Slashdot Mirror
Porn Site Gave Federal Agents Free Rein
Frosty Piss writes "The operators of a notorious porn site Free6.com granted federal agents administrative access to the site, giving investigators the ability to monitor traffic and public and private chats in an effort to identify users trading 'a significant amount of child pornography.' Though some bloggers have speculated about whether law enforcement officials have secretly been given administrative access to sites where users have been known to post child pornography (like 4chan), the Free6.com arrangement is apparently the first such compact to be disclosed by investigators."
giving investigators the ability to monitor traffic and public and private chats in an effort to identify users trading 'a significant amount of child pornography.'
-"I swear, chief, it's all part of an effort to catch a gang of child pornographers, that's why I've been browsing that site so much"
It would be my guess that the men in blue like porn and want it for free.
All the have to do is present a National Security Letter, ordering access and binding the site from talking about it. They probably have a lot of such access.
Now we are slashdotting porn sites. I'm ok with paypal or amazon going down, but loss of porn on the internet could cause serious consequences. If the world goes to war over this, don't say I didn't warn you.
What do we, users, know?!
Given A55ange's background this is the place he might have visited.
Yeah, actually. I've worked with them. In spite of the hatred spewed by the anarchists, the ones I've worked with were very professional, cared deeply about their country and the people they protect, and were honest with me. That being said, I ran everything through legal to make sure.
On one hand, I like porn. On the other, I only like porn where the women are sexy... which means a woman should look like a woman, not a little girl. (I don't care about the guys, but I find the "Jurrasic cock" series to be inspirational... hey, I'm getting older too!) Anyway, I also happen to love children "in the good way" and don't like the thought of them being exploited. So on one hand, I want people exploiting children to get stopped. (punished is another thing... "helped" might be better) On the other hand, the means and method of doing what they do needs to be carefully administrated and managed. I also recognize that the ends do not always justify the means and that once they do it for one purpose, they will find it easier to do it again for another purpose.... and another and another... getting easier each time.
So... damn... I'm just torn.
You're confusing 4chan with /b/ again. Please don't.
nothing personal but i dont want to know your business or his.
Ernie, is that you??
First an AC rant, then freaking MichaelKristopeitNNN makes an appearance...
weinersmith
and stirrups, riding crops, saddles, bridles and other horseplay paraphernalia.
oh never mind.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
While Free6.com included a notice warning that the posting of “child pornography or other illegal material” would be reported to “local authorities,” Burdick had site administrators add a line noting that, “Free6.com may disclose these communications to the authorities at its discretion.”
Site says to stop posting inappropriate, illegal material. Site warns that it will report such content to authorities. Site acts on threat.
So. They found a lot of evidence. Did they actually solve any crimes? I'm being a bit facetious here.
Child porn is regarded as a crime. IMHO, it ought to be regarded as evidence. If it were legal to posess the evidence, as long as you reported it to law enforcement, then it seems like it would be easier to catch the people that actually shoot the vids/pictures.
As it stands, if I'm taping and happen to catch a shooting in progress, there can be all kinds of blood and gore and stuff; but I'm not guilty of anything simply by being in posession of the tape. Everybody knows that, and most will willingly shares the tape with enforcement so they can convict the bad guys.
OTOH, if I found a tape by the side of the road, stuck it in my VCR and it turned out to be kiddie porn I'd be immediately guilty of posessing kiddie porn. Knowing that, simply destroying it is a likely reaction. It could be that the tape is the only clue they have that would lead them to save the lives of the subjects involved; but because the EVIDENCE is illegal to posess, that won't happen.
This porn site seems rather... submissive.
some people consider an ad for underwear 'a significant amount of child pornography' and our government is more than happy to use that term as an excuse anywhere they can to limit privacy. In this case it probably is accurate. But they also use it to shut down the Christmas Island data sanctuary, snoop on generic internet traffic, argue against apps like TrueCrypt, and on and on. So, I'm against using this argument unless they've done the police work to get a proper court order on a specific target.
I'm not.
The FBI overstepped.
When we start saying to ourselves, "Well it is to protect children, then it's OK." or "We're under attack and we need to prevent another 9/11" or "We need to take everyone's name down in order to stop this meth crisis!" or whatever, we start a slippery slope.
