lead-crime connection isn't surprising, because lead poisoning causes the types of cognitive problems most strongly linked to criminal behavior. http://www.crimetimes.org/95c/w95cp7.htm
It's good vs bad. And because you make it black vs white, you make it easier for rich/powerful/evil whites to dominate you along with the blacks you are fighting.
A witch hunt is generally defined, in it's normal emotive context, by the prosecution and identification of witches with a complete and utter lack of regard for any standards of evidence, justice, fairness or internal consistency.
It reminds me of the old monty python skit.
(I paraphrase from memory)
She's a witch!
how do you know?
Because she burns!
What else do we burn?
Wood!
So she is made of wood!
Yes, and wood floats!
aha! what else floats?
ducks!
Yes! Therefore witches are lighter than ducks!
(puts the witch on a broken scale which shows she is lighter than a duck)
Burn her!!!
What is child porn exactly?
Most attorneys will tell you that in most US states, that question is nonsensical when you approach the "border line".
It used to be defined (the first child porn laws came about in 1976, before which it was entirely legal in every way).... that child porn was a child "engaged in sexual contact". That was very shortly later amended to "or showing obvious arousal".
That's a pretty simple definition and the border-cases are rare.
But today, child porn in most states is defined as
"any image of a child, or someone appearing to be a child (or fictionally created to represent a child) which is viewed with the intent to cause arousal or sexual satisfaction"
There are a number of men in prison for things like.... owning a collection of boys underwear catalogs. Or taking photos of girls in bathing suits.
What it comes down to, and the issue that I have with these laws, is that it is impossible to know whether you are possessing child pornography BEFORE the jury reaches a verdict.
In fact, a given image can both be simultaneously porn and not-porn depending on who is looking at it.
In fact, the jury is instructed to divine the "intent" of the viewer of the image, often years after the actual "viewing" took place.
Obviously, there are plenty of cases with dudes downloading videos of 5 year olds being penetrated and I guess there's no argument in that case, but the cultural climate which allows laws that allow statements to enter a US court room such as "jury divined intent", "illegal fiction" and "simultaneous porn and not-porn" are the sort of things that lead us hand-in-hand toward the collapse of our fundamental structures of justice and freedom.
The fact that laws are allowed with these sorts of phrases are a travesty to our judicial and government systems and represent a black-eye to the framing of the constitution and modern law.
That's just my opinion, but I'm sticking to it. I guess thats the whole point. Dont save any pictures of anyone under age 18 on your computer and then you don't have to worry.
By preventing people from trading virtual kiddie porn for free, you increase the demand for REAL kiddie porn. If virtual kiddie porn is just as illegal as real kiddie porn, and someone is willing to sell real kiddie porn, now we have to worry about money being exchanged for the production of REAL kiddie porn because we want to outlaw the virtual kiddie porn.
Thats the problem, it's increasing the demand for the real thing when you remove the virtual and fake porn. Because people are addicted to these thought patterns, they are like crack addicts, if they can get it for free they wont ever pay for it and no one will ever get rich selling kiddie porn, but if we crackdown on all the free VIRTUAL kiddie porn, well the only thing left for them to do is go to a REAL kiddie porn dealer and pay for the production of actual kiddie porn.
And it's not like there any treatment for these people. At least drug addicts have some kinda treatment programs. So what is the point? To just fill up the prisons? What does it solve?
I don't think it's about justification.
In fact I think this will boost the kiddie porn market because it creates economic incentive to produce kiddie porn if you know it wont be traded over the internet.
This would allow the producers to create tapes or DVDs and sell them for $1000 each, or even sell it online though websites and not have to worry about anyone downloading/sealing their images.
I think the law is stupid for the reason that it would protect people who profit from kiddie porn sites in foreign countries where child porn is legal. It's not doing anything to stop the production of it, in fact now these sites will make so much more money because people wont be downloading it and giving it away for free.
And outlawing virtual child porn FORCES people to go to these sites to get their fix.
A case could be made that by outlawing the piracy of child porn/kiddie porn, the producers now can profit from selling it.
Websites in countries where child porn is legal, now they can make money because people will have to start buying their products again when perhaps before because of the internet, these groups were going out of business.
How do we know it's not these producers who are backing initiatives like this bill in the first place? The bill does not target them and it somehow indirectly helps them increase their profits.
The article is about Child Porn, NOT GGW. You know I wasn't talking about "just pictures"... though I find your defense of such actions (17 is still a minor in my state) a little creepy to say the least. You were obviously never victimized by one of these jerks.. or are you just one of them?
For someone to have pictures to look at, someone had to take those pictures. To me, both parties victimized the child and are not equally sick, but very close.
Again, fucking SIGH!
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
I have a 16 year old daughter. If I found out there were naked pix of her floating around, I'd find and castrate the perp myself. Guess you have to have children to understand.
You make a good point (as do others) about the questioning of the laws themselves. And I DO understand what and why you would question them.
I don't actually think you are one of them (sickos), but being a father tends to get the better of me where this is concerned. I know that my reaction is not uncommon, and will be the biggest hurdle when it comes down to brass tacks.
No, I'm not interested in prosecuting (or castrating) someone for looking at barely legal (or illegal) pictures of slightly underage girls (who are probably being paid anyway). My problem, and lack of tolerance is directed at people like this...
