US Bishop Charged For Not Reporting Priest's Child Porn To Police

PolygamousRanchKid writes "Kansas City's Catholic bishop was charged Friday with not telling police about child pornography found on a priest's computer, making him the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic official indicted on a charge of failing to protect children. Finn has acknowledged that he and other diocese officials knew for months about hundreds of 'disturbing' images of children that were discovered on a priest's computer but did not report the matter to authorities or turn over the computer."

Comments

Is that how that works?

[iluvcapra]

It would seem strange that an employer would be required to report such a thing, particularly if there was no evidence that any child had been harmed, however, it would appear to be so, the indictment is specifically for "Failure of Mandated Reporter to Report." Here is the relevant Missouri statute.

PP 4 reads:

In addition to those persons and officials required to report actual or suspected abuse or neglect, any other person may report in accordance with sections 210.109 to 210.183 if such person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or may be subjected to abuse or neglect or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect.

Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?

Re:Is that how that works?

[FooAtWFU]

Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?

You'd have to ask the judge and jury.

Also, thank you for thinking about the law instead of jumping on the "hate hate hate + guilty until proven innocent" bandwagon. I'd mod you up if I hadn't wasted all my points for the day.

Re:Is that how that works?

[iluvcapra]

You'd have to ask the judge and jury.

As far as the law is concerned it's probably not much of an issue, if you asked me and my kid was in that class I'd say "hell yes!" The first part of the law is very much built around what you do if you see or suspect abuse, not abuse that may happen... if the priest's superior knows that his priest-employee has been looking at kiddie porn for 30 years with no instances of abuse, then he can come to a reasonable conclusion that he won't abuse. He should definitely FIRE the guy, and carefully interview everyone around him, the children he has been in contact with, and their families.

But I guess the families have a right to know why the teacher is leaving, and they'd all be rather motivated to drop a dime on him, so I guess the law is proper -- it compels the mandated person to do what was eventually going to have to happen anyways, even if it were less demanding.

The problem is, the law is ordering you to ruin someone's career and life when no one has been harmed, when merely firing someone or moving them out of contact with children would be a completely suitable remedy to the danger the law is trying to prevent. If the cops throw up a sting and catch him with kiddie porn, then the law's the law and he should go to jail, but are we ready to force people's friends and coworkers to turn someone in for this?

Re:Is that how that works?

[JoshuaZ]

Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?

I don't know enough about the statute to directly answer that question. It wouldn't surprise me if it did simply given how as a society we treat child porn and anything remotely connected to it. But in this context one doesn't even need to go that far. From the article:

Finn acknowledged earlier this year that St. Patrick's School Principal Julie Hess had more than a year ago raised concerns that a priest was behaving inappropriately around children, but that he didn't read her written report until after the Rev. Shawn Ratigan was charged with child pornography counts this spring. Ratigan has pleaded not guilty. In a memo dated May 19, 2010, Hess wrote that several people had complained Ratigan was taking compromising pictures of young children and that he allowed them to sit on his lap and reach into his pocket for candy

So this wasn't just that they had found pictures but that they had found pictures and had of actual behavior. TFA discusses further problems. I don't think a jury will need to think very hard about what exactly constitutes reasonable suspicion in this case.

Re:Is that how that works?

[bcrowell]

if the priest's superior knows that his priest-employee has been looking at kiddie porn for 30 years with no instances of abuse, then he can come to a reasonable conclusion that he won't abuse.

"In a memo dated May 19, 2010, Hess wrote that several people had complained Ratigan was taking compromising pictures of young children and that he allowed them to sit on his lap and reach into his pocket for candy."

The problem is, the law is ordering you to ruin someone's career and life when no one has been harmed,[...]

If the porn is a cartoon drawing, then probably no child has been harmed. But that wasn't the case here. "Seven months later, a computer technician working on Ratigan's laptop found hundreds of what he called "disturbing" images of children, most of them fully clothed with the focus on their crotch areas, and a series of pictures of a 2- to 3-year-old girl with her genitals exposed." If someone took crotch shots of my daughter when she was 2, I would certainly consider that "harm."

Re:Is that how that works?

[flaming error]

somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that they are sexually aroused by such images and situations,

Sounds likely.

and at some point, will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life

Whoa, Nellie. Small difference between looking and fantasizing, huge difference between fantasizing and doing.

Re:Is that how that works?

[yndrd1984]

Is a Catholic Bishop considered an employer?

Who do you think hires and fires Catholic priests?

Having some photos of girls that might be 16-17 showing off their tits (developed tits) at a club or party is not child porn.

In the real world maybe not, but according to the legal system it certainly is.

I would think that somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that ... at some point, [they] will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life.

Absolutely not. Limiting myself to fantasies I had today at work, I can think of three - running my boss over with a car, having sex with the married hottie, and taking an axe to a certain server - that I would never act upon. I can't bring myself to believe that people who fantasize about children are somehow the only ones who must, without fail, act on their every dark desire.

If I found child pornography on a computer in my company I would investigate it immediately. Absolute first thing I would determine is if the employee is actually accessing it, and is it accessible from the public Internet. Meaning, was my company hacked and the system being used as a dump to serve child porn. Either way, once my initial investigation was complete (which would be that day), I would involve the authorities without question.

This I agree with, without reservation.

Re:Is that how that works?

[demonlapin]

Having some photos of girls that might be 16-17 showing off their tits (developed tits) at a club or party is not child porn.

It is, however, prosecutable as such. Just as an FYI. And yes, judges are acutely aware of the fact that it is legal for some people (e.g., two 16-year-olds) to have sex in almost every state but illegal for them to look at each other's bodies while they do so.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Caraig]

It would seem strange that an employer would be required to report such a thing, particularly if there was no evidence that any child had been harmed,

If the pornography is photos or videos of real live children (as opposed to drawings/art/renders) then the argument can be and has been made that children have been materially harmed. Not only were they abused in the taking of the photos, but the photos of them -- doubtless embarrassing, certainly a painful remembrance of what happened to them -- still exist and are still being distributed. So there is measurable harm that was done and is still being done to them.

A slightly more specious argument can be made that possession of child pornography enables child pornographers by fostering a demand for it. That's a good debate to have, since it can apply to a number of other situations as well.

Re:Is that how that works?

[westlake]

It would seem strange that an employer would be required to report such a thing, particularly if there was no evidence that any child had been harmed

The photograph is evidence of the sexual abuse of a child --- the child in the photograph.

Its production is a criminal act. Its distribution is a criminal act. Its possesion is a criminal act. This is basic.

Re:Is that how that works?

[hairyfeet]

Well I have a friend that works in the state crime lab on this very subject and he says many they bust (and the prosecutors give insanely huge sentences to) are what he calls "social retards" that frankly aren't a threat to anyone, young or old. One they busted hadn't even left his home since 1997, and when touched would freak and screech like a wounded animal. they ended up having to tranq him to get him out the home. he got 65 years BTW thanks to the several thousand CP pics he had.

The way he explained it to me was that these social retards don't interact with ANYBODY if they can help it, instead they live their entire "life" if you want to call it that, on their machines looking at porn. And just like a junkie who needs a larger fix to keep his habit these retards will need worse and worse porn to keep being able to even get it up. He said the porn they find ALWAYS follows a set pattern as well. First it is straight, then straight fetish (stockings, anal, gangbang, etc) followed by trannies, then B&D/S&M, then finally bestiality and CP. He also said you will find literally pounds and pounds of porn, but its all the same shit that has been floating around the net since the days of bulletin boards.

So just from what he has seen I'd say there is your proof there are plenty that can have a fantasy and not act on it, hell you could have put "tranq boy" into a room with a naked 9 year old and he could have curled up into a ball in the corner and screeched. I agree with him that the police would be a better use if they simply got shrinks for the social retards and instead focus manpower on the scum that actually hunt kids, but sadly the prosecutors want big busts as those make big headlines and they don't get big busts when it comes to actual child rapists as it can takes sometimes years to track them down. Sadly I doubt this will ever change as nobody has the guts to say anything that could come out as "being soft on CP" so they'll just waste resources chasing retards while the real hunter scum won't get busted unless their victims come forward.

Re:Is that how that works?

[jdavidb]

In our legal system, possession of child porn is considered to make the possessor culpable for the abuse of the child.

Personally, I think it's an easy way for officials to look like they are "doing something" about a particularly heinous problem while the real child abusers may go completely free. We can probably catch hundreds of people who view such pornographic images, but the people who were actually physically involved in creating the images are not apprehended all that often. (It does happen, though -- there was a bust of a child porn ring in my area a few years back.)

Re:Is that how that works?

[wagnerrp]

I would think that somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that ... at some point, [they] will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life.

Absolutely not. Limiting myself to fantasies I had today at work, I can think of three - running my boss over with a car, having sex with the married hottie, and taking an axe to a certain server - that I would never act upon. I can't bring myself to believe that people who fantasize about children are somehow the only ones who must, without fail, act on their every dark desire.

But that's not the reason why it should be illegal. The problem isn't specifically with looking at child porn, or that by doing so they might be motivated to act on their desires, but that they are maintaining the industry. Someone, somewhere had to produce the images, and that does cause a very real harm to someone. By eliminating the consumers at the bottom, you at least in part eliminate the need for the producers at the top.

It's the same reason for why buying body parts is illegal. You getting the part to save your life isn't a problem. The problem is that it fosters an industry of organic chop shops, kidnapping people and parting them out, in order to have a supply of fresh organs to sell you.

Re:Is that how that works?

[artor3]

I would think that somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that they are sexually aroused by such images and situations, and at some point, will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life.

This a very dangerous line of reasoning. Everyone fantasizes about breaking the law from time to time; few people act on those impulses. Criminalizing bad thoughts is a terrible, terrible idea. Child porn is bad because it's abusive to the children involved in making it, and gives a profit incentive for film makers to abuse more children. It should be illegal for those reasons. As soon as you start accepting the notion that things can be illegal to think about, you start walking down a very dark path, and you won't like where it ends.

Re:Is that how that works?

[jtownatpunk.net]

If I found child pornography on a computer in my company I would investigate it immediately. Absolute first thing I would determine is if the employee is actually accessing it, and is it accessible from the public Internet. Meaning, was my company hacked and the system being used as a dump to serve child porn.

Wow, no, dude. If I found undeniable child porn (not a kid in the bath or something likely to be innocent), I'd stop what I was doing, call the cops, then call my boss. I'm not going to run the risk of having some kiddy-diddler get off (no pun intended) because he could make a case that I'd tampered with the evidence or simply that the evidence had been mishandled. Let the cops do their forensic analysis using tools and methods that are accepted in the relevant court(s).

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

I never disputed that it was illegal under the current laws. Just the throwing it all into one category is bullshit.

It's perfectly normal to be attracted to 16-18 year old girls sexually when they are fully developed young women. That's biology. Sentencing a 21 year old man to prison time for having a 17 year girl friend and possessing naked pictures of her is just retarded.

My point was in making the distinction of what is a biological motivation to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex (or same) and being sexually attracted towards children.

It's different, and the law says they are the same. If am I going to be part of sentencing a man (or woman) to prison for "child" porn, it had better damn well be children and not some sexually active 16 year old girl actively seeking sexual partners. If it is a 16 year old boy, actively seeking sexual partners is a given 99.9999% of the time.

So if I find some pictures on a guys computer at work where it's possible that it might be some high school cheerleaders I would probably just ignore it. 7 year old girls, or worse boys? I am going to report that because I do consider him a threat to children and needing of psychological evaluation. Prison time is a bit harsh for simple possession, but I am certainly not going to be silent about it.

Re:Is that how that works?

[flosofl]

In our legal system, possession of child porn is considered to make the possessor culpable for the abuse of the child.

...and I have zero problem with that. By consuming the media (downloading to view), this "person" is creating demand. The demand is filled by more children being preyed upon.

This is one of the very few crimes where I do not support rehabilitation or believe in redemption. I don't believe in the death penalty except in the most extreme of circumstances (this is not one). However in the case of child abuse (physical and/or sexual) I am wholeheartedly behind punitive incarceration and the removal of said "person" from society for the remainder of their sad, little life.

I am perhaps, biased, but I have seen first hand the results of the horror inflicted by these self-absorbed, impotent psychopaths.

Re:Is that how that works?

[domatic]

Any child porn with live actors IS documentation of abuse. Anyone who has it is fueling that abuse. It isn't something you just let go.

I don't agree with hounding people because of nasty cartoons with children but the real thing is another beast altogether. Kids can't give consent. Servicing the market for it is a crime. Being a part of the market for it is a crime.

And anyhoo this creepazoid wasn't just getting his jollies from horrible pix....

Re:Is that how that works?

[Bacon Bits]

The law says "has been" as well as "may be". Someone had to create the CP. That means someone, somewhere has already sexually abused a child. The possessor of the CP is not relevant as far as reporting it's existence, really.

Now, there are still corner cases. It is possible he was only in possession of material created without a child such as digital renderings or drawings (which are still illegal in many jurisdictions) or photography for medical or other legitimate purposes (such as a parent photographing their child taking a bath).

Re:Is that how that works?

[Tsingi]

Fantasizing about some celebrity, or being in Star Trek, or on the game grid in Tron is one thing. Killing or harming people is another.

The hands down #1 fantasy of both genders is rape. Does that come under harm? Does it make everyone a rapist?

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

I never said it should be criminalized, only that the person should be receiving psychological evaluation immediately. I also *never* indicated that thoughts or fantasies should be criminalized at all.

There is a big difference, huge difference, about fantasizing about pulling off some heist, or punching your boss, and killing/raping/torturing people.

Not all fantasies are equal. If you go into an ER and answer a question about suicidal thoughts or fantasies the wrong way.... boy let me tell you... it gets people hopping around really quickly.

That same logic applies here. Fantasies/thoughts about hurting people or sexually abusing children fall into the category of "this shit needs to be dealt with now". Why? They don't want it happening later on, because it turns out, it usually does.

So although I agree with you in principle, I don't agree that we can group these specific fantasies with your seemingly overall category of "harmless". Some of them we need to pay attention too and attempt to help people. I don't want to see the person automatically go to prison, but I do want to see them receive some sort of help and therapy. At a minimum, have well qualified people determine just how likely it is that they will act on those impulses.

Re:Is that how that works?

[BrokenHalo]

I wouldn't disagree, but I have just realised that I have been reading this thread thus far without gaining the slightest understanding of why this topic has appeared on Slashdot. It's hardly "news for nerds".

Re:Is that how that works?

[BrokenHalo]

7 year old girls, or worse boys? I am going to report that...

As a matter of interest, why is it worse to abuse a boy than a girl?

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

While you have a point, I would still determine if company resources were simply being used as a dump, or if the employee was actively involved.

I don't trust cops, and I trust the FBI even less. Many companies I have worked for can't take the hit, and you just have no idea if the cops are going to seize all your equipment, specific equipment, etc.

So, yes, I could be absolutely safe and secure in the knowledge that responsibility was entirely in the hands of the authorities, but at a very severe risk of company operations being so severely impacted that it threatens the livelihood of hundreds of other employees.

Sorry, I have heard of too many nightmare stories. Like the one about the complete dipshit working at the FBI that seized all equipment in the datacenter, not just from the suspect, but hundreds of other companies at the same time. Not all of them survived.

In one case, the FTC had to be negotiated with on the spot to not take every single server, but only the specific ones that were being used by the customer to host their operations and data. In fact, in that case the FTC was convinced and persuaded so well, the equipment was not confiscated at all and the company was hired to help host and evaluate the data for them since said company also developed some of the code.

I guess there has to be a balance, and I would rather determine on my own if an employee is involved or not, before having to replace an entire infrastructure and laying off employees till everything was back up and working.

