Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senators OK $1 Billion for Online Child Porn Fight

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the blinded-by-the-children dept.

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."

2 of 529 comments (clear)

  1. Occurrence of paedophilia by Brian+Ribbon · · Score: 5, Informative

    "How many pedophiles [..] are there in the USA?"

    Around 5% of adult males are paedophiles; around 33% of adult men have some attraction to pre-pubescent children. [1]

    "Not saying child porn is not insidiously evil."

    See my comment here.
    --
    "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
  2. What I vaguely remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.