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=20346&archive=true
and this
These were military personnel conspiring with a foreign national, to share and distribute pornographic images of children... Thousands of them.
Can you CURE sexual attraction to children?
Not any more than you could CURE being hetero or homo-sexual.
What do YOU suggest we do with these people?
Besides start another un-winnable war against them? LOL
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
If you are asking me if we can CURE sexual attraction to 17 year olds, then I would say that the answer is most certainly no. You'd be waging a war on natural impulses, and you would lose.
What do YOU suggest we do with these people? I would suggest we begin to discuss these topics rationally, without immediately resorting to kneejerk comments about "castrating the sick fucks who look at this kind of crap." This isn't a one size fits all kind of debate, especially considering the way the laws are written now. Putting the people who are attracted to post-pubescent minors in the same category as those attracted to pre-pubescent minors confuses the issue tremendously.
I would also suggest that law enforcement authorities start truly concentrating on the people who are actually sexually abusing children, rather than spending so much time and money to arrest people that are looking at pictures and videos, including minors who take pictures of themselves:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm
http://www.news.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
This "fight" against child pornography has long lost sight of it's intended target (protecting minors from being sexually abused), and is now used as a means to score political votes, funding increases, and surveillance/control of the internet.
Two girls, one letter 'u'.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
You kind of missed the entire point.
First off, you don't know if they're under 18. There are plenty of 20-25 year olds that could pass for 16, there are plenty of 16 year olds that could pass for 20-25 (hello, traci lords)
Even that isn't the point though, the bill makes plenty of things illegal that don't even involve someone under 18. Render someone that looks a little too young in blender? Go to jail. Watch the wrong anime movie? Jail. Follow the wrong youtube link? Jail.
You don't know that what you're watching is or isn't illegal until a jury renders a verdict.
"Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."
I'd bet my wang that this thing goes down like a DC-10.
Actually, I have no evil intent.
/. who they had rendered as "pedophile advocates" or whatever, and are proceeding to slander to all hell.
:-)
However, a group called Perverted Justice (of the "to catch a predator" fame) has apparently taken to collecting personal information on people who post opinions like this.
I was perusing their website and ran into more than a couple names from various web forums including
Just whispering of dissent on this topic is grounds for instant lynching anymore. And my post above is beyond a whisper.
Chew on that.
According to the constitution, the federal government is not allowed to make laws that affect individuals. It's sole purpose is to regulate interstate commerce, interstate disputes, levy excise taxes and defend the borders.
That's it.
Of course, it does a whole fuckton more than that, which as all unconstitutional as far as I'm concerned.
In practice, state law always takes precident. The only time the Feds can intervene and prosecute is if a crime crosses state lines. For example, if someone were to travel to another state with the intent of buying drugs, that would be a federal case. However, if I stay within my own state, then the feds can't become involved.
Distribution of child porn, because of its nature of being on the Internet (which almost by definition, crosses state lines), often falls into federal statutes.
However, possession often falls under state laws because it's usually not inherently crossing state lines unless they arrest you stepping off an airplane with a box full of it or something.
To make things more complex, there are often disputes as to what exactly needs to "cross state lines" for it to be a crime.... if you are on the phone with someone materially related to the case who is out of state when you are caught.. is it then a federal case?
The feds WANT to make laws that they can enforce universally, but that "damn piece of paper" (the constitution) keeps getting in their way.
And when those pictures are of her in front of the bathroom mirror, are you going to cut her clit off or something?
Teens want to explore their sexuality, and need validation. Now they have the internet and cameras to help with both. If your daughter is remotely attractive and has a cameraphone, she's probably taken at least some cleavage shots if nothing else.
Funny you say that, Girls Gone Wild is by legal definition childporn (a lot of the girls flashing their tits were under the age of 18). These laws really don't make much of a distinction between Girls Gone Wild and violently raping a toddler.
Source, for those that don't believe me: http://www.hollywood.com/news/Francis_Lawsuit_with_Underage_Girls_Dropped/4942516
Lawsuit was dropped, but not due to them being legal.
And if its a girl taking pictures of herself? Should we throw her in jail? I think thats what we did last time. ( http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm )
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
I'd like to see some evidence for your claim; the only studies in this area are correlational. Even if child pornography did "fuel people to rape", arresting people for possession of such material would still not be justified. Think about what you're saying; "This material may encourage you to rape, so we're going to arrest you in case you do attempt to rape". Do you really support such ideas? How do you feel about hardcore adult pornography?
As I have said, I don't look at child pornography, for legal reasons.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
I can't help but think that perhaps this money would be better used in saving childrens' lives in Iraq, than hunting down pedophiles in USA. Over 1 million people, mostly children are dead due to Iraq war and more are dying. And what we're doing is putting more americans into prison with this monet. I think this money could be used better to save real human lives instead of destroying them.
http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/2006/11/24/children-of-sociopaths-are-twice-cursed/
How else can we arrest and jail all those idiots who voted for John Kerry, all those anti war hippies, stoners, and potential cyber-terrorists?
These laws give us the power to arrest anyone we want for any reason we want at any time we want. And this is a good thing because a lot of people need to be arrested or put to death just because they have stupid thoughts.
...or are these real-life child abusers still going to be simply reassigned to other locations, while photoshopping a fake depiction of the act would lead to jail time?