Re:Is that how that works?

[SecurityGuy]

I don't know about Missouri, but according to a U.S. Dept of Justice prosecutor who taught I class I took, yes, if you discover CP, you are required to report it. Always. We were, in fact, told that failure to report was itself a crime. Happily, it's not something I ever stumbled across in any of the investigations I've done, but there's no doubt in my mind that if I had, I'd be making the call.

Re:Is that how that works?

[snowgirl]

Everyone fantasizes about breaking the law from time to time; few people act on those impulses.

Actually, people quite frequently break the law... it's kind of part of the reason for search warrants, and why police states end up being able to arbitrarily label anyone a criminal. I think your idea of "fantasizing does not result in actually breaking the law" is suffering from selective memory biases that humans have. You recall the times where you fantasize yet don't break the law more readily than you recall when you fantasize and then do break the law. Likely thinking most of the time that you broke the law without ever fantasizing about it.

Either way: no, simple fantasizing about a crime should never be good cause to arrest someone. However, this priest was in active violation of child-pornography laws, which by US law traditions is inextricable from child abuse, such that even cartoons or any other depiction of child porn is deemed illegal, as the harm to children goes beyond simply just the harm done by sexually violating them in order to take the picture.

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

What?????

That is the #1 fantasy????

I have never had a fantasy about raping a woman. Ever.

Citation Puhleeeze.

Re:Is that how that works?

[unrtst]

...but I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others. Specifically, the darker ones associated with more mental problems.

That's BS.

Rephrased as the following, and I'd completely agree: ...but I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies, if acted upon, would cause more danger to people than other fantasies. Specifically, etc...

If your fantasy is about being in Star Trek, and you try to act on it, so what?
If you fantasize about being with some celebrity (not raping or mauling them, but actually being with them), and you try to act on it (try to get to know them), big deal.
If you fantasize about raping old ladies, and you try to act on it, things could end quite badly for the old lady involved.

The thing is, I HIGHLY doubt the problem is the percentage of fantasizers in a group that attempt to act on it. In fact, I'd be willing to wager the percentage goes the other way. For instance, I'd bet that, of those who fantasize about anthropomorphic behaviors, there is a high percentage of those that act on it and that, conversely, there are a lower percentage of those who fantasize about rape and act on it. Strong negative consequences do deter most people from actions.

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

I would certainly consider that "harm."

How? He looked at them, yes, but what happened? As far as I know, nothing happened or resulted from that. The so-called "victim" probably doesn't even know if someone looked at it (how they got the pictures is another matter, I think).

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

I guess it isn't. It was a personal opinion, and I have to admit it is a double standard.

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

Anyone who has it is fueling that abuse.

That's probably only true if they bought it. If they silently obtain it from elsewhere (the producers don't even know about it), then I don't see how that is.

Re:Is that how that works?

[msobkow]

Whoa, Nellie. Small difference between looking and fantasizing, huge difference between fantasizing and doing.

Consider this: It is not the consumption of illicit drugs that is illegal, but the mere possession of them.

Possession of child pornography is no different than actual child abuse in my books, because the abusive images came from somewhere and by collecting them, you are providing the "customer demand" for more abuse of children.

Any organization has a responsibility to report child pornography and child abuse. But the church still has this bizarre idea that they're above the law and can deal with the issue "internally". Even the First Nations with their tribal councils don't try to shield molestors or abusers around here, and they're about as militant as you can get about meting out justice through their system instead of the courts.

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

I don't work for the FBI or anything studying serial killers but I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others.

You might not need to be a psych major, but I will ask for some proof of this. I don't see why that would be (and even if a seemingly "reasonable" explanation is given, I'd still like some proof). Now we just need to read everyone's minds, find out who fantasizes about what, and then try to determine which fantasies are acted out more often than others...

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

What part about the "associated with more mental problems" did you miss?

Not all fantasies are equal. The ones involving harm and abuse of children usually go hand in hand with deeper pathology.

Strong negative consequences can be mitigated by a deep desire motivated by mental problems. The death penalty is pretty damned strong as a deterrent right? Then how come serial killers can seemingly get over it? When interviewed they always seem to indicate that they are driven and powerless to stop themselves.

While what you say is logical, I don't think it is appropriate to apply it to all fantasies, specifically, ones involving killing people and sexually abusing children.

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

Not all fantasies are equal.

According to you, at least. But that is likely subjective.

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

this "person" is creating demand.

But they're not abusing the children themselves, and the "damage" they cause is probably small (there probably needs to be quite a few of them for it to even be sustainable).

And they're not necessarily even supporting the producers at all (they could get it elsewhere, unknowingly to the producer).

Re:Is that how that works?

[Elbereth]

Naked photographs are not obscene.

There are (controversial) photographers who have made a career out of publishing naked pictures of children and teens. Some of them are highly respected, and some of them are, well, a bit less highly respected.

Check out Larry Clark for an example of possibly the most controversial photographer/director of our time. He's influential and talented, but some people call his work borderline child pornography. Despite it, he's been busy since the 60s, and -- to my knowledge -- never been charged with breaking any obscenity laws. He prefers to document the world as it truly is, not as it "should be". Thus, children are depicting engaging in anti-social, self-destructive, and/or sexual activities. Some people find it fascinating, some people find it disturbing, some people find it obscene, and some people find it a turn-on.

Also, see Virgin Killer for an arguably even more controversial photograph. The article might be censored in your country, however.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Goody]

While you have a point, I would still determine if company resources were simply being used as a dump, or if the employee was actively involved.

I don't trust cops, and I trust the FBI even less. Many companies I have worked for can't take the hit, and you just have no idea if the cops are going to seize all your equipment, specific equipment, etc.

Wow. You just gave an attorney the basis for the defense. Prior to calling the police you took it upon yourself to go through the evidence, possibly tainting it, wrecking key log entries, or even planting evidence. Perhaps you had a little argument with the defendant a few days before? You had a reason to frame him. Also, since you represent "the company" you also have exposed them to liability in the process and you've jeopardized your job. Not doing the right thing just to avoid equipment seizure also may expose you to legal action.

You're an IT professional. Act like one. You stop what you're doing, lock your workstation, and go to your supervisor's office ASAP. If he's smart, he calls HR and Legal. Get a coffee and keep your mouth shut and stay out of the IT system until you're asked a question by your boss, HR, or Legal.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but they aren't guilty if they haven't done it yet. Let's not lose sight of what thought crimes are and why it is important we do not treat it as a crime.

Re:Is that how that works?

[rohan972]

I have never had a fantasy about raping a woman. Ever.

As a man, this doesn't make me feel any safer around you.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean

From 1973 through 2008, nine surveys of women's rape fantasies have been published. They show that about four in 10 women admit having them (31 to 57 percent) with a median frequency of about once a month. Actual prevalence of rape fantasies is probably higher because women may not feel comfortable admitting them.

For the latest report (Bivona, J. and J. Critelli. "The Nature of Women's Rape Fantasies: An Analysis of Prevalence, Frequency, and Contents," Journal of Sex Research (2009) 46:33), psychologists at North Texas University asked 355 college women: How often have you fantasized being overpowered/forced/raped by a man/woman to have oral/vaginal/anal sex against your will?

Sixty-two percent said they'd had at least one such fantasy. But responses varied depending on the terminology used. When asked about being "overpowered by a man," 52 percent said they'd had that fantasy, the situation most typically depicted in women's romance fiction. But when the term was "rape," only 32 percent said they'd had the fantasy. These findings are in the same ballpark as previous reports.

Frequency of rape fantasies varied substantially. Thirty-eight percent of respondents never had them. Of those who did, 25 percent reported such fantasies less than once a year. Thirteen percent had them a few times a year, 11 percent once a month, 8 percent once a week, and 5 percent several times a week. (Twenty-one percent of the respondents said they'd been sexually assaulted in real life.

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

Yeah. Uh huh.

My responsibility runs a little bit higher. Silly me, I don't have a supervisor. What I am concerned about is hundreds of jobs that depend on me doing my job.

Sorry, that law enforcement is such a cluster fuck of stupidity, corruption, and ineptitude. That's not my fault.

My fears about them coming in and taking everything down are well, well, well justified. So I will still perform my own investigation before risking having the company destroyed, because there is one thing I know for certain....... the cops don't give two shits about the hundreds of employees while I do. They won't care when they take all the equipment and put those hundreds of employees out of a job.

The greatest liability to the company is the equipment seizure. Depending on just how much they take and where, and the FBI has jurisdiction in every state to do it, I am not sure the company could recover from it.

So when I make my decision, I am forced to factor in the fate of every employee. So despite what you said, I am going to be certain before I do anything.

So keep your judgement to yourself and don't say I am not acting professionally, because I am. What I am not doing is acting selfishly.

Maybe if law enforcement was more reasonable and not associated with the two tons of horror stories and Patriot Act bullshit people like me would not have reason to fear them coming and doing what they have done many times in the past to other companies.

Think about that for a minute.

P.S - If I was certain that the police would come in and perform their forensics in the system while maintaining uptime, and even collecting more evidence over time in a cooperative fashion, I would jump at in a second. Unfortunately, we live in a world ruled by fucking morons who don't know the first thing about technology and go rampaging through infrastructure like a raging bull unless you have really really influential connections and strong legal defenses to make them think twice.

P.S - My job, as the highest IT professional in the company, is keeping the technology we have working so other employees can do theirs. That's the job. Destroying the infrastructure in a hasty irresponsible manner is not acting professionally.

Re:Is that how that works?

[jbgroup1]

t's perfectly normal to be attracted to 16-18 year old girls sexually when they are fully developed young women. That's biology. Sentencing a 21 year old man to prison time for having a 17 year girl friend and possessing naked pictures of her is just retarded.

Actually, in most states consensual sex with a 16 y/o is legal whether the other person is 16 or 96. The pictures on the other could land that person in prison for a very long time even if the person is 16 y/o himself or herself.

Re:Is that how that works?

[blackicye]

Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?

You'd have to ask the judge and jury.

Also, thank you for thinking about the law instead of jumping on the "hate hate hate + guilty until proven innocent" bandwagon. I'd mod you up if I hadn't wasted all my points for the day.

In theory this would be the case, except that they already have a problem with child abuse / molestation which is increasing appearing to be a systemic problem, they should have reported this for their own sake if not for the sake of their communities and the reputation of their religion in general.

Re:Is that how that works?

[blackicye]

Absolutely not. Limiting myself to fantasies I had today at work, I can think of three - running my boss over with a car, having sex with the married hottie, and taking an axe to a certain server - that I would never act upon. I can't bring myself to believe that people who fantasize about children are somehow the only ones who must, without fail, act on their every dark desire.

Whilst I agree that running your boss over and taking an axe to a server are fairly unlikely impulses to act upon, having sex with aforementioned married hottie is something that could very realistically happen is an appropriate situation presented itself.

Of the three it is the only activity that is not illegal, immoral maybe, but certainly not illegal.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

which by US law traditions is inextricable from child abuse, such that even cartoons or any other depiction of child porn is deemed illegal

Appeal to tradition. Fuck the police and the law. Justice is not about satiating the victim.

Re:Is that how that works?

[blackicye]

Wow, no, dude. If I found undeniable child porn (not a kid in the bath or something likely to be innocent), I'd stop what I was doing, call the cops, then call my boss. I'm not going to run the risk of having some kiddy-diddler get off (no pun intended) because he could make a case that I'd tampered with the evidence or simply that the evidence had been mishandled. Let the cops do their forensic analysis using tools and methods that are accepted in the relevant court(s).

I'd also be inclined to act in a similar manner. Less liability for all non-guilty parties involved.

Re:Is that how that works?

[geminidomino]

and taking an axe to a certain server - that I would never act upon.

Hey, you never know. It might be reprovisioned, and you could sell it as a team-building exercise. Just avoid the words "Office Space" :)

Re:Is that how that works?

[daemonenwind]

The Bible says, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:28.

I don't think it's a big leap to apply this teaching to looking at kiddie porn.
Sounds like it's time for some bishops to (re)read the guidebook.

Re:Is that how that works?

[J'raxis]

I also wonder if placing these mandatory reporting requirements on religious institutions and personnel would run afoul of the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The priest-penitent privilege -- priests being able to keep secret from the State things that individuals confess to them -- is recognized as a protected religious practice, and this situation is only one step different than that, being about the secrecy of priest-priest interactions instead of priest-penitent. In any event, the State trying to place these mandatory reporting requirements on private religious institutions should be seen as an attempt by the government to regulate religious practices and a violation of separation of church and state.

More broadly, government mandating that anyone must snitch on other people is a hallmark of tyranny, whether or not it be constitutional. Considering the moral panic surrounding pedophilia nowadays, I'm sure a court would find some reason to rule that forced snitching is perfectly legal.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Goody]

I didn't say life or business was fair, or law enforcement was competent, or that any of it was your fault. If you got a criminal working for your company, like it or not, you and your company just got sucked into a situation that blows and it's going to cost you something no matter what. It's your job to minimize the exposure and do what's ethical. If you decide to take the situation into your own hands with reckless amateur forensics and delayed law enforcement involvement and not engage your legal department or outside legal resources, you've just increased your exposure. Even the employee accused of the crime could come back and sue you. Anecdotes, your suspicions about law enforcement, and your good intentions to protect employees mean nothing in court. In what is clearly a legal situation, even as the highest IT professional in your company you're out of your area of expertise and risk doing damage.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Artifakt]

because the abusive images came from somewhere and by collecting them, you are providing the "customer demand" for more abuse of children.

More specifically than the general principle of demand, when it comes to child porn, there are boards and servers where people must provide some new content to get access to an inner core of photos or video showing the most explicitly pornographic images. To get new content to swap for access, the visitor just about has to commit the actual acts necessary to create new child porn. While I can imagine cases where somebody photographs a simulated rape to access rape porn, or photographs a person over the age of consent to gain access to images of, say, 15-16 year olds, some of these sites, when raided by the FBI, were specifically insisting on penetration images, obviously pre-pubescent children, and other such rules where there's simply no way the original act was not criminal.

Re:Is that how that works?

[sjames]

That's probably only true if they bought it. If they silently obtain it from elsewhere (the producers don't even know about it), then I don't see how that is.

According to the *IAA, the latter people are doing the "industry" irreperable harm and will eventually kill it.

Re:Is that how that works?

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

Jesus on a donkey, you're obviously not a parent, are you? If you are, and you're asking such an astounding question, well... there are no words except to question your motives for asking such a question.

You must be aware of the prevalence of child abuse, rape, murder, world-wide. You must be aware of child sexual-enslavement happening right now, worldwide. You must be aware of the catholic church's criminally poor record when it comes to helping police prosecute priests who have been guilty of abusing children, of actually HIDING evidence, of ignoring the plight of raped children.

Finally, countries around the world are getting serious about this issue and passing stiffer laws to combat this. In many countries, possession of child porn is finally an offence. In many, enlightened, countries you are *required* to report this kind of crime, just as you are *required* to report seeing someone murder another.

Then you get people like yourself who question.

For fuck sakes. It sounds like you're trying to justify yourself. Have some child-porn on your PC, hey? Feeling a twinge of guilt, my son?

Re:Is that how that works?

[khallow]

What part about the "associated with more mental problems" did you miss?

Not all fantasies are equal. The ones involving harm and abuse of children usually go hand in hand with deeper pathology.

I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with the original story. Are we trying to criminalize having a pathology?

Re:Is that how that works?

[Raved Thrad]

I can just see this bishop saying this, at the interrogation:

"Why are you all making such a big fuss about all this? It's not like there's anything wrong, really, about looking at pictures of young boys, is there? I've been known to do it from time to time, too. And he's a priest, for God's sake! Everyone knows priests are men of integrity and probity! I should know, I'm one, too! It's not like he'd ever do anything even remotely illegal or immoral with, or based on, those photos!"