Think the "slippery slope" is an overused argument? Remember that when you are being felt up by a TSA guy because you were randomly selected for more screening - even though you did absolutely nothing to warrant such extra screening. Or coming into the country and having a some grunt with a badge and gun rifle through your laptop or even seizing it.
In our societal rationalization for these intrusions and spying by our government, we are just greasing that slope.
Better yet, you want to "protect the children"? How about "random" searches of people hard drives or monitoring of all your electronic communications? Or searching people's homes just to make sure they're not making any bombs. They'll do it randomly to make sure they're not singling out any ethnic or religious group.
The IP you were assigned for that day was linked to someone who visited a porn site at one time - doesn't matter that you had it only on one day and were on the Sunday Christian Prayer site. Nope. Someone had it while they were looking at "Young Hairy Fucking Girls". Gotta seize your computers for a full forensic analysis and search your home for any contraband.
There are plenty of videos of people getting killed, there's a series called "Faces of Death" I believe, that was sold commercially.
It's not just anarchists. It's also those of us that respect and appreciate the constitution. The FBI hasn't exactly gotten that reputation without a lot of work. From the abuses by J. Edgar Hoover to the more recent abuses of the national security letters, the organization hardly has a clean record.
Snuff films don't exist. Yes, videos of people dying have been found/made - and collections of accidental death footage have been sold to the public, but nothing like the deliberate filming of a murder for sexual gratification. Videos with amazingly realistic special effects have been found (ask Charlie Sheen) but nothing like what is popularly defined as a "snuff" film has ever been found. http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp
Also "I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same." - citation needed. Don't get me wrong, I report all that shit to https://secure.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/CybertipServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US when I see it, but what you suggest is, AFAIK, unproven - as well as the equivalent to arresting citizens for reading classified material on wikileaks.
This is much better than that idea where they'd send you a URL and have you click it and get raided.
you're completely pathetic
cower some more
Dude. You need new lines. These are old already =P
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
So make a minimal amount 'legal' to hold and ONLY if you contact the police about it, not the other way around. Make it small enough to be a useless defense for the real perps, but large enough that the average guy who stumbled across it can safely contact the police.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
free6.com is/was a Swedish site, why would they give any federationalists from Mexico, USA, Argentina or some other foreign country anything at all? If they like to keep their site free of child porn, fine, that's a good thing. But isn't that something that should be done by a) their abuse administrator and/or b) the police in their own country?
Explain to me again how allowing people to download something for free creates a larger black market for the sale of it and encourages the production of more of it... the RIAA and MPAA have been making the exact opposite argument for years now. One of you must be wrong!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I'd be more worried if the feds hadn't access to 4chan.
I sicerely hope that all those "dump CP here" threads are started by the police, in order to find pedophiles.
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
If you find a bag of drugs on the side of the road and get stopped on your way to the police station to turn it in, you're also guilty of possession... illegal stuff is illegal. I agree that mere possession should not be illegal, only production and sales. However, the treatment of unlawful images should be and is treated just like the possession of any type of contraband.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
if it were not illegal to possess child pornography then abusers would have no problem downloading the stuff...
What?!? The abusers are the people who made the video.
If there was an industry based upon killing people, video taping it and then selling those tapes do you think the tapes would be "evidence"?
A closer analogy would be you stumbling upon someone raping a child, if you took a picture of it and sent it to the police it would almost certainly be regarded as evidence.
If you filmed it, went home, drank a couple of beers and watched it then it would no longer be evidence and you would be committing a crime.
Morpheus, God of Dreams.
Pics or it didn't happen?
So what, you’re just supposed to make sure the police know about the crime?
What if you filmed it and promptly sent it to the police, and then went home, drank a couple of beers and watched it? Would that be okay?
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Well, you made me break down and go prove a point to a troll. Good job. I will be checking you for future trolling, though.
To add a worthwhile contribution to the discussion, then, I will say that this is not anything particularly shocking. The government has long pressured sites like this for information. There really isn't much difference between this system and what has been going on, except that it shows they don't feel they need to hide their spying anymore.
It is amazing what people will accept when it is done under the pretense of fighting terrorism/drugs/pedos.
Great Intellect...
You could find a way to word it. Someone could think of a legitimate way to end up with a truckload of the stuff. At some point you have to stop trying to legislate numbers and just let common sense take over.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I think it depends on the medium. I may be wrong, but I believe it's illegal to distribute - and possibly posses - "snuff films" (in which an actor/person is killed on camera). Actual existence of such films is often the stuff of urban legend, however
Similarly, pictures that may depict nudity of underage individuals ARE legal in some situations, just not as porn. A famous example would be the picture of "Phan Th Kim Phúc", a Vietnamese child who was wounded and had her clothes burned off during the Vietnam war. That particular picture - despite having a naked child - is definitely NOT kiddy porn, and has been shown in many articles etc including reader's digest.
Those who think they have any sort of righteous "liberty" when posting their information on someone else's server are out of their fucking minds.
Well, a bunch of perverts posting "I want mooooore" might create a market, whether or not a financial transaction takes place. I wonder if that would/should in law create a contrast between the "quiet collector" VS somebody who is actively advocating the creation of criminal activity (aiding/abetting?)
Keep in mind that not everyone does "bad things" for profit. Some people get off on attention. While not as common in real-life, there's often the cliche of detective shows where the murderer taunts the police because he/she gets thrills from the attention and the chase.
So if it's some pervert who's abusing a relative or whatever, it's most likely he/she is doing it to satisfy their own sick sexual/power needs. HOWEVER, from what I've read of CP rings being busted, some of these people trade pics/videos like pokemon cards. That DOES create an incentive for the creation of new material, if not necessarily a financial "market" for one.
wherever there is a demand for something a market is created and trade occurs. it is beyond obvious that the desire to see naked pictures of children leads to people who will exploit children
Yes, it does lead to them. Making them easier to find.
Meanwhile you aren’t wasting huge amounts of time, money, and manpower tracking down people who aren’t actually abusing kids... for the crime of possessing a bunch of files on their hard drive.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Really, now? When you and I enter into an agreement where you sell me a product, and part of that agreement is that my personal information stays private unless requested by a warrant (boilerplate stuff really), that agreement is null and void when someone screams "think of the children"?
Remind me never to do business with you.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Watching porn doesn't make me interested in making porn, but it does make me want some pussy. I'm pretty sure there's an analogy here, and it doesn't involve cars...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
really. naked pictures of children and the desire to see them creates the demand for the sexual abuse of children. this really is the truth
And eliminating the demand for pictures of naked children will magically make all the pedos stop sexually abusing children.
Nice fantasy world you have there. Simple reality, indeed...
Do you even realize that “basic economics” doesn’t work the way you think it does when the supply is basically infinite?
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
You are a sexual deviant.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Was there such language in the agreement.
2. If nobody ever reads those things, that goes both ways, so enforcement is unlikely to be possible.
3. It's not legal to enter into a contract to commit illegal activity. So when he discovered you were putting illegal material on his server, he was released from any sense of contractual obligation, and put into a position of being obligated to report a crime.
4. How do you enter into a contract under a pseudonym giving a fake email address as your contact info? (Hint: you can't.)
5. Contracts require compensatory value in both directions. You'd have to be paying for the service or giving some service in trade. No indication such was the case here.
6. It's not 100% clear that the cops didn't have a warrant, and if they did have one, it likely accused the owner of the server (therefore the nominal owner of every file on the server) of doing the crimes his users were committing.
If you do ever do business with me, keep it legal. It's not that I stick my neck out for no man, but he'd better be doing something I agree with to get that honor.
getting rid of the pictures won't stop pedophilia, of course not. thank you for the red herring
but it will get rid of the demand for creating the pictures, which involves actual sexual abuse of children, sometimes by not even pedophiles, just people who want money
its like arguing with a creationist: you have a piece of ignorance stuck in your craw, and all of the plain evidence in the world to the contrary will not shake your faith
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
getting rid of the pictures won't stop pedophilia, of course not. thank you for the red herring
That wasn’t what I said, moron. Learn to read. I said eliminating the demand for them.
its like arguing with a creationist: you have a piece of ignorance stuck in your craw, and all of the plain evidence in the world to the contrary will not shake your faith
Such as the actual citation I provided above which says you’re completely full of shit.
And with your reputation you don’t have much room for movement here anyway...
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
If that was true, the regular porn industry wouldn't be making any new material.
No, if it was true and making regular porn landed you life in prison the regular porn industry wouldn’t be making any new material, at least not above-ground. So you can’t really compare the two.
Except for a few cases those prosecuted have huge collections and it stands to reason those types of collectors have connections to those responsible for their production.
Stands to reason? Just because you think it doesn’t make it so.
By y'all's logic should police not investigate the owner of a large collection of snuff films? Wouldn't that be a logical first step to finding people KILLING OTHER PEOPLE ON FILM.
Investigating him is one thing, putting him in prison another entirely. One is warranted, the other completely useless if he was not involved in the production of it.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
No, you are simply describing your fantasy world in which keeping people from trading pictures of kids is magically an effective way of protecting kids from being sexually molested. And in this fantasy world, everyone who looks at the pictures is a child-raping monster, which makes it easy to justify locking them up so nobody will ever have to look at their ugly face again.
It sounds like a nice place to live, a sort of utopia... well, after you’ve managed to get rid of those people, of course. I can understand why you don’t want to give it up.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
And having an outlet that doesn't require the abuse of children reduces the acting out of pedophiles. So porn protects children.
its like arguing with a creationist: you have a piece of ignorance stuck in your craw, and all of the plain evidence in the world to the contrary will not shake your faith
A creationist or a libertarian. Or you.
Learn to love Alaska
The government has a long tradition of going to private business and saying, "O HAI why don't you let us see what your customers are up to."
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK
"Project SHAMROCK ... was an espionage exercise that involved the accumulation of all telegraphic data entering into or exiting from the United States. The Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA) and its successor NSA were given direct access to daily microfilm copies of all incoming, outgoing, and transiting telegraphs via the Western Union and its associates RCA and ITT. ... No court authorized the operation and there were no warrants. ... At the height of Project SHAMROCK, 150,000 messages a month were printed and analyzed by NSA personnel."
that point negates any positive effect you can refer to
So, you are asserting that if every one child abused to make child porn saved 100 more from being abused, we should still persecute people that view it without funding the creators? It seems that decision will directly bring harm to children.
The logical decision is to stop production wherever possible and prevent payment for child porn at all for anyone, but to not persecute those that seek to view child porn. But logic has nothing to do with the discussion of child porn.
Learn to love Alaska
the point is it is a crime.
It's a crime because people say it's a crime. You are apparently unable to discuss the morals of it, and instead fall back to "because it's illegal" without reason or logic.
Once the child porn is made, there is no further harm to anyone in making it available to others. You refuse to address that point because it is quite clear you have no argument against it.
Learn to love Alaska
The lock of hair is a physical item stolen from someone. He gained from the murder of another. That's illegal. Theft is illegal. The hair legally belongs to the estate, and the estate is being denied the lock of hair. That's different than an image.
But your refusal to look at the logic comes through, even when you claim to be embracing logic. You claim emotions of dead people matter for what should be legal, which isn't real, coherent logic. What causes the greatest good?
You've answered that you don't care. You refuse to look at that question because it offends you to think about it.
Learn to love Alaska
you are a demonstrated defamatory liar who choses to fantasize about homosexual rape, child molestation and the abuse of women.
present yourself to me, admit what you've done, then i will bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.
Sure it may be a slippery slope, but people venture down such slopes for good reasons.
In this case, by going down the slope, we erode our rights, and by not going down the slope we ignore other peoples' rights.
They're both extremes, and both extremes are bad.
I don't think the problem is that we start down such slopes. I think the real problem is that we haven't worked out how/when to stop, how to stop it from being slippery, when we get to that much happier medium.
Honestly, how many of you had never heard of free6 and now went and had a look ? I very nearly did, but I'm at work :-)
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Porn viewers tend to get bored with the same porn over and over again. This is why there is more than one porn video in the entire world, and why there is an industry. If your sexual makeup requires that you view the abuse of children, the same image/video will not hold you for your entire life, any more than a normal, healthy adult will be happy with the same porn film for their entire life. purchasing that one tape just showed whoever made it that there is a potential for more sales, because that tape will not forever hold its appeal. It encourages the creation of more. I am sorry that you have more sympathy for the adult who knew the risks of said collection and lacked the self control to avoid it (regardless of how you feel about the law, it is a law and it is enforced) than you do for the child who was abused so that adult could get off.
Yes, it does lead to them. Making them easier to find.
Often you find them in some remote shithole country where they don't care, where it may even be legal or nearly so. There is absolutely a child porn industry. Children absolutely go missing to fuel it and others like it. Do not kid yourself that slavery has been eliminated on our planet, it has not been and probably never will be unless we somehow form a society based on cooperation or at least positive competition instead of stepping on the backs of others.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And eliminating the demand for pictures of naked children will magically make all the pedos stop sexually abusing children.
You don't seem to realise that people who get sexually excited by watching pictures or videos of naked children/children engaged in sexual acivities are...paedophiles.
So it's ironic that you talk about "pedos...sexually abusing children", as though they are a different species from you and your cozy porn habits.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Paedophiless need to have a constant supply of images of children being raped because otherwise they'll turn into the sort of people who rape children? What sort of stupid fucking argument is that?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Once the child porn is made, there is no further harm to anyone in making it available to others. You refuse to address that point because it is quite clear you have no argument against it.
It encourages paedophiles to indulge their fantasies, when ideally they should be forced to abandon them.
If you find child porn arousing, you need psychiatric help, it is certainly arguable that people found with child porn should be treated as mentally ill rather than as criminals
One question, do you seriously not think that anyone watching child porn is a paedophile?.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The lock of hair is a physical item stolen from someone. He gained from the murder of another. That's illegal. Theft is illegal. The hair legally belongs to the estate, and the estate is being denied the lock of hair. That's different than an image.
The argument that a picture of a raped baby is "just pixels" is ridiculously offensive. If it was your kid, would you seriously not mind strangers on the internet fapping to it?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What, you assume somebody is a pedo just because they are arguing that criminalizing the possession of particular patterns of 1s and 0s is ridiculous?
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
If you're a paedophile, you are free to wank away at your own disgusting fantasies, but you are not free to exploit real human beings.
False, people have gone to prison for exploiting imaginary cartoon children before.
That’s a nice red herring but it’s not really why possession is illegal: It’s illegal because it’s thoughtcrime, and no actual children need been harmed in the making of the material for thoughtcrime to have occurred.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
One question, do you seriously not think that anyone watching child porn is a paedophile?
I have played first-person shooters, flight sims, and other combat-themed games where the objective is to kill, sometimes graphically, sometimes indiscriminately. These games create the thrill of being attacked (albeit by computer-generated foes, or computer representation of other people playing the same game) and of winning or losing. In fact, one of the missions in MW2 requires you to walk through an airport with a machine gun and slaughter everyone you meet. Yet that doesn’t make me a psychopath who wants to act out bloody fantasies of destruction and mass murder a la Ft. Hood. And while I never personally got interested much in GTA, the same principle applies to people who play that game.
I have personally seen videos containing bestiality, BDSM, scat, extreme body modification/mutilation, and humiliation porn. Yes, I’ve seen goatse, 2G1C, 3G1H, and some less-well-known stuff (an amateur film, all simulated and special effects, I think it was called August Underground or something like that... or the professionally-produced movies Funny Games, Human Centipede, or Chaos; look them up on IMDB). I found much of it disgusting, even revolting. Yet part of the fundamental reason for watching any horror movie is the sense of fascinated revulsion it induces.
If watching a movie and being sickeningly fascinated in an I-just-can’t-seem-to-look-away sense doesn’t make a person want to go act out those things...
if playing violent video games such as MW2 or GTA doesn’t make a person buy a gun and go kill people or start car-jacking people and murdering prostitutes...
if watching a film in which a woman is pretending to be raped doesn’t make someone go out and rape their neighbour...
why the hell is child porn automatically in a different category entirely? It makes no logical sense.
The only fundamentally different thing I can think of that makes watching child porn different from those is that it’s illegal, therefore anyone who watches it is a criminal, and therefore they’re probably also a pedo. And a nazi. And he probably cheats on his taxes, too. In fact, why do we even bother having a trial? He’s obviously guilty. Just look at him!
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Your argument boils down to money. So make selling/purchasing child porn illegal, great. Why waste resources on people who are downloading free images on 4chan? You think there's a market created by 14 year olds who have, at most, fake credit cards? Or wait, do you think only old men download child porn, that when those old men were teenagers they had no interest in it?
How is it ironic? You missed the point. The argument that it will make pedos stop abusing children is totally different than what you're talking about.
If it was your kid, would you seriously not mind strangers on the internet fapping to it?
If it was my kid, I’d probably be completely irrational about it just like anyone else. But frankly, if I didn’t have to know about it, what difference would it make? If something like that had happened, you can’t un-make it happen: the only plan of action is to try as best you can to not constantly dwell on it. If you pick a scab, it never heals.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Ignore the troll, replying just sends him further off the handle.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It is not necessary that someone watching "child porn" is a pedophile. "Pedophilia", in the medical sense, refers to the sexual attraction to "a pre-pubescent child. By law, any sexual image of a child under the age of 18 is considered "child pornography". There's nothing psychologically wrong with sexual attraction to, say, a 16 year old. Their bodies are fully developed (i.e. they're capable of having children). The problem with this is purely social and legal.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
When you make up fake answers to fake questions with the intent of deceiving others who read this to take your opinion of my post over my actual post, that makes you a liar. Try not lying in your response and I may address your points. Oh wait. You'd need to put a point in there as well.
Learn to love Alaska
Watching films of children being raped is an exploitation of those children, however you try to explain it away.
Even if the children are imaginary?
Paedophiless need to have a constant supply of images of children being raped because otherwise they'll turn into the sort of people who rape children? What sort of stupid fucking argument is that?
A correct one. Though you are purposefully being obtuse for the sake of argument. There are those who are the type who would rape children. When they know there are bad consequences if they do, they try not to, despite the urges. Sometimes, when opportunity arises, they do anyway. However, if they have another outlet, like child porn, they are less likely to pursue the act itself.
It's been clinically proven that viewing child porn prevents child rape, so anyone against child porn is a supporter of pedophiles raping children.
Learn to love Alaska
One question, do you seriously not think that anyone watching child porn is a paedophile?
Why does that matter? Being a pedophile isn't illegal. Abuse and rape of children is. Unless you are arguing that the thoughts should be illegal, and you are using the possession of images as a psychological test of their thoughts.
I want to minimize the abuse of children. I don't care if people get their rocks off to the Abercrombie and Fitch catalog or Japanese cartoons.
Learn to love Alaska
The argument that a picture of a raped baby is "just pixels" is ridiculously offensive.
For one, I never made that argument. Someone else fabricated a case where they compared assault (cutting hair against permission) theft (taking that hair) murder (killing someone after taking it) with taking a picture. I pointed out that there's at least a minor issue with their analogy. That, in no way constitutes an argument of the type you assert.
But then, as is obvious in these discussions, anyone who isn't for rounding up all pedophiles, regardless of whether they have ever actually harmed anyone, and putting them all away for the rest of their lives (whether by shortening their lives artificially, placing them in penal institutions, or therapeutic institutions) is obviously either a pedophile or defending them.
Not to mention that your statement is unrelated to child porn. For one, the picture could be fabricated with no actual person harmed. Also, the "baby" could be 17 who could pass for a 25 year old (like all the "child porn" featuring Tracy Lords where she even had a fake US Passport with a false age indicating she was over 18 when she was not). So requiring the argument include actual harm to someone when the laws don't require that and using the term "baby" when there have been people a few days shy of 18 who looked over 18 and could prove it with government documentation (I think she forged the documents that got her the passport, so she had an actual US passport with a birthdate that indicated she was over 18) makes your argument not a logical one, but an emotional one devoid of facts or reason.
Learn to love Alaska
I was replying to hmar, who was talking about purchases driving the creation of more child porn. I wasn't replying to you. Did you reply to me on purpose or did you mean someone else??
i live at 4513 brittany ct. eau claire, wi. 54701.
present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i will bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.
cower some more, feeb. attempt more lies. justice is waiting for you.
you're completely pathetic.