I laughed so hard I nearly spewed coffee on my monitor.

Re:Is that how that works?

[GodfatherofSoul]

There's a huge problem with your analogy. What if you indulged your fantasy of murdering your boss by purchasing videos of people killing their bosses on film? What if thousands of people like you created a viable market for people to murder their bosses and post the videos on-line?

That's the problem with the possession of child porn. The demand for an illegal and harmful activity creates a market for committing a crime and committing it to film. That's not to say that every child molested is being taped, but it does contribute to the problem.

Re:Is that how that works?

[SuricouRaven]

"If am I going to be part of sentencing a man (or woman) to prison for "child" porn, it had better damn well be children and not some sexually active 16 year old girl actively seeking sexual partners. If it is a 16 year old boy, actively seeking sexual partners is a given 99.9999% of the time."

The judges are aware of this sentiment, and just remind the jury that they are there to enforce the letter of the law, not to ignore it in favor of their own princibles. They basically order the jury to find guilty.

Re:Is that how that works?

[dragonsomnolent]

Now I wish I hadn't posted in this thread, you'd soooo get mod points for that one. I like the way you used their own code against them, that was awesome (cuz Jesus hated a hypocrite worst of all)

Re:Is that how that works?

[SuricouRaven]

If it's on the workstation, maybe. If it's on the big fileserver that runs half the company? It's useless even relying on redundant components or backups, as the cops may well sieze the whole server and the backups too to get dates or look for already-deleted images.

I'd pass the decision on to someone higher, and let them take the fall if it all goes wrong.

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

That's just it. I never mentioned criminalize.

All I said was that possession of child porn usually indicates a deeper pathology. People like that need evaluation and help.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this kind of generalization that all of you eggheads put out there is the fact that people who aren't social get stigmatised by everybody else into thinking they are a pedo, when infact they just like to study a lot, or do science behind a closed door, where nobody can disturb you. and ruin an evenings worth of work with just one "ooh can I press this button? *press*", "NOOO!!!!! *FIZZLE FIZZLE BANG bANG*"

I would bet a guess that half of the population are like this, and the socialites of our society just LOVE to scream bloody murder all of the time, who is the smarter of the human population? those who point fingers without any proof? or those who show that they have no CP by proving it and have their lives ruined anyway by court by media?

Seriously you socialites need to fuck off, for good, why do you think there are so many weapons with which to kill somebody? Because a scientist invented it. Not you bunch of wankers.

Re:Is that how that works?

[SuricouRaven]

True. Though there is an interesting exception: No priest can be required or compelled to break the seal of the confessional in the US. No matter what he may hear there. Doesn't apply here though, as the discovery wasn't via confession.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Raved Thrad]

I also wonder if placing these mandatory reporting requirements on religious institutions and personnel would run afoul of the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

...the State trying to place these mandatory reporting requirements on private religious institutions should be seen as an attempt by the government to regulate religious practices and a violation of separation of church and state.

IANAA (I am not an American) but my understanding of the separation of church and state goes like this: the church is not above secular law. While people may be free to practice their religion, it is also required that the practices of their religion not violate secular law. By your argument, if your secretive Byzantine obfuscatory religion ("we're just plain folks, really! Our all-male leaders just like to wear dresses, that's all!") believes that drinking human blood and eating human flesh was the path to Enlightenment, then they should be allowed to do so, right? After all, who are they harming, really? Nothing to see here, please move on, I hear the other church down the road is having a Bingo night.

Going by that argument, the exploitation of children really isn't anything to look twice at, in the big picture, is it?

Re:Is that how that works?

[sjames]

The fact that you found the evidence at all has already raised the possibility of tampering since not less than 2 people have provably accessed the machine at that point.

You can draw your own conclusions as to who the witch hunt will turn on if the guy you report can't be convicted after they nail him to the cross.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Ihmhi]

How many employers do you know claim to hold the souls of the entire world in their hands?

How many use that power to hold something else entirely in their hands?

Exactly.

Re:Is that how that works?

[houghi]

Take it one step further. Do you like scary movies? Then you must be some lunatic mass murderer and must receive the death penalty.
I would say that everybody who ever enjoyed a horror movie should be shot as they are a danger to society.
Next will be the people who ever laughed at a racist joke.

Re:Is that how that works?

[sjames]

In our legal system, possession of child porn is considered to make the possessor culpable for the abuse of the child.

Even when the "child" is a mere drawing.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I'm into two year old pootie or anything. But how exactly is taking a picture harmful to the two year old? They don't even have significant cognitive awareness yet at that stage so any mental trauma from... I don't know the flash?... is out and I doubt those killer attack photons are going to do any lasting damage.

Re:Is that how that works?

[MaskedSlacker]

And that's why alcohol is illegal, because if they legalized it we would just see organized crime balloon!

Re:Is that how that works?

[snowgirl]

which by US law traditions is inextricable from child abuse, such that even cartoons or any other depiction of child porn is deemed illegal

Appeal to tradition. Fuck the police and the law. Justice is not about satiating the victim.

You can call it a fallacy all you want, but that is how the US legal system works, and it doesn't care if you don't agree or not... it's going to keep doing what it does, because it has a monopoly of force.

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

Two Words:

Jury Nullification

A law is not inherently just, ethical, logical, rational, etc. When a law is clearly wrong, or being applied wrongly, it is the civic duty of any citizen to not support it, and when opportunity provides for it, participate in jury nullification.

Re:Is that how that works?

[madprof]

Ignoring the specific question of whether the person in the story is guilty...

How can you morally have a problem with the law asking you to report kiddie porn on someone's computer? When you see someone committing a crime like this, what *should* you do? It's not like seeing your friend going 5mph over the speed limit.

You shouldn't say "this person I found with kiddie porn has not abused any kids that I know of so hey their kiddie porn is probably not worth the attention of authorities" because you have no idea when they might act out their fantasies for real. You have no idea if they have already done so as you're not clairvoyant.

We're not discussing whether a 15-year old videoing herself on her phone and texting her boyfriend is kiddie porn, or whether some guy cracking one off over a downloaded picture is direct abuse of that kid. Those are separate issues.

Re:Is that how that works?

[TheLink]

Naked and nonnaked nonobscene pictures of women can still turn many people on.

So my guess is normal pictures of children would be able to turn pedophiles on too.

As the not reporting thing, I wonder what would happen if the cops start arresting "their own" for committing crimes without needing external complaints/reports and also arresting cops for not reporting on cops that commit crimes. :)

Re:Is that how that works?

[julesh]

That's probably only true if they bought it. If they silently obtain it from elsewhere (the producers don't even know about it), then I don't see how that is.

According to the *IAA, the latter people are doing the "industry" irreperable harm and will eventually kill it.

Good point. We should all pirate as much kiddie porn as we can, because doing so will eventually kill the kiddie porn industry...

Re:Is that how that works?

[KDR_11k]

Slight difference between being asocial and a total recluse. Not that the mainstream media would ever admit it but they've got enough other problems that you can pretty much expect them to be harmful on about every subject.

Re:Is that how that works?

[icebraining]

(...) because it turns out, it usually does.

Where did you heard that?

According to a report I've read, at least where I live the vast majority of pedophiles never act. In fact, some said (anonymized, of course) that doing so would be something like destroying a sacred place.

Re:Is that how that works?

[toriver]

Naked and nonnaked nonobscene pictures of women can still turn many people on.

So what? A shoe store window display can turn a shoe fetishist on, should we then cover it up like the porn installation it obviously is?

Re:Is that how that works?

[toriver]

Possession of child pornography is no different than actual child abuse in my books, because the abusive images came from somewhere and by collecting them, you are providing the "customer demand" for more abuse of children.

1) So watching Americas Wildest Police Chases is equivalent to reckless driving? Observing an act is not the same as performing the act, in ANY circumstances.

2) I thought the sexual abuse followed from a sexual desire in the perpetrators, not from a photographic desire? Plenty of children are sexually abused without a single camera in the vicinity.

3) Child porn laws get extended all the time to e.g. cover drawings, text etc. - witness the American who was detained at the Canadian border for possession of a Japanese manga (comic book) depicting under-age girls.

Re:Is that how that works?

[jimicus]

Whoa, Nellie. Small difference between looking and fantasizing, huge difference between fantasizing and doing.

Not important. By watching CP - and either creating it or asking someone else to supply it, the person is creating a demand for it.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of interest, why is it worse to abuse a boy than a girl?

The girl was asking for it. /rimshot.

Re:Is that how that works?

[TheRaven64]

Imaginary people have rights too. Just ask the corporations...

Re:Is that how that works?

[Hentes]

The problem is that these people create demand for child porn wich in turn causes more harm.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Aighearach]

Possessing is not a synonym for thinking.

Re:Is that how that works?

[TheRaven64]

This isn't limited to child pornography. If you become aware of a crime and don't report it, then you can often be charged as an accessory after the fact.

Re:Is that how that works?

[foobsr]

It's hardly "news for nerds".

This is patent though: 'on a computer' is where the magic is.

CC.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Vegemeister]

I am wholeheartedly behind punitive incarceration and the removal of said "person" from society for the remainder of their sad, little life.

All because that ""person"" looked at a picture. You, sir, are seriously fucked up.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not enough though, to just say these people are harmless and a waste of police time and send them back to their basements to play with their porn collections. Whatever the effect on society, it's not good for them to get caught up in the more miserable end of society's output without any of the benefits and safeguards that full social integration provides.

In short, these retards should be in care.

It's also a timely reminder that the porn industry is built on exploitation, not just of it's workforce but also of it's consumers.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how would your daughter have been harmed, exactly? How would that differ from a relative doing a home video and accidentally getting a crotch shot, when your 2yr old was running around naked (as it happens in some parts of the world)?

I don't understand, how fantasizing about kids is any different than some horny guy staring at a girl's breasts. Other than poor manners, what exactly is he doing differently? Is the girl that is being stared at violated? Having thoughts and even fantasizing about illegal activity is not a crime these days, nor should it be. I'm sure most of us would go sit in jail if that were true (yes, I'm talking about all you gamers, who've relished an FPS).

Pedophilia is the modern witch hunt. Yes, there are folks who do bad things, but in this area modern practice is going into thought policing. I feel sorry for the pedophiles. They're an unlucky bunch. Imagine it being a crime to look at tits... geez.

(posting anonymously for asking uncomfortable questions)

Re:Is that how that works?

[janimal]

Nerds don't engage in society. You're correct. This is no news for nerds.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first and foremost flaw is that most people think cash drives the kiddie porn industry, it doesn't. I've never met one producer that started out having sex for money, the money comes as an opportunity from doing what they already do. If I were to list the top three reasons they produce I would say:

1. Equal for equal. They are looking to exchange material and experiences with other people that do the same, or that have exclusive material for trade. This is what leads to "rings" of producers that the police like to bust. Many producers began as traders but moved to being producers to get unique things to trade.

2. Exhibitionism. Some just want to show their friends, some want to gloat and some want to share it with all pedos everywhere. Basically they're the "YouPorn" kind of people, willing and wanting to share. Some are just taunting in order to find trades though, but free samples are still free.

3. Money. Most people are not producers, most people have nothing exclusive to share. But they want it, so the potential to sell private or custom material is great. But they're very good at tracking money, it's a huge risk for both the buyer and the seller. And there's a gray market trading in secret behind the seller's back, so most sell only a few or one copy at extreme prices.

A long rant but where was I getting? Well, fueling with or without money. Those under 1) are utterly indifferent to you, in fact they hate when it "leaks" to the commoners. But you're being tempted to join in, and some will. Those under 2) will respond to any kind of attention they get, even if it's just comments or download hits. If you're part of the buzz you're part of the fuel, if you take in complete secrecy and silence then I guess not. Those under 3) want sales, but they're happy to give you free advertisements as again, some will get tempted.

Of course, this is talking about the market as it is now. Ten years ago there were Russian sites openly selling you stylish nudes for $30 with 50000 users. They shut down all the sites and payment processors so now they're selling hardcore for $5000 to 300 users in secret instead. But out of sight, out of mind. And yes, I do know what I'm talking about and no, you can't trace this post.

Re:Is that how that works?

[zyzko]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085605

"This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is somewhat higher than previous estimates."

It is extremely common particularly within women. But it does not mean they actually want to experience rape.

I'm against child porn and producing it very often actually harms the children - they can't defend themselves and it is shamefull and selfish act on part of the producer. On the same take fantasy should not go be punishable, and I have trouble of seeing that if pictures of clothed children used in fantasy actually harm anyone.

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

But you're being tempted to join in, and some will.

Like how some people might commit crimes with a car.

will respond to any kind of attention they get, even if it's just comments or download hits.

This seems to be an assumption about what some of them might do.

In any case, I still think they should just go after the producers.

Re:Is that how that works?

[bjourne]

I would think that somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that they are sexually aroused by such images and situations, and at some point, will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life.

There is no data supporting that theory at all. When it comes to other genres of porn, there are millions of viewers getting turned on by something they never would nor will act out in real life.

Re:Is that how that works?

[swillden]

Larry Clark's images are often of underage people, but I haven't seen any I would call children.

Re:Is that how that works?

[rtfa-troll]

I am not even sure why this is on slashdot. Except to fuel the Hate towards Catholics.

There is a quite specific problem here. The Bishop involved was actually attempting to destroy evidence by giving a laptop containing the photos back to the family of the priest. Destruction of this kind of evidence is is an interesting and important IT story whatever the organisation.

It is deeply, very disturbing that people like you are coming here and, instead of saying "something is wrong in the Catholic church, this stuff happens too often" you are picking on random uninvolved groups such as atheists and protestants (I guess muslims were too obvious??) as a way of deflecting this responsibility.

Far more disturbing is the idea that you think that having confessed is sufficient and they should then just be allowed to "go on" with child abuse. If there was a requirement to make restitution and to report for psychological testing and treatment then this might be merely acceptable insanity. However, it's clear from the article that the priest did not just store photos, but also acted in an inappropriate way. This means that there needs to be investigation and failure to do so shows a complete disregard for the safety of the local children.

If you want to look at who's causing problems for the Catholic church; go find a mirror. There are plenty of other people in the church who would be very happy if people like you could just recognise your failure and help them to clean up the situation a bit.

Re:Is that how that works?

[rtfa-troll]

Whoa, Nellie. Small difference between looking and fantasizing, huge difference between fantasizing and doing.

Er yes; Except that if you read the article you would find that the entire incident started with complaints about actual actions with actual children the priest was involved with. Finding child pornography on the laptop of a man accused of doing things to children is the "oh shit there's no chance this has been a misunderstanding by some parents" moment at which you call in the police and suspend the priest immediately.

But don't let me put inconvenient "facts" in the way of some irrelevant rant.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Corbets]

Anyone who has it is fueling that abuse.

That's probably only true if they bought it. If they silently obtain it from elsewhere (the producers don't even know about it), then I don't see how that is.

If, for example, they download it for free from a site that makes money through advertising other porn sites, then they have provided a financial incentive to that website to obtain more of the child porn, and thus more will be produced. So on and so forth.

Re:Is that how that works?

[vadim_t]

Catholics seem to be convinced that religion makes them better people, and that without religion there is no morality.

I in turn, take delight in pointing out how the Church, which by that logic should be a paragon of virtue when compared to the rest of the society, is actually behaving as a force of evil. Not just by accident, but entirely intentionally, with policies that protect criminals, and obstruct investigations, handed down from the highest positions in the organization.

You don't get to have it both ways. If you're going to claim that religion is a way to morality, it better be. Otherwise be ready to be mercilessly criticised when that fails to hold up.

Sex abuse doesn't know any boundaries and exist everywhere.

True. But the church is special in being aware of it and trying to hide it and obstruct investigations. That is rightfully denounced.

The reason the church kept it a secret was because of their doctrine of forgiveness and a verry recent conclusion that these people who do sex crimes is actually an illness. So if the priest confessed of his sin the church gives him a clean bill of health and let's them go on. Not because of a plot but because they believe if you confess your sins god will forgive you of those sins, and the policy that the priest who does the confession will not tell anyone else, no matter what. Now you can argue this doctrine, however it isn't part of a coverup it is just following their beliefs.

That's a load of bullshit. In neither the US, UK, nor Ireland does the church make the law. If the law says you have to report it, you have to report it regardless of what your religion says.

Additionally, regardless of any law, this is plain immoral, as it causes great harm to the victims in exchange to protecting a few people that don't deserve it.

Re:Is that how that works?

[sonamchauhan]

This is the RCC we're talking about. They ignore parts of the guidebook and write new rules

"Say 10 hail marys and you're forgiven". How dare the police interfere!

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

You might be "supporting" any number of things just by visiting a website, but I don't think that means that they should blame you for it. I believe the actual harm is caused by the people actually doing it in the first place.

Re:Is that how that works?

[TapeCutter]

I'm a 52yo atheist, I have been an atheist all my life, my parents are atheists. My Catholic friends are just as disgusted by the Church's behaviour as I am and want these predators locked up. Frankly apologists like you and the pope who put doctrine above basic morality make me and all decent Catholics want to vomit.

Re:Is that how that works?

[fast turtle]

The law is pretty much the same in every state in regards to Child Abuse. Teacher, Doctor, Nurses and anyone else who's in a position of authority with kids is required to report any instances of supsected child abuse. This usually includes members of the clergy though they usually retain that the confesional still remains private/confidential (more so then attorney/doctor privelage).

In this case, I agree with the system that the individual should have been reported, especially if it was a Church owned computer. If it was owned by the individual, then there's a difference of opinion unless the individual was using the church network connection.

Re:Is that how that works?

[budgenator]

Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?

yes

Re:Is that how that works?

[GameboyRMH]

Sex abuse doesn't know any boundaries and exist everywhere. The reason the church kept it a secret was because of their doctrine of forgiveness and a verry recent conclusion that these people who do sex crimes is actually an illness. So if the priest confessed of his sin the church gives him a clean bill of health and let's them go on. Not because of a plot but because they believe if you confess your sins god will forgive you of those sins, and the policy that the priest who does the confession will not tell anyone else, no matter what. Now you can argue this doctrine, however it isn't part of a coverup it is just following their beliefs.

Following those beliefs is called a coverup.

Re:Is that how that works?

[hairyfeet]

Oh bullshit. You think a guy that fucks 8 year olds is gonna go "Oh well, nobody will pay me so I'll let little Suzy go" horseshit. I asked my friend from his experience busting these scum how it works and he broke it down for me and in ALL of it? Money didn't mean shit except long AFTER the fact.

1.-Child rapist meets other child rapists in backroom bulletin board. The way they have this thing set up it is damned near impossible for cops to get in BTW, as the entrance fee is video of you raping a kid with an object THEY tell you to insert in the video and you have X amount of time, not enough to Hollywood it and these freaks have all the stuff floating around the net. 2.-Rapists begin exchanging encrypted DVDs through mail. One of them digitizes the faces out if they haven't already been done. Here is where they fuck up as seeing the kid's face gets them off so they NEVER digitize over the kid's face, the most they do is have her/him wear a mask. 3.-Someone in the group uploads it to one of the backroom sites and HERE is where those that sell CP get it. There are a few that "rent" kids in third world countries for filming, but that is rare, mostly it is gotten from these backroom sites. 4.-Video then hits P2P and HERE is where the retards get it.

Notice how money didn't play shit in this exchange? According to my friend while there are sites in third world countries making money off this shit they are exploiting what is already out there and the retards almost never spend a dime, its all P2P and crap they get off back alley sites. He says he sees the same CP stuff day after day after day and some of it is as old as the 1960s, it has just been passed around and around. The few new ones they find on social retards are from the sites I mentioned above where a REAL rapist has loaded up his video for BRAGGING rights NOT for pay. For these guys its "look what I've got!" not "how much will you pay me?" which is why he said tracking these guys down is a bitch. Money leaves a pretty big trail to follow, anon uploads? Not so much.

So please spare us the same tired old meme they used for alcohol and drugs before it, as like in those cases its bullshit.

Re:Is that how that works?

[AaxelB]

This doesn't exactly address prevalence of rape fantasies, but rather willingness to play out a rape fantasy if your partner asks, which is probably correlated. It's an interesting read (as is every post on that blog).

Re:Is that how that works?

[westlake]

That's probably only true if they bought it. If they silently obtain it from elsewhere (the producers don't even know about it), then I don't see how that is.

When the police search you car they find $10K in marked bills still in the wrappers you claim "fell off the back of a truck." But nothing you can say will ever convince a jury that you didn't know what you had in your possession.

That it wasn't yours to hide and that it wasn't yours to keep.

Re:Is that how that works?

[rgbatduke]

You can take my word for it, from direct conversations with FBI agents tasked with pursuing kiddy porn. Kiddy porn is like heroin or cocaine -- if you see a bag of white powder and pick it up, you are instantly a felon even if you thought that it might be powdered sugar. If you actually see kiddy porn on a computer screen, you are an instant felon. All that ultimately protects you from prosecution and de facto being required to prove your innocence is the good judgement of an arresting officer and/or the DA, and what they do is largely determined by what you do next. What you are required to do next is call the police and hand over the bag of white powder that turned out not to be powdered sugar when you snor-- er -- "tasted" it, or instantly and without passing go call the police or the feds or both and turn over the kiddy porn and the system the kiddy porn was on and everything you know about the owners/users of that system and get out of the way!

This is all federal, note -- it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what Missouri's statutes are. This is all good stuff for sysadmins to know, BTW. They can (and should!) legally ignore all kinds of things they see in e.g. user directories during the course of doing their jobs, but kiddy porn is one of the things they cannot legally ignore without becoming felons themselves.

The same is true for the Bishop. I personally have kids, and hope he (if guilty) rots in jail.

rgb

Re:Is that how that works?

[TheLink]

Just wondering what people want to consider "thoughtcrime".

Is it legal in your country to have pics of naked/scantily clad women and "get off" on them if they happened to have been exploited (but not by you)? What if they weren't exploited - e.g. the photographer was taking artistic shots of them, paid them properly, treated them well etc.

What if they're young teenagers? What if they were children?

Re:Is that how that works?

[khallow]

That's just it. I never mentioned criminalize.

No prob. The story was about people arrested for not reporting child pornography on a computer so I was a bit confused.

All I said was that possession of child porn usually indicates a deeper pathology. People like that need evaluation and help.

Even if child porn does indicate deeper pathology, what makes you think evaluation and help is required?

Re:Is that how that works?

[Type44Q]

But I guess the families have a right to know why the teacher is leaving/quote> If there's no reason to suspect that any children were harmed, then no; I'd say it's none of their business (OMG, I can't believe I just defended the Catholic Church - the Black Pope would no doubt be amused...).

:p

Re:Is that how that works?

[Epeeist]

1. Slashdot has a vocal and near radical atheist group. It isn't enough to say I don't beleave here is why, but you need to go the extra step and go to people who do beleave in a god and call them mindless idiots because they didn't come up with the same conclusion. News like this actually makes you feel good that these religious people are just as flawed and twisted as the rest of us.

Ah, a report of a possible sexual abuse or at least a child pornography case with an associated cover up. So don't accept that people, especially those of us with children, might be concerned. Instead make an ad hominem attack on those who are concerned. Not only that, make sure it is a good straw man as well. Care to name this "near radical atheist group" or any of its members and to say how they have been radicalised and what acts they will commit as a result of this purported radicalisation?

2. Educated group of people. Being an educated group of people many of you went to catholic private schools.

Something called "evidence" or "justification" might be useful here, otherwise it sounds as though you are just making it up

Sex abuse doesn't know any boundaries and exist everywhere.

Ah, the "cosi fan tutte" defence. Yes, other people besides Catholics abuse children, people who are members of other organisations abuse children. But do these other organisations cover up the abuse? Or do they report it to the civil authorities?

The reason the church kept it a secret was because of their doctrine of forgiveness and a verry recent conclusion that these people who do sex crimes is actually an illness. So if the priest confessed of his sin the church gives him a clean bill of health and let's them go on. Not because of a plot but because they believe if you confess your sins god will forgive you of those sins, and the policy that the priest who does the confession will not tell anyone else, no matter what. Now you can argue this doctrine, however it isn't part of a coverup it is just following their beliefs.

Essentially what you are saying is that canon law has precedence over civil law.

As ever given the choice between reporting possible sexual abuse or attempting to safeguard the name of the church the bishop has gone for the latter. Fortunately after all the reports and convictions in the USA, Ireland, Germany and Belgium and the courage of the abused, people are no longer afraid of bringing cases forward.

Re:Is that how that works?

[AmiMoJo]

Morality doesn't even enter in to it. If you know someone is committing that kind of abuse and facilitate them but not acting you are an accessory.

Re:Is that how that works?

[canadian_right]

Yes, but this is the Catholic church that has a LONG record, all over the world, of knowing about the most horrible child abuse and covering it up. This is reason enough to follow up all by itself. Given that child porn was found, and the Bishop in question knew about the law, I think he had a duty to report it to the police. Ideally the police follow up privately and only lay the appropriate charges after a proper investigation.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Runaway1956]

Actually - the perp who possessed the CP was a convict, whose release involved supervision, and certain terms. And, the diocese knew this. So - possession of CP was automagically a violation of those terms.

Re:Is that how that works?

[berzerke]

...because you have no idea when they might act out their fantasies for real...

I remember watching a show, Penn and Teller IIRC, where they stated the states with the highest porn consumption had the lowest rates of sexual assault, and the states with the lowest porn consumption had highest rates of sexual assault. They did admit that this isn't proof the two are related, but you have to wonder.

If looking at child porn prevents someone from actually hurting a child, then while the production of the porn was a bad thing, some good can come out of that act. And if some good can come out of it, should we stop the distribution? Punish the producers yes, the ones doing real, physical harm. But is it right to needlessly endanger another child?

I'm beginning to think it is something like organ donation. The best organ donors are young, healthy people who should, by all rights, still be alive. They are the ones killed by accident or crime. If it's a crime, the criminal is (or should be) punished, but the fruits of that crime, usable organs, are not illegal to donate to help save the lives of others.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Bengie]

or even their own bodies.

New law, it's illegal to be under 18.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sometimes think that the purpose of fantasy is to explore an idea that you couldn't safely experiment with--that fantasizing about, for instance, rape is a way to explore questions about why rape is bad, and whether it's worth it to try. In that light, porn that makes light of rape (never actually explores the consequences on the victim's psyche or their future) seems like it could be a horrible thing; however, at the same time, those sort of videos don't tend to show the rapist getting anything out of it that they wouldn't get out of vanilla sex--except when it includes bondage/submission or other kinds of power play, venting of hatred, etc. So a person who watched those sort of videos might think that rape was borderline harmless, but not terribly interesting, and probably not worth the jailtime. That might make them susceptible to causing date rape, but less likely to become a serial rapist.

Compare to child porn. There is an innocence to children that is rare in adults (especially in certain circles), and it seems likely that fantasizing about that leads you to believe that "loving" an innocent is better than giving in to a cruel, nasty, or brutish adult. Especially consider who clergy are likely to see; lots of adults who are, if they are highly active in the church, using religion to replace their own morality, or worse their own thinking processes (note: not saying all, only saying that it happens, and in some places happens often); people who see religious purity as replacing true emotional purity (love, gentleness, Christian values), since they've "grown up" and now see that they don't exist in the "adult world". These people, full of darkness, drag their children to church functions to try to keep them religiously pure, rather than actually helping their children grow strong and self-reliant. The clergy, seeing children full of innocence and pain, the adults full darkness and selfishness, and themselves only being human, may overcompensate by getting too close to the children to fulfill their emotional (or, heaven forbid, physical) needs.

Disclaimer: Although posting anon, I would like to point out I have no interest in the subject matter, and frankly, if both kinds of deviance disappeared, I'd be the happier for it.

Re:Is that how that works?

[yoshi_mon]

Slashdot has a vocal and near radical atheist group.

I could quote more of how you are in your own way hating on atheism but let me rather just make this argument:

Religion, in its many forms has done good things but along with that it HAS done many many many awful things and continues to do so. There are those that thing the evil that religion does is outweighed by the good it does. Many of us who are atheists do not. Thus when we are pressed on religion we view it as a net evil and not dance around that fact.

Further those who believe in some form of mythology, can and do demonize those who are atheists. In the US right now there are many studies that show it is much easier to be freaking gay than an atheist. Thus when we are confronted with 'believers' we are naturally on guard because of the fact that we are very likely to be attacked.

Re:Is that how that works?

[HiThere]

Could I just point out that this is a relatively modern hysteria?

Up through the late 1950's parents routinely took nude pictures of their kids. Very few saw anything wrong with this. Now it's considered a "heinous crime" to do exactly the same thing.

So. I'm much more troubled by the priests reported actions (and in this I would include the taking of pictures of children without their parents consent) AND by the history of the Catholic Church in covering up sexual abuses by the priests than I am by the pictures themselves.

OTOH, I don't know the facts of the case. I have a prejudice to believe them guilty based purely on the historic association between the Catholic Church and coverups in pederasty. That doesn't reasonably prove that they are guilty THIS time.

Re:Is that how that works?

[tragedy]

A quote from _Minority Report_ is practically obligatory here:

Cyber Parlor Customer: I wanna kill my boss.
Rufus Riley: Uh-huh, okay. You got some images I can work with?
[spots John approaching with Agatha and hastily tries to cover up his unethical transaction]
Rufus Riley: ... Uh, yeah, being concertmaster for the Philadelphia Symphony is one of our most popular choices...
Cyber Parlor Customer: No, I wanna kill my boss.
Rufus Riley: You sick bastard! You're what makes this a terrible world to live in!

Of course, the world in _Minority Report_ was an intrusive, authoritarian nightmare police state.

Anyway, your idea for an online market of people killing their bosses and said market driving people to kill their bosses is intriguing, but not very likely. People who kill their bosses generally do it for deeply personal reasons, or maybe personal financial motivations, not because there is some sort of market for it, and that's unlikely to change. In a similar vein, it's pretty likely then, that the actual "market" for child porn isn't actually the driving force behind its creation. Anyone creating child porn is almost certainly doing it on the side and has a primary interest in molesting children. Anyone creating child porn _without_ a personal interest in molesting children, such as an organised crime group, is still probably only doing it on the side as part of their child prostitution ring.

Re:Is that how that works?

[WNight]

You certainly shouldn't feel they've been hurt or harmed in any way. That's sort of how rape is treated in religious communities - like the victim is now forever damaged, and that's the most harmful thing you could do to them - "you're irrevocably broken, but not in a way *you* can see".

Let's say someone laid their video camera on the ground while at the beach, playing a game, and your daughter wandered by and sat, pantless, in front of their video camera for a while. What part of her has been hurt? Where is the injury?

So then they take it home and discover the video - and one of them likes it and masturbates to it furiously. Still, where is the injury? What possible mechanism is there by which this could harm your daughter?

And, if you're going to talk about someone posting the photos, that's only damaging because family and friends would feel shamed by it and inflict that on the child.

So no, no damage is done if someone takes pictures of your kids naked (excepting any force or coercion used to take the photo, etc). That's just ridiculous.

Your child is just as good today as yesterday, regardless of the pervert. When we all act like this not only will we have a more open society where less abuse will happen, but we won't shame the victims into suffering in silence.

Re:Is that how that works?

[flaming error]

I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others. Specifically, the darker ones associated with more mental problems.

Well, you do need to support your claims somehow.

Re:Is that how that works?

[WNight]

Thing is, allowing paedos to watch their sicko porn only makes their "condition" worse.

Oh, and how do you know this? Hung out with enough pedos? You know, it's incredibly rare - if you meet any/many you may be attracting them by your behavior.

It's a known vicious circle as their low self-esteem only makes them watch more of it.

No, that's the standard rant about porn in general. It'll drive men to not want real women, etc. Never with any evidence.

Also, Penn and Teller were not talking about child porn consumption so it is a slightly different thing!

Of course not, child porn is illegal so there are no numbers. But it's no more likely to be different than the same.

The point is to sort the paedos out so they aren't fantasising about kids. Breaking the cycle involves removing the porn.

Idiot. Kids were being abused a long time before there were suggestive photos of them. Breaking the cycle doesn't involve cameras, it's far deeper with basic attitudes toward children as property.

Re:Is that how that works?

[flaming error]

> Humans are not animals (for the most part)
Perhaps you subscribe to The Matrix Agent's school of taxonomy.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Half-pint HAL]

That's a load of bullshit. In neither the US, UK, nor Ireland does the church make the law. If the law says you have to report it, you have to report it regardless of what your religion says.

In fact, while Jesus laid out very few hard-and-fast rules (hence the schisms in the church), on one point he was very clear: honour the laws of God and of man . According to the Bible, it's a rule he followed right to the very end, when he refused to resist arrest, even knowing that it meant death. The cover-ups were entirely un-Christian and are the shame of the church.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Half-pint HAL]

I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others. Specifically, the darker ones associated with more mental problems.

You don't need a psych major to tell you that "certain fantasies" are acted upon more than others. But you do need some kind of evidence, generally collected by psych professor, to tell you which fantasies those "certain" fantasies are.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Doc Ruby]

This bishop settled a lawsuit just a few years ago that was brought by 47 people who were raped by his church, paying them $11 million. And agreeing that he would report to the police any more child rapist priests he found out about.

Then he found out about the pictures a priest took of a child naked from the waist down. For the next 6 months this bishop allowed that priest to sleep over in homes of church members with children, who trusted the church. Allowed him to run various church services with children where he was alone with them and in charge. Eventually, after violating his settlement agreement for a long time, the priest sexually exploited at least one other child the church let him have control over.

Yes, that's the way it works. The Roman Catholic church harbors child rapists which it has protected for years, decades - generations, centuries. Even during the current wave of exposures the church continues to protect them, even as the rapists cost the church $millions. And as they continue to harm children.

This isn't just some daycare or country club. This is the Catholic Church, here operated by a Midwest bishop already bound to report because of the harm it already caused to dozens of children.

Why are you more upset about the church officials having to abide by the consequences of their previous bad acts than you are about their bad acts?

Re:Is that how that works?

[Doc Ruby]

Please post in reply the naked pictures of you your parents took when you were an infant. Why not? No harm, right?

Re:Is that how that works?

[Doc Ruby]

You "remember from somewhere"? Post a link to back it up.

Or admit that you're just making up excuses to be turned on by naked children.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Doc Ruby]

It's a church computer. The technician has the employer's permission to look at it.

The employer is bound under a settlement from three years ago to report evidence of child sexual abuse. Because 47 people sued this church for it, and the church agreed to those terms (+ $11M in payouts, about $20K per abused child).

The technician probably knows about the settlement agreement, because it's probably the kind of news a church contractor notices in a Missouri newspaper about the church. Or perhaps was even trained to look, in the proper response by the church to its obligations under the settlement (not to mention moral obligations).

The bishop of the church broke their agreement for 6 months, running a church where this priest continued to have access to children who trusted him. During which time the priest took more sexually exploitave pictures of at least one other child.

The actual acts, obligations and wrongdoing here are very clear. The ability of people to find the sex abusers and their protectors in the church to be the victims is the most bizarre aspect of the entire story.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Half-pint HAL]

It's your job to minimize the exposure and do what's ethical.

...and "what's ethical" is exactly what he is trying to do -- he puts personal ethics above law, which is something we all do from time to time. Seizures of computer equipment harm the innocent as well as the guilty.

Some clever entrepreneur is going to create a network forensics tool that lets you mirror an entire corporate network in a day or two onto virtual machines. As it will cost multiple millions, no-one will buy it. That entrepreneur will then bankroll a lawsuit from a company ruined by hardware seizure.

4. Profit

Re:Is that how that works?

[Half-pint HAL]

The priest-penitent privilege only applies inside the confessional, or similar situations. This was an administrative matter, not a request for spiritual guidance.

Re:Is that how that works?

[KahabutDieDrake]

Less liability? If you worked for me, and you acted as you describe, I'd fire you. It would be a very short conversation, and it would go like this. BOSS: You called the FBI? Before you called me or HR or legal? /hands you a pad of paper Write down everything you've done today. Include all your usernames and passwords. Don't bother cleaning out your desk, someone will do that for you.

If you'd really like less liability, you involve your superiors. THEY decide what is the correct path. If you happen to be at the top, and don't have anyone with authority above you, then you are probably wise enough to know that LEGAL is your first phone call. HR next, after you've identified who owns the files. (you can track ownership on your network, right?)

Re:Is that how that works?

[Reservoir Penguin]

This logic is not as basic and self-evident as you think. For instance in many countries, mine included, possession of drugs for personal use is not a crime even through production, processing and distribution is.

Re:Is that how that works?

[WNight]

It was covered as part of a sports coaching course.The course was mainly health and safety. Part of health and safety obviously covered coaching children, and it was part of the taught material we were given. Not pornography, obviously, but general paeodphilic behaviour.

The paragon of higher education - a government info session about something the media is in a tither about. That's as likely to be useful as Reefer Madness is to depict reality.

You're arguing from a less-informed position than someone starting fresh.

I claimed that removing child porn from the hands of paedos was important to breaking the cycle of low self-esteem. You claim it isn't important(?) - or..well I'm not sure. You don't seem to be claiming much by way of counterpoint.

You parroted, you mean.

What I claim is that arresting people who molest children will change the molestation statistics. Assholes like you making up and spreading legends about pedos and kiddy porn, etc, is just confusing the issue and drowning out useful discussion. Most molestation of children isn't done by people with a specific kid-fixation, they're opportunistic rapists.

And porn isn't the problem, people who rape are the problem.

Perhaps you just wanted to argue a bit more? In which case, that's fine by me, argue away, but please don't expect a response. :)

Since you're taking requests, how about you stuff a sock in it until you realize how little you know. Your 'break the cycle' nonsense is harmful. Yes, it's sick but it's also almost totally uncorrelated to actual abuses.

It must be tough being quite as rude and dismissive as you are, because you'll never learn anything by yourself, and no one will want to teach you anything.

There's another reason you don't have much to offer. But it's not my rudeness. And thanks, but I can read the source material myself without your teaching.

Re:Is that how that works?

[AmiMoJo]

The difference is not the state of undress of the child, it is the context the photo was taken in.

If someone abusing children photographs it and that image goes on to be distributed it continues to harm the child mentally if they know about it. When the guy is arrested and it comes out that the images were on his computer it follows that they could have been distributed online, and the knowledge that those pictures are probably now providing gratification to others is very hurtful. At least if possession alone is a criminal act there is both an acknowledgement by society of the hurt and wrong-doing, as well as the possibility of those using them to be punished.

The law is rather imperfect in this area. The current test is if the imagine is "likely to be sexually provocative", where as really it should be "was created by child abuse".

Re:Is that how that works?

[Bob9113]

they don't get big busts when it comes to actual child rapists as it can takes sometimes years to track them down.

That, and there just aren't enough to go around. Child rapists -- especially if you don't include statutory, which doesn't make as good a headline -- are exceedingly rare. They are far less common than murderers, for example, and there are hardly enough of those to ensure that enough prosecutors get to nail one. If you are a D.A. who wants to show that he is making cases against child predators, you simply can't wait around for someone to rape a child. You have to have laws that make more common behaviors illegal to enable those involved in the prosecution of the law to demonstrate their metal.

</jonathanSwift>

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes. Because saying that no harm will result from it implies that he wants to take naked pictures of people and post them...

And whether or not it does any harm is up to the "victim" to decide. If someone somehow gets a hold of a naked picture of someone and looks at it, I doubt the person in the photo would even know in the first place (it's not as if additional "harm" is added with each view).

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

And? I think automatically assuming that you stole them without any evidence (at least not that I can see in your scenario) is idiotic.

Re:Is that how that works?

[shutdown -p now]

Consider this: It is not the consumption of illicit drugs that is illegal, but the mere possession of them.

You should consider your audience when saying things like that. I would imagine that 9 out of 10 here (and not just libertarians) believe that punishing people for possession (or, for that matter, consumption) of drugs is quite insane as well.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, because if it does them no harm, they have no reason (except inconvenience) to decline to post them. Let's see if they say it's just inconvenient.

Everyone knows that posting naked pictures of people do them harm. Adults have the choice of whether to do themselves that harm, perhaps in exchange for something like money, fame, or satisfying some masochism. Children are harmed more, because it defines them more than it defines more fully formed adults. And children cannot consent, so the harm is worse.

Every further viewer of the picture does the person some harm, even if they can't tell directly, especially after some scale of harm.

The degree to which Slashdotters live in purely theoretical social worlds is shocking. Even actual child porn doesn't connect to some basic instinct. Maybe these nerds are nerds because of some early childhood sexual trauma that leaves them unable to relate to typical human integrity.

Re:Is that how that works?

[J'raxis]

No, the separation of church and state is more than that, for example, the recognized priest-penitent privilege, where a person can confess a crime to a priest, and the priest cannot be used as a witness against the person.

In the United States, we're also (slowly) moving toward allowing churches to use certain substances in their rituals that would, in a non-religious setting, be considered "controlled substances." The most well-known example is peyote.

Many states now have a "religious freedom restoration act" on the books, which requires that all government regulations that would impinge upon religious freedom be tested against the "compelling state interest" standard. This would be pertinent to your example: A law preventing someone from outright harming children would apply to churches as much as to anyone else, but something such as controlled substances regulation or planning and zoning restrictions, probably wouldn't meet the "compelling state interest" standard.

Churches are also tax exempt. The practice of "sanctuary" (churches shielding people from apprehension by state authorities for civil crimes) is still recognized to some extent in some places. In many jurisdictions, church lands cannot be subject to adverse possession ("squatter's rights"). These are probably the strongest examples of a sort of partial sovereignty that religious organizations have from the state.

Separation of church and state means what it says for the most part, and works in both directions: Keep the church out of the government and keep the government out of the church.

Re:Is that how that works?

[tompaulco]

I would think that somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that they are sexually aroused by such images and situations, and at some point, will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life.
That's a good argument. I suppose the same argument goes for violent video games as well? I guess we should arrest anyone who plays violent video games before they commit some heinous crime.

Re:Is that how that works?

[tompaulco]

One could say that a person found with a child porn collection is one that is NOT insisting on new material to be made, since they have it stored up on their hard drives. The problem is people who just want to view it once and then move on to the next image or video. We should arrest everybody who DOESN'T have child porn on their computer, because they might be a pedophile that is trying to get the industry to provide new content.

Re:Is that how that works?

[tompaulco]

And did you know that in Muslim countries where they cover up head to toe the incidence of rape is higher than in western countries where they go around in provocative clothing?

Re:Is that how that works?

[quenda]

, while Jesus laid out very few hard-and-fast rules (hence the schisms in the church), on one point he was very clear: honour the laws of God and of man .

He was also very clear that the old testament laws should be followed, and criticised the Pharisees for being too soft, e.g. not stoning rebellious children to death.
Be careful about advocating laws supported by Jesus.

Re:Is that how that works?

[tompaulco]

In some states, such as the one I live in, the law is two faced. If a girl is 16 and looks older than 18 and represents herself as older than 18, you go to jail; If the girl really is in fact older than 18, but looks like she is younger than 18 or represents that she is under 18, you go to jail. If the girl is an "Internet Porn Teen" (ie, real age somewhere between 35 and 45 years old), but is wearing pigtails or a schoolgirl outfit, you go to jail. If the girl is nothing but a cartoon of an age that at least one person can be found to think is under 18, you go to jail.
Frankly, its probably safer to just sexually abuse some kid.

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, because if it does them no harm, they have no reason (except inconvenience) to decline to post them.

The "harm" isn't done from posting the image itself. The "harm" comes from peoples' reactions to the image (the people that are around you, not the ones that just view it). The only "harm" that could be inflicted upon you is emotional harm, but if you're desensitized/don't care, that would not happen. Whatever emotional harm is inflicted upon them is done by themselves.

There is no real harm being inflicted upon you that can't be avoided (except if someone forced you to pose for the picture). The problem, I think, is that humans are too emotional.

except inconvenience

And preference. For instance, someone could think, "I would prefer that a naked picture of myself not be posted on the internet. If it happened, however, I wouldn't care." In other words, they would derive more enjoyment out of it not being posted. That doesn't mean they have to feel angry or sad about it being posted.

Everyone knows that posting naked pictures of people do them harm.

You state that in a way that allows for no disagreement. "In your heart, you know that God exists."

Every further viewer of the picture does the person some harm, even if they can't tell directly, especially after some scale of harm.

How? What harm is done if someone that you don't even know views a naked picture of yourself and then does nothing with it?

Re:Is that how that works?

[couchslug]

"As a matter of interest, why is it worse to abuse a boy than a girl?"

Talk to women who have PTS from being fucked by molesters in their childhood. The damage is permanent.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Doc Ruby]

Your argument is like saying the harm from punching someone in the face comes from the face being in the way of the fist, not from the fist hitting the face.

In actual reality, the harm does come from people's reactions to the image, which will be to devalue the person pictured. Whether humans are "too" emotional, or whether it's emotions at work, is immaterial. Whatever is at work, the actual effect in the real world from naked pictures of a person being published, however old that person in the picture, is to devalue them. Typically by defining them as a sexual object, to the exclusion of other value or just as a person rather than an object. People will treat you differently - to your face, and in where you can't tell but it still has an effect. Like when people talk badly about you when you're not there.

The only way to be so desensitized that you don't care is to 1: have your range of human emotions severely truncated; and/or 2: accept the damage without expecting better for yourself. In the real world, actual humans in this situation usually have both, and each of the two contributes to the other.

People with a real life already know this. We don't have to have it explained to us in detail to recognize that there's harm, even if we haven't thought through the mechanical psychological causes, specific practice of the effects, or any details. Well adjusted people simply recoil in horror intuitively from the idea that someone would publish naked pictures of them. Healthy people have a sense of privacy. That is why I said "everyone knows".

You evidently don't know, or won't admit it. You should see a psychologist, or someone else who can help you develop some empathy. You'll feel better, even if now you think you can't and shouldn't feel anything. The human vulnerability to feeling harm also comes with the sensitivity to feeling safe, feeling valued and feeling all kinds of other things. If you can't relate to what I'm saying even after I explain it clearly so there's no confusion, you have a lack of empathy so deep that you could benefit from psychological help. And if you don't, that lack of empathy makes you more of a risk of hurting other people through carelessness, or lack of inhibition to cruelty.

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

Your argument is like saying the harm from punching someone in the face comes from the face being in the way of the fist, not from the fist hitting the face.

No. It's like saying that after something has already happened, emotional harm can probably be avoided (or heavily mitigated). If you've already been punched in the face, pain or damage likely cannot be avoided (or, at least, it's more difficult to do so).

In actual reality, the harm does come from people's reactions to the image, which will be to devalue the person pictured.

My point was that the "harm" is in peoples' minds.

and in where you can't tell but it still has an effect.

If you can't tell, then I don't see where that can even cause emotional harm.

The only way to be so desensitized that you don't care is to

Or realize that getting upset is pointless. What does it fix? Nothing. Even getting over it quickly or controlling your emotions would be an improvement, in my opinion.

Healthy people have a sense of privacy.

"Healthy"? If by that you mean the average person, then probably. But you can both have a sense of privacy (preferring it) and not care if it's "violated."

That is why I said "everyone knows".

But that's not necessarily true.

You evidently don't know, or won't admit it.

Or I just disagree.

You should see a psychologist, or someone else who can help you develop some empathy.

When did I say that I was one of those people? Or did you just assume that I was based on the arguments that I made?

You'll feel better, even if now you think you can't and shouldn't feel anything.

That's an assumption. You actually likely don't know if someone would feel better. They might, or they might not. People are different.

If you can't relate to what I'm saying even after I explain it clearly so there's no confusion, you have a lack of empathy so deep that you could benefit from psychological help.

As I said previously, you state things in a way that seemingly allows for no disagreement. It's as if you cannot be wrong and anyone who disagrees with you must be 100% incorrect. If that is what you think, I believe it is quite arrogant.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Archangel Michael]

This is basic

Not to a certain group of people who believe the 1st Amendment has no limits

Re:Is that how that works?

[Doc Ruby]

I'm done arguing with people like you to whom compassion and empathy are alien. Or with people like you who think that it's arrogant to know when one is right because of overwhelming experience underpinning the facts and logic.

I've also found arguing with solipsists to be the most boring waste of time. In the end, you have to believe that something can be known by shared experience. If you don't, there's no way for you to know that my argument, and I, am not simply a hallucination beggaring your own self doubts.

Of course I can be wrong. In this case I am not. And in this case it's abundantly clear that you cannot grasp even the most fundamental point, the human value of basic bodily privacy and the harm when it is forcibly destroyed. Or, if you can but won't admit it, there's even less point seeing your responses.

Goodbye.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Leebert]

Less liability? If you worked for me, and you acted as you describe, I'd fire you. It would be a very short conversation, and it would go like this. BOSS: You called the FBI? Before you called me or HR or legal?

Sweet. So then Legal would come down and have a very short conversation with you, and it would go like this: LEGAL: You fired him? Before talking to HR or legal? In a way that is clearly retribution for performing a legally mandated duty to report a crime? etc. etc.

Now for me, I trust my current management enough to immediately notify them as a courtesy, then notify law enforcement. (Well, in my case, I have a Federal Inspector General's office just down the hall; same difference). But one way or another, it's going to get reported, and quickly, regardless of my management's response.

Take a gander at this page: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13460

If you read the language of most of those laws, YOU the person finding it are legally liable for reporting, and usually "immediately". Not your boss, YOU. Not when you get around to having a couple of meetings about it, "immediately". It isn't worth screwing with those sorts of laws -- the worst your boss can do is fire you; the judicial system can do far, far worse. (And you can probably clean up pretty well on a wrongful termination claim if they do fire you, so that isn't so bad anyhow.)

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm done arguing with people like you to whom compassion and empathy are alien.

What makes you think that compassion and empathy are alien to me, personally?

Or with people like you who think that it's arrogant to know when one is right because of overwhelming experience underpinning the facts and logic.

But that's just it. Who doesn't believe that they are correct? Why else would we be having an argument? Most people would claim to "know" something, I'm sure. I think that allowing for the possibility that you may be wrong makes you open-minded.

I've also found arguing with solipsists to be the most boring waste of time. In the end, you have to believe that something can be known by shared experience. If you don't, there's no way for you to know that my argument, and I, am not simply a hallucination beggaring your own self doubts.

Who says that I don't? I merely said that I think you should allow for the possibility that you may be wrong at all times. That does not mean you have to go insane pondering everything.

And just because a lot of people feel something, that does not mean that my suggestions (control your emotions, get over things quickly, don't get angry/sad about things that you can't change, etc) are impossible. It just means that it's not widespread (which likely doesn't mean that it's wrong).

In this case I am not.

Let me try the same thing: Of course I can be wrong. In this case I am not.

Re:Is that how that works?

[msobkow]

Talk to people who have PTSD....

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Half-pint HAL]

I wondered how long it would be before someone would come along and completely miss the point of my post. You can't change the faults of the Catholic Church by simply attacking Christianity as a whole. Polarising the debate only leads to people becoming more entrenched in their positions. The justification for the cover-ups is to protect the church. Your attitude only gives fuel to the paranoia and persecution complex that many Christians currently suffer. It doesn't encourage openness or honest self-reflection.

Also, can you point to a source regarding stoning kids?

Re:Is that how that works?

[CSMoran]

It was covered as part of a sports coaching course.The course was mainly health and safety. Part of health and safety obviously covered coaching children, and it was part of the taught material we were given. Not pornography, obviously, but general paeodphilic behaviour.

The validity of the sources you cite made me collapse onto the floor with hysterical laughter.

Re:Is that how that works?

[yndrd1984]

...the porn industry is built on exploitation, not just of it's workforce but also of it's consumers.

I think I strongly disagree with this, but I'd like it if you went into a little more detail before I end up responding to something you didn't mean.

Re:Is that how that works?

[yndrd1984]

Whilst I agree that running your boss over and taking an axe to a server are fairly unlikely impulses to act upon, having sex with aforementioned married hottie is something that could very realistically happen is an appropriate situation presented itself.

Well, she could get divorced, but then again my boss could start gunning people down in the parking lot, and the server is likely to end up being auctioned off in the fairly near future... But my point was as things are now I have fantasies that I'm in no danger of acting on, as do other people, and I don't know why people with a sexual interest in children can't be that way as well.

And as for the hottie in the current situation, after getting involved with a couple of separated women, I will never get anywhere near that kind of crazy drama again.

Re:Is that how that works?

[ultranova]

Whatever is at work, the actual effect in the real world from naked pictures of a person being published, however old that person in the picture, is to devalue them. Typically by defining them as a sexual object, to the exclusion of other value or just as a person rather than an object.

This idea - that being viewed as a sexual object excludes being viewed as anything else - keeps on coming up. Is it some kind of leftover from puritanism? Yet another example of the Madonn/whore -complex? Or do some people simply project their personal obsessions on others?

Well adjusted people simply recoil in horror intuitively from the idea that someone would publish naked pictures of them. Healthy people have a sense of privacy.

Well-adjusted people react with anger, not horror, at the thought of someone breaching their privacy unwantedly. What you are describing is the behaviour of an abuse victim.

You should see a psychologist, or someone else who can help you develop some empathy.

Given the possibility that you're projecting I brought up above, and confusing well-adjusted people and abuse victims, you might wish to consider your own advice.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Hentes]

True, child porn today is produced mostly by rapists, but that is the effect of the current strict laws. Weren't for the laws, many of the current quasipedophile sites (you know, 10 year olds in latex, "beauty contest" for 3 year olds with fake boobs) would go completely naked.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Doc Ruby]

In the actual cultures of most of the world, especially in those that have widespread Internet access, the actual effect of being seen naked in images is to reduce that person to nothing more than a sexual object. There are very rare exceptions, but "porno = bimbo" (male or female) is the rule. That is the reality. Maybe it is derived from the puritan roots (in many cultures, not all Anglo Saxon) of much of our culture's conditioning. But wherever it comes from, it is very real.

When people's privacy has been invaded that way, their discovery does indeed typically come with a reaction of "horror", as in "this is horrible". They realize that their reputation has been damaged, they react with horror. They realize that they are no longer in control of intimacy with themself, and react with horror. For some people that leads to anger, but for many it does not; it depends on how the individual reacts to humiliation. If someone here is projecting, it is you on that point.

You might be beyond the reach of that dynamic. If so, you are very rare. However, unless you've actually been the subject of involuntary pornography, you can make only a completely speculative argument about yourself. These reactions are not rational. And since the subject here is small children, the defense in rationality is totally overwhelmed by the emotional.

It's pretty bizarre for you to contrast "well adjusted people" with "abuse victims", when we're talking about abuse victims. Well adjusted people get abused, and react like... abuse victims.

This is real. This is several children being used by a pervert in sexual ways, which will of course hurt them. A pervert who holds one of the highest positions of trust and social power, who hurts them with it in some of the most intimate ways.

The fact that I have to explain and defend the explanation of that in detail shows the low tide of empathy in our society. Which is where the people like these priests are operating, hurting children. Who grow up to be adults who tend to have damaged empathy themselves, who then hurt more children.

These people need help. They need material defense from these abusers, not lying bishops who continue to protect and enable them to hurt more children. They need psychological support and recovery, not stigma of being "abuse victims" as if that's their fault.

And people who are more interested in the possibility that the damage they suffer is irrelevant because it comes from some ancient religious hangups need to get better, too. The puny empathy at work in that point of view is sickness.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Catroaster]

More or less.

There are people who can help (psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, doctors), but the damage does not heal. Believe me, I know from personal experience.

All you can do is learn to live with that damage. Hopefully before you destroy yourself/anyone else.

Re:Is that how that works?

[yndrd1984]

The problem is that it fosters an industry of organic chop shops, kidnapping people and parting them out, in order to have a supply of fresh organs to sell you.

The formal market and the black market are competing methods of supplying a needed good - the more organs that are available through legitimate channels the fewer people will try to procure through illegitimate ones. To borrow your 'chop shop' analogy, we should ban the sale of all auto parts to prevent auto theft - does that make any sense?

Re:Is that how that works?

[Grishnakh]

This is a good point here. Our law is fundamentally broken, because on one hand it allows the MAFIAA to claim that "pirating" materials materially harms them and will destroy their industry, but on the other hand it also punishes people who "pirate" kiddie porn. If we're to believe the MAFIAA, then pirating kiddie porn should be legal and encouraged, because after all, we want to shut down the kiddie porn industry, right? Well if pirating kiddie porn doesn't actually destroy that industry, then we need to throw out all the verdicts against anyone found guilty (criminally or civilly) of pirating the MAFIAA's goods. We need to do one or the other, either legalize pirated kiddie porn, or legalize pirating the MAFIAA's stuff; if we don't, then our law is fundamentally hypocritical.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Grishnakh]

I'm against child porn and producing it very often actually harms the children

One weird and interesting factor that's going to come up before long is: what about child porn that doesn't involve real children?

Right now, that mainly means animation. I think it should be pretty obvious that animated child porn doesn't actually hurt any real children (unless consumers go out and recreate the scenes they watch, but then again if that were a concern, wouldn't violent movies be banned?).

But we're already very close to the point where we can create life-like animation of humans. Before long, even kiddie pornographers will have access to that technology, and instead of using real kids to act out scenes, they could just do it all on computer, and you won't be able to tell the difference between it and "the real thing". Should that material also be illegal?

Re:Is that how that works?

[zyzko]

But we're already very close to the point where we can create life-like animation of humans. Before long, even kiddie pornographers will have access to that technology, and instead of using real kids to act out scenes, they could just do it all on computer, and you won't be able to tell the difference between it and "the real thing". Should that material also be illegal?

I am tempted to say that no, it should not be illegal.

If it is proven that watching that kind of thing makes people to go out and molest children then I have to reconsider. Japan has btw a very long history of cartoon porn which is basicly child pornography but it is legal because it is not produced by filming humans. And it has not yet comdemned them to eternal damnation and there have been no locust attacks (well, one tsunami and nuclear reactor breakdown....).

And remember that the "honest working girl" porn which involves a male and female who are paid to do it in front of the camera was contested in many countries, including the USA and still there are groups trying to ban it. Kiddie porn is not my cup of tea and I would be propably sick watching it even if animated (I have seen the Japanese cartoon stuff and even that is not what I would consider pleasurable entertainment) but then again - I don't particularly like horror movies either and I'm not demanding them to be banned.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Tim C]

And boys are immune to such psychological damage?

Re:Is that how that works?

[madprof]

OK that's an interesting point. Why do you think that? I mean, if you should do something that a law compelling you to do it could, surely, not be much harm, right?

There are obvious counterpoints such as if someone falls off their bicycle in front of you you should stop to check they are OK, but a law compelling you to do so would be silly. I am not sure this is quite the same as that though.

BTW thank you for a reasoned reply that isn't full of ad hominem crap like some of the posters on here.

Re:Is that how that works?

[madprof]

That's a fair point. Something to think about.

Re:Is that how that works?

[n7ytd]

As far as the law is concerned it's probably not much of an issue, if you asked me and my kid was in that class I'd say "hell yes!" The first part of the law is very much built around what you do if you see or suspect abuse, not abuse that may happen... if the priest's superior knows that his priest-employee has been looking at kiddie porn for 30 years with no instances of abuse, then he can come to a reasonable conclusion that he won't abuse.

Kiddie porn == child abuse. Maybe not directly by him, but the very fact that the images exist mean that there was abuse of the children pictured at some point. Judge and jury will decide, but I can't imagine that anybody in the hierarchy of the Catholic church is not walking on eggshells and erring on the side of paranoia about this stuff. The mind boggles.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Goody]

No, he puts personal *interests* above the law. There's a difference.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Raved Thrad]

Separation of church and state means what it says for the most part, and works in both directions (emphasis mine): Keep the church out of the government and keep the government out of the church.

Wow. You whooshed so badly I could hear it from across the ocean.

So, which theocracy run by a secretive, Byzantine, obfuscatory religion do you live in? I'm sure the abused children the guys in the skirts are keeping in the seminary (or is that semenary?) will be so glad to learn that the government should butt out of it. After all, what happens on holey ground stays on holey ground, right?

Re:Is that how that works?

[FredFredrickson]

I suspect he weighed the options.. the chance that the guy would never get caught apparently seemed more important than the benefit of damage control of reporting it himself. Ultimately, when faced with two options: Continue to ruin the name of the church by reporting it or cross your fingers and maybe nothing will ever come of it.. you can see why he kept it a secret. The last thing the church needed was more of this!

Re:Is that how that works?

[FredFredrickson]

i keep trying to explain this! People are corporations now!

mixed feelings

[roc97007]

I was ambivalent about this at first, but on reflection I think this is a good thing. It helps break up the conspiracy of silence (due to not wanting to embarrass the order) that can shield a molester for years.

Re:mixed feelings

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

If it is covering up molestation, then yes; but it is covering up (more accurately, not reporting) possession of child pornography. It seems like the church should not have to report possession of child pornography, but that they should take reasonable in-house steps to limit any potential detriment to young people that that possession might signal. Maybe the particular priest is told not to be alone with a single child, for example, and is disciplined in-house.

If it were covering up molestation--particularly ongoing molestation--then someone should go to jail for it.

I am not comfortable with the idea of criminalizing a person who doesn't report a colleague, except in certain situations. You might fire them (in a publicly-held corporation, for example). But particularly where there is no ongoing harm, and where the person is not a law enforcement official or perhaps officer of the court, it does not seem helpful to require people to report.

Actually, it may disincentivize witnesses later--if they had a duty to report something, they will refuse to testify as to what was occurring because that would be incriminating themselves.

Re:mixed feelings

[geekoid]

Picture of child pornography come from somewhere.

Plus he also had kids search is pockets for candy; which is pretty damning.

  "I am not comfortable with the idea of criminalizing a person who doesn't report a colleague, except in certain situations. "
So endangered children aren't the exception?

Add to all that, it's a misdemeanor.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Re:mixed feelings

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

The picture did come from somewhere--which goes to the producer, not the consumer. Unless the consumer is paying for it.

The searching pockets for candy is different; I did not see that bit.

Endangered children *ARE* one of the exceptions, hence "covering up molestation--particularly ongoing molestation." I am not convinced that possession of child pornography by an adult endangers children. If there is any good evidence on the topic, I might chance my mind--but for obvious reasons, it's not the kind of study you can get IRB approval for.

Re:mixed feelings

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

And misdemeanor criminalization is still criminalization.

Re:mixed feelings

[roc97007]

You've pretty much summed up my misgivings, which is why I was conflicted. But there's been so much press about child molestation in the church, and they've taken so much flack for it -- justifiably so in my opinion -- that to not report child porn given the larger circumstances is absolutely inexcusable.

If they had a duty to report something, they should have reported it. If they decide not to, they will have to abide by the consequences of that decision, just like we must abide by the consequences of a decision to help cover up any crime.. What you suggest may be true, but it leads down a rat hole I think.

Re:mixed feelings

[roc97007]

...and I'm aware that child porn does not equate to child molestation. But it is a prime indicator.

Re:mixed feelings

[flosofl]

What is so hard to understand? Consumption *creates* demand. Demand is fulfilled BY CREATING MORE CHILD PORN. How in the world do you reach the conclusion that possession does not make the owner of said "product" culpable?

This isn't stuff you can find on USENET anymore. These... creatures... have to seek out distributors of this vile muck. They either supply their own in exchange in a tit-for-tat system, or they pay for it.

Re:mixed feelings

[hedwards]

Having child porn is cause for a more thorough investigation, especially if the particular individual in possession is engaged in other odd behaviors with regards to children. And that's the basis for indicting the bishop. Holding onto that knowledge for that many months greatly weakens the police's opportunity to investigate any crimes which might have occurred on top of the apparent possession of child pornography.

The only concern I have is that there is still no mens rea requirement for possession of child porn and as such it matters little whether or not the possessor is aware that it is child porn or that it's in his or her possession.

I doubt very much that the possession in this case was an accident, I suppose it is possible, but I doubt that he just happened to have those photos and happened to engage in troubling actions with children.

Re:mixed feelings

[hedwards]

So, what do you think the penalty should be for turning a blind eye to a possible pedophile that has regular close contact with children? And that's the crux of the matter, assuming the reports are accurate, the bishop ultimately is a part of a conspiracy to engage in sex crimes against children.

Re:mixed feelings

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

I think without evidence I am not willing to call someone a "possible pedophile" for possession alone. Everyone is a possible pedophile. Labelling anyone a possible pedophile, however, is usually fearmongering. There is also the issue that I am not sure what age we are talking about--I have far less of a problem if we're talking about seventeen-year-olds than I do if we're talking about eight-year-olds.

As I said, the pockets issue raises serious concerns.

It is also not clear that the person "turned a blind eye." There is a distinction between turning a blind eye and reporting someone to law enforcement. Engaging law enforcement carries with it consequences that are difficult to control and that may be unjust. If a pastor makes sure that that priest is never alone with a child, for example, that is not turning a blind eye. Whether punishment is appropriate depends on whether his failure to report is blameworthy. On the facts of the summary, I have no reason to believe that the Bishop did not take other remedial action.

If he had actual knowledge of abuse, that would be different. If the pockets thing is true, that moves it closer to that range where there may be a problem. At that point they should have been talking to their lawyer. Anything more than that and they would have started needing to talk to social services or parents--someone in case there is an actual issue where the child might need counseling.

Also, on the conspiracy: look up the definition of conspiracy. You sound like a raging anti-Catholic when you say that, because it doesn't sound like a remotely reasonable interpretation of the facts.

Re:mixed feelings

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Consumption only creates demand in a market sense when someone profits from the production of content and someone is willing to pay something for that. You can argue that the content producer is selling to the consumer in exchange for his time, which the content producer resells for advertising dollars [depending on the exchange mechanism--I vaguely remember hearing tor is over-used for it, which says something really bad about how people use anonymity]. Also, consumption only creates demand when it is ongoing. The summary doesn't say this priest was allowed to continue collecting new child pornography on his computer. Maybe the Bishop lit the computer on fire, hit it with a sledgehammer, and beat the crap out of the priest responsible before not reporting it to police. It's also possible that the Bishop learned this during confession, which brings up other issues.

I could, you know, RTFA. But this is slashdot.

Re:mixed feelings

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

I am not convinced that possession of child pornography by an adult endangers children.

Not even the children being photographed? Are you that stupid or just that fucked in the head to think it's healthy for children to be photographed that way?

At any rate... I would think that the thought that some child somewhere could have been harmed in the process of taking such photos would be enough for a "man of god" to lose his fucking boner for a few minutes.

But hell let's all be liberal about it.

Making child porn obviously does. And I would guess that at least some significant percentage (and I can't decide whether it's more disturbing if th e percentage is low or high) is tied to trafficking victims. But possession? Police possess child porn in their evidence rooms--their possession doesn't harm children.

Payment for the production of child porn obviously does, either on the supply or demand side of the transaction.

But possession alone? Especially without any mens rea requirement? I don't see it. The consumer needs mental help, and the child may need mental help, and the producer needs to get the shit kicked out of him.

Re:mixed feelings

[SuricouRaven]

Healthy, no... but harmful? Why? They probably have no idea what's going on, and if it's just a few photos will forget all about it.

Re:mixed feelings

[toriver]

I thought pedophiles abused children because of their sexual drives, not because they want to be taken pictures of...

But you are right in some sense: For instance, it has been shown that there is a strong correlation between a rise in reckless driving and TV crews in helicopters filming said reckless driving situations. 15 minutes of fame and all that. But do we take the driver's license from people who enjoy watching Americas Wildest Police Chases?

Re:mixed feelings

[Hatta]

Why were you ambivalent about this? This is unequivocally good.

Re:mixed feelings

[couchslug]

The Catholic Church has hidden so much abuse that it if it weren't a "church" it might fall under the RICO act.

"Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal goes global"

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-19/world/catholic.church.abuse_1_abusive-priests-church-abuse-archdiocese?_s=PM:WORLD

Re:mixed feelings

[hedwards]

It's astonishing to me how far you're willing to go as an apologist to justify what was clearly illegal behavior.

He's not a possible pedophile, if the images were on the computer combined with the odd behaviors that were observed, it's pretty damned likely that he's a pedophile, and one that's already committed at least 2 sex crimes.

If you've read the article, it's abundantly clear that, if true, the bishop in question was turning a blind eye to a likely pedophile. He allegedly asked one off duty policy officer about one of the least obvious pictures and received the answer he was looking for. That particular image was questionable, but since the child was fully clothed, it's unlikely that the prosecutor would have prosecuted it. I find it hard to believe that he was asking in good faith, considering that the cache allegedly contained much more graphic images.

He had grounds for reporting the affair to the police, the issues were brought to his attention and he allegedly chose to inquire about them to a police officer on an oversight board, he also chose to limit the images shown to one image that was likely to give him the answer he was looking for.

As for conspiracy, yes, there was a conspiracy here. If you're going to be that purposely obtuse, you could also say that he was an accessory after the fact, but given that he himself appears to have engaged in an effort to cover it up, I for one do not think that it's too much of a stretch to suggest that there was a conspiracy involved. It wouldn't exactly be the first time that there was a conspiracy involving a bishop to cover up sex crimes by clergy in the Catholic Church.

As for being a "raging anti-Catholic" fuck you, it's a hell of a lot better than supporting an institution that still hasn't grasp the concept that people in a position of trust need to ensure that children are being protected. We have a system of justice to ensure that the accused receive a fair trial, but unless somebody reports such blaringly obvious incidents like the ones that he covered up, there's no way that any possible victims will ever receive justice. Most of those children probably didn't even know what was going on.

Re:mixed feelings

[roc97007]

This:

> Why were you ambivalent about this? This is unequivocally good

Does not seem to match well with this:

> Censorship is obscene.

Re:mixed feelings

[tompaulco]

I'm aware that child porn does not equate to child molestation. But it is a prime indicator.
Well, that is an easy enough correlation to figure out. Go find a group of people in jail for molestation and ask them if they had child porn on their computers. Then go ask some people in jail for child porn if they have ever molested a child. Fortunately for the surveyor, people with child porn on their computers are more numerous and have longer sentences than people who actually molested a child, mostly because they seem to sentence by the megabyte, kind of like a cell phone company.
I suspect the correlation is low enough to be in the noise.

Re:mixed feelings

[ultranova]

Consumption only creates demand in a market sense when someone profits from the production of content and someone is willing to pay something for that.

On most sites with user-generated content the "profit" takes the form of praise from other people, or simply pageviews. This is true on Slashdot (karma/replies), fanfiction.net (pageviews/reviews), DeviantArt (pageviews), Elfwood (pageviews), imageboards (replies) and so on; why wouldn't it be true in pedophile circles?

Humans are social animals and simply contributing to a community is inherently rewarding.

Pretty Terrible Story

[thepainguy]

The parishoners knew for months, if not years, that something strange was going on, but the diocese refused to do anything. There's a letter out there that the principle sent to the Bishop that's quite damning (and that the bishop supposedly never even read).

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/crime/a-newly-released-letter-by-snap-shows-that-parents-were-concerned-about-father-shawn-ratigan

The church still doesn't appear to be taking this stuff seriously and parents should be concerned.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[jmcnally]

Why is this a slashdot story? There are plenty of forums for this terrible story.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Honestly, that's the consistent thread with these clergy abuse cases that really makes it a matter of gross institutional rot, rather than an unfortunate but statistically inevitable consequence of having lots and lots of employees in contact with children.

Overwhelmingly, each organizational layer has shown itself more concerned with coverup than with cleanup, and the church management still seems to be fighting their medieval battle to assert that their club's rules trump civil law... What is even more vexing is that they seem largely to be getting away with it. Some civil payouts, a few old men whose statue of limitations hasn't quite run out; but the leadership has been absolutely teflon throughout the whole affair.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[couchslug]

Here's what that typical church reaction can get you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Geoghan

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[thepainguy]

So the kids in the photos, and who might be in jeopardy, are just SOL? That's not very noble of you.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[thepainguy]

What really bothers me is that the laypeople get it and are trying to do the appropriate thing, but when they run things up the chain the guys up there clearly STILL don't get it. I don't know if it's arrogance or ignorance or what (but the Opus Dei reference makes me wonder about lingering old-school arrogance).

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[demonlapin]

What do you expect out of a system that denies priests the right to marry? These scandals don't routinely rock the Episcopal, Lutheran, or Orthodox communities, because you can be a priest and still have a sex life in those denominations.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdots quality has been going down for years.

Let me demonstrate with a conversation I had with someone a few days ago

'saw this on slashdot'
'They are still around? I thought everyone stopped reading them years ago.'

Its out of more habit that I come here...

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[hedwards]

That's a large part of it, but if you read up on the history of the Catholic Church, particularly the stuff just leading up to the Reformation, it's not exactly news that the Catholic Church considers itself to be above the law.

What concerns me is when the Pope uses these incidents to drive a homophobic message rather than taking meaningful action to ensure that subordinates understand that cover ups are not to be tolerated in the Church.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[dragonsomnolent]

Dude, you owe me a new keyboard "infiltration by Satanists and Freemasons". A) Satan is a hebrew word, it means enemy. B) Freemasons != Satanists. C) Oh shit you were being serious, ok then. The modern Church of Satan members probably could give 2 shits about the Catholic Church and what they get up to. Also, I KNOW the Freemasons couldn't give less of a fuck about Catholics if they wanted too. The bad blood between them has been from the Catholics (something about never keeping a secret from your priest, I dunno, it's a pretty weak argument) towards the Masons. The Masons would really like to just be left to their own ritual work and mysticism, and be left to donate their time and money to charitable works (yup, Shriner's Hospitals, man how evil, they help severely burned and crippled children). I woulda modded you down, but felt this was a better way of dealing with your paranoia, maybe you'll take off the hat and come back down to earth.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[bledri]

If only it were so benign. It's actually a case of sabotage and infiltration of the Church by Satanists and Freemasons. ...

Are you implying that the child molesters are not "real Catholic Priests," but rather Satanists and Freemasons that have specifically infiltrated the church? Seems a bit unlikely. A more likely explanation is that it's not "normal" for an 18 year-old male to choose a life of celibacy and some of the people that do so may actually have issues with their sexual impulses and may decide that serving God and abstaining from sex completely might be best. Until one day, they don't control the urges and then the church covers it up because we can't have people realizing that priests are just fallible people and not some sort of magical God conduit.

The Church will heal only once it acknowledges ...

... that it's all based on the writings and traditions of humans, not the divine word of God.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[SuricouRaven]

It doesn't exactly mean enemy. It means something closer to 'adversary' - like an opponent in a game, or the relationship between prosecution and defence lawyers in a trial. They fight, but on good terms. God and Satan even had a friendly wager in the Book of Job regarding how much punishment a man can withstand before losing faith.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[Aighearach]

but when they run things up the chain the guys up there clearly STILL don't get it.

At this point I think it is beyond that. Years beyond it. I think it is clear that they do "get it," and that their response, however awful, is considered and intentional.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[zippthorne]

Or, maybe they're just not as well publicized. I haven't seen any statistics either way comparing the actual number of incidents to other denominations or to the general population. The institutional problem was the cover up, which thwarted justice for the victims.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[Hatta]

What really bothers me is that the laypeople get it and are trying to do the appropriate thing

If the lay people "get it" why are they still attending and supporting the Church? If they really got it, they'd see that the right thing to do is to cut all ties with that criminal organization.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[demonlapin]

You've got it backward; it's that a job that denies you a normal sex life is going to attract a disproportionate number of people who aren't interested in a normal sex life, because they like to fuck kids.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[martyros]

I'm a Christian, but not a Catholic. One of my best friends is a Catholic priest, however; and just from the little that I've seen, that organization seems unusually concerned with appearances. Obviously nobody likes negative press about themselves or their organization; but it just seems to be bigger and very much institutional in the Catholic Church.

Which is a shame on so many fronts. For one, AFAICT that's the main reason that so little has been done wrt pedophile priests -- which in turn has increased the number of victims greatly. But moreover, the central teaching of Christianity is that every human has evil in their hearts, but that we can have forgiveness through Jesus. You'd think an organization with that teaching at its heart should be the most able to admit the fault of one of its members and ask forgiveness, rather than trying to pretend they're all saints on earth.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[couchslug]

Because it involves computers and the legal issues concerning data thereon.

Many of us work on PCs and may well encounter illegal content.

Some payout #s for the denialists.

[couchslug]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Church+seeks+limit+abuse+payouts+Germany/3605154/story.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/24/usa.danglaister

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-jesuits-in-166-million-abuse.html

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2011/01/catholic-abuse-victims-offered-firm.html

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[FooAtWFU]

This post is flamebait, but I'll respond in case a wider audience is interested in the question:

How dare you or any modern man defend superstition, let alone Catholicism?

Idunno. There's this whole "freedom of thought" and "tolerance" sort of thing going on, and it seems to have worked rather well for society over the past few centuries. If you don't defend the unpopular, you just end up with mob rule. You don't want mob rule; it would be a real pity if we threw away the notion of tolerance and later rational thought landed on the wrong side of public opinion. Also working out rather well: "innocent until proven guilty". And from the bad ideas file: "guilt by association" and "people who don't agree with me are inhuman scum".

In any event, the problem really isn't that the typical Catholic priests is a child molestor. The problem is that child molestors actively seek positions of trust and authority to perpetrate their crimes and the church has been inadequate in its response. Before you exercise your prejudice, think of the children - your prejudice may hide the real danger.

SMBC

[geekoid]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2234#comic

Re:Summary isn't correct

[geekoid]

Why is the poster -1?

Whenever someone makes a claim that a link is goatse, the admin should check it out, and then mod it +1 gabajillion.

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[couchslug]

The response has been documented to have AGGRAVATED the problem, and continued over decades.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout [guardian.co.uk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/ [msn.com]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html [telegraph.co.uk]

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/ [nationalpost.com]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Church+seeks+limit+abuse+payouts+Germany/3605154/story.html [montrealgazette.com]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/24/usa.danglaister [guardian.co.uk]

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-jesuits-in-166-million-abuse.html [blogspot.com]

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2011/01/catholic-abuse-victims-offered-firm.html [vaticancrimes.us]

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[Brett Buck]

How dare you or any modern man defend superstition, let alone Catholicism?.

  Idunno. There's this whole "freedom of thought" and "tolerance" sort of thing going on, and it seems to have worked rather well for society over the past few centuries.

      That's all well and good when you are believing the right things. But if you are believing the *wrong* things, well, we have to stamp it out, shout you down, or treat you like a moron! We can't have you going around having independent opinions, now, can we? You have to be tolerant *in exactly the way we want you to be*.

        Brett

Re:Not just the RCC

[couchslug]

Have a few numbers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout [guardian.co.uk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/ [msn.com]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html [telegraph.co.uk]

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/ [nationalpost.com]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Church+seeks+limit+abuse+payouts+Germany/3605154/story.html [montrealgazette.com]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/24/usa.danglaister [guardian.co.uk]

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-jesuits-in-166-million-abuse.html [blogspot.com]

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2011/01/catholic-abuse-victims-offered-firm.html [vaticancrimes.us]

And yet

[WindBourne]

the catholic church will say that they owe victims nothing. Pretty sick and twisted.

Re:And yet

[aBaldrich]

Suppose a Microsoft employee became a serial killer or a child molester, does it mean it's Microsoft's legal responsibility?

Re:And yet

[hedwards]

I dislike MS as much as anybody, but I think suggesting that MS would cover up allegations of sexual abuse or serial killing by an employee to be a bit far fetched even for slashdot.

Re:And yet

[WindBourne]

Lets put this in the correct context:
1) There are 100's of serial killers/child molesters. Worse, a number of them are becoming managers, VPs, and even possibly the CEO. 2) The employee's boss KNOWS about this killing/molester and is ACTIVELY helping to cover it up.
3) All of the bosses up the chain KNOW that this is going on are also actively helping to cover it up.
4) Gates and Balmer are not just working together to prevent the information from getting out, but then are actually doing all that they can to cover it up, as well as blame the victim. Worst, they are working hard to protect the employee that is molesting/killing and offers up half-hearted changes to their system.

And you think that MS would have NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE ABOVE SITUATION?
Are you fucking serious? They absolutely would be torn apart. RIGHTLY. And I do not care what corporation it is, if ppl are going to cover this up, then they deserve to fucking BURN AT A STAKE. And BTW, the issue is that these priests are serial molesters. Not 1x, but 10s and even 100s of times. With bishops and cardinals looking the other way. However, increasingly, it appears that pope benedict covered for others. In light of his once having been a GD FUCKING YOUNG NAZI, you would think that he would be opposed to such things and very careful about how this is displayed. But he does not.

Re:And yet

[blackicye]

Suppose a Microsoft employee became a serial killer or a child molester, does it mean it's Microsoft's legal responsibility?

If Microsoft was a religion that was conducting cover-ups for this employee for over a decade? Yes I'd suggest it was their legal responsibility, and they'd be lucky to get away with a cash settlement.

Re:And yet

[Aighearach]

I second that.

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[Nursie]

Inadequate in it's response?

Could that be the understatement of the year?

It's response at every turn has been to protect itself and the abusers. That's not inadequate, that's evil. Fuck the catholic church and the pope.

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[Pseudonym Authority]

Fuck off, idiot. I don't care if the Catholics raped you as a kid and kicked you puppy, it is irrelevant to the discussion and is blinding you from thinking rationally.

Brain washing

[deatypoo]

In related news, this week on public radio airwaves, Father Raymond Gravel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Gravel of the Canadian Roman Catholic Church compared the out of court settlement of 18 millions CAD (for 85 victims between 1950 and 1990) to being akin to turning the victims into prostitutes, because they would then be getting money in return of the sexual acts they performed. I almost crashed my car into a local church out of anger.

Re:Brain washing

[Beeftopia]

If they were consenting adults, then perhaps.

If they were children who could not give informed consent, then you start to understand the depth of the problem.

Re:Brain washing

[broken_chaos]

There shouldn't be 'out of court' settlements for rape. Simple as that.

Re:Brain washing

[J'raxis]

Why? If the victim is satisfied with the outcome, why should you or the courts or anyone else have any input on the situation?

Re:Brain washing

[moderatorrater]

The reason that it's a criminal law is because there's damage done to society as a whole. By your line of reasoning murderers would never have to do any jail time.

Re:Brain washing

[J'raxis]

Essentially, yes. Justice should be about making the victims whole, not placating some abstraction. Restorative justice.

Re:Brain washing

[shutdown -p now]

There's justice, and then there's the whole thing of keeping the society safe.

I don't want an unrepentant rapist living next door to me just because he had a spare million in change to pay to his victim.

"I GOTCHYA!"

[idbeholda]

Said the bishop to the choir boy.

Re:Summary isn't correct

[Qzukk]

My guess is you've got an AC penalty enabled. He's at 0 with no mod history either way here.

That or the loser who modded him down posted afterwards. Check the timestamps, maybe you can figure out who?

Why is it the only religion that does not allow

[lsatenstein]

Priests must be married to be healthy. No religion should allow single priests to remain unmarried for more than 2-3 years, except where age (60+) is a factor (example, a priest lost his wife)

Re:Why is it the only religion that does not allow

[lsatenstein]

We are addressing adult and child porn and a religion where priests give council to married couples or singles. The likelihood of an errant married priest imbibing in extramarital sex is low, whereas the hormones in priests do not stop causing temptation unless they are purged from the body.

Re:Why is it the only religion that does not allow

[shutdown -p now]

That's how it has always been among Christians. Catholics are the only denomination that does things differently.

Supply, demand, and scarcity

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumption *creates* demand.

Hmm, I thought that primal sexual urges created the demand. Guess I was wrong eh?

And what happens when the FBI makes existing child pornography hard to find? People who have those urges are going to create new child pornography to satisfy those urges.

Perhaps the FBI should spend more money protecting actual children rather than chasing down people with copies of crime scene photographs. Sure, it's more difficult to catch people who molest children, but it does the children a lot more good than chasing down pictures that were taken of them three years ago. But the FBI would rather chase a bunch of pictures around; keeps the arrest and conviction rates up, gets them promotions...at the cost of real, living children not being helped.

Re:Supply, demand, and scarcity

[flosofl]

Nice slippery slope you're sliding down there. And way to dodge my argument. I talking demand as in supply and demand, as you were most likely aware.

Re:Supply, demand, and scarcity

[davidwr]

Do you truly, honestly think that child molesters will stop producing child pornography if nobody looks at their pictures?

Demand will be reduced but it will not go away, not merely for lack of consumers.

We saw this in the early 1980s when the distribution of new child porn in the United States dropped to a small fraction of what it was before new child-porn laws went into effect and the U.S. Postal Inspectors cracked down. Distribution of new material of any scale beyond friends swapping home-made stuff in person stayed low until the advent of affordable scanners and digital cameras. By the late '80s people could distribute the stuff many times without being caught if they were careful.

---

People have different motivations for producing this stuff, and only some of these motivations depend on a "consumer:"

Some do it merely to record their own sexual behavior. These people won't be stopped for lack of someone to share it with.

Some to it to share with others and get feedback, much the same way some people post on /. to rack up the "5 - Funny's."

If another post in this thread about picture-trading web sites is true, some do it so they have something to barter with.

If police reports from the past 10 years are true, there are at least a few "industrial grade" child-porn-producers in Europe and the Far East.

Without consumers, the last 3 groups wouldn't have any motivation to continue producing.

Re:Supply, demand, and scarcity

[tompaulco]

Hear! Hear! This is not normal porn, where the actors are paid to make a video. The "producer" doesn't care about getting paid. He/she cares about having sex with children, and they like to do it on home video, and share it with others. If people didn't download, these people would still have sex with children and I bet they would still even record it.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the fact that this crap is no longer available for free has created a market where there wasn't one before, which has the potential and may already have increased the amount of abuse.

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[lister king of smeg]

i never get board of bashing M$ because it presents me with so many easy targets.

Wait a minute.

[Lord Kano]

I get that it's illegal to possess child porn. I get that it's illegal to make child porn. How in the fuck is it illegal to know that someone else has child porn?

LK

Re:Wait a minute.

[pipedwho]

Especially when the definition of 'porn' seems to include general nudity and pictures of clothed children.

Oh crap, does that mean I'm now guilty of not turning in all the parents I know that might have taken a few bathtub shots of their toddlers.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had an uncle who was arrested when he brought a roll of film to be processed (Florida, in the 80's). It turned out that he had taken pictures of the kids (maybe 5 and 7 at the time) in the bathtub. It's funny because you can go to Europe or Asia and see naked kids playing in fountains, rivers, at the beach, etc - why pictures of your own children playing naked is somehow a sex crime in America confuses me.

Re:Wait a minute.

[kae_verens]

if you know someone else has been breaking the law, /and you don't report it/, that makes you an obstruction to the law, as the guilty party may continue doing what they have been doing, making you partly guilty.

similarly, if you know that someone has been killing people, /and you don't report it/, and the person then goes on to kill more people, then you are partly guilty of letting some people get killed.

Re:Wait a minute.

[couchslug]

The real issue is the obligation to destroy pedos who hold positions of trust.

It is established (see "wall of links" posts some snivel at me for posting") that the Church hid and abetted MANY pedos. If you consider it reasonable that only a tiny percentage actually got caught, the problem is worse.

The Church has a moral duty to hand these folks to the cops INSTANTLY. They hold their superstition to be above secular law.

Re:Wait a minute.

[mjr167]

Obstruction only applies when you lie to the police or tamper with/destroy evidence. If they don't ask, then you didn't lie to them so can't be charged with obstruction. Moral responsibility is often different than legal liability. If I witness a crime, I am not required by law to report it and have a legal right to do nothing. The moral and ethical action might be to contact the appropriate authorities, but the law does not require it. That said, certain people are mandated reporters of child abuse. The law does require those persons to report potential abuse. These are people like teachers, doctors, and other professions that care for children. If you were a mandated reporter, you would know.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Lord Kano]

if you know someone else has been breaking the law, /and you don't report it/, that makes you an obstruction to the law

Maybe in some third world toilet, but not in any orderly first world nation.

Here's the US Code, please feel free to show me where your definition is included in the law.

LK

Re:Wait a minute.

[Lord Kano]

It isn't illegal to know that someone else has child porn; it's illegal to know about it and not report it.

[citation needed]

LK

Re:Wait a minute.

[Lord Kano]

To be an accomplice, you have to take part. To be an accessory, you have to give aid to the person who commits the crime.

LK

Re:Wait a minute.

[Lord Kano]

It's called being an accessory. If you know person A broke into a store and stole a bunch of jewelry and do not report it you are also an accessory. You're expected to report known criminal violation.

[Citation Needed]

Re:Wait a minute.

[Lord Kano]

In the same way that withholding evidence from the police is a crime in virtually every civilised country?

It's only withholding evidence if the police ask you for it and you don't provide it.

For example, if high crime neighborhoods. Nearly everyone knows who is dealing the drugs or shooting people but because they're afraid they don't report it to the police. By your reasoning, they could clean the whole place out by charging everyone as an accessory.

That's idiotic.

LK

Different perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

For several years, I was pastor of a small Baptist church (on a part-time basis.)

A few weeks after I started, the flakiest woman in the congregation told me about how the old pastor was a child molester, and nobody would do anything about it, so finally she took matters into her own hands by leaving a letter on the pulpit to make him resign. Didn't know what to think (at the time, didn't know she was the church flake) so I kind of "hmm'd" and nodded and didn't say much. Stayed there for several years, and she decided she didn't like me because I didn't preach from the King James Version and I tended to mention -- God help us -- movies from the pulpit. Watching them was fine, but mentioning them from the pulpit was sacrilege. One Sunday, I found an anonymous letter in the pulpit accusing me of being a child molester. I wasn't about to be run out of the place by this woman, so I called a meeting of the deacons and we dealt with it as a matter of church discipline. She repented and it was, I think, a growth experience for her. I ultimately left the church because my wife left me (long story) but I'm still on good terms with the people there. (I'm now an Anglican, by the way, because I couldn't stand what passes for theological discourse in the Southern Baptist Convention anymore.)

The point? Not every allegation of clergy sexual abuse is true. Not every accuser is lily white innocent. One of the interesting things about operating a church and being in the ministry is that you have to deal with people who may not always be reliable, because those are the people who need you the most. That's why the Bible says that you shouldn't entertain an accusation against an "elder" (i.e. a priest -- Greek presbyteros) without two or three witnesses.

That's not to say that the Roman Catholic church doesn't have a problem with how they handle genuine clerical abuse. They do. And, if what is being said in the article even resembles the truth, the Bishop in this case screwed up big time and deserves to be deposed. But I don't remotely believe some of the numbers that are bandied about regarding RC sexual abuse. Some of the people who make allegations were genuinely abused, but I suspect that at least as many have an axe to grind with the church or are looking for a cash payout.

Okay, said my piece.

Re:Different perspective...

[rjh]

I'm now an Anglican, by the way

Welcome! We're happy to have you. :)

Re:Different perspective...

[couchslug]

"But I don't remotely believe some of the numbers that are bandied about regarding RC sexual abuse.But I don't remotely believe some of the numbers that are bandied about regarding RC sexual abuse."

How about believing the actual settlements the RCC paid out when they can afford armies of lawyers to fight an injust accusation?

Re:Different perspective...

[fierce]

A drawn out court battle would draw even more attention to these things. Something that is probably not in the interest of the RCC, so they pay in order to make it go away quickly and relatively quietly.

If they indeed fight an unjust accusation, it will further the connection in people's minds between them and pedophilia thanks to the hyperbolic way child porn is perceived in todays society. That is, even the possession of it. Anyone who has a few images is an active pedophile preying on our children, and so on.

A brief side point, (personal belief here), that logic fallacy would be like naming anyone who has the "faces of death" compilations is a murderer in waiting.

Anyway, that pedophilia has been documented to be true in many cases doesn't help the RCC's cause, and if they did fight it, they would be bound to follow that course of action every time this type of thing came up.

I don't think seeing a settlement as an admission of guilt in this case might be all that accurate.

Re:Different perspective...

[mjr167]

Because it is cheaper to pay someone a small chunk of cash than it is to pay the lawyers to go to court? Why does insurance fraud work so well when the insurance companies can afford an army of lawyers to fight an unjust claim?

Re:Different perspective...

[couchslug]

Seeing MANY, emphasis MANY, settlements and very little active defense argues that there is plenty of guilt to go around!

Re:Different perspective...

[couchslug]

In what alternate universe are many settlements of tens of millions of dollars "cheaper"?

The problem with "mandated reporting"

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of people advocating the merits of "mandated reporting," in various forms. The problem with mandated reporting is that, if you are someone who is dealing with a problem, it means you can't seek help from anyone.

I had a friend who was a single father, and he had a problem with controlling his temper with his son. It was not so bad that his son was in danger -- he was just stressed out and needed someone to talk to before it got that bad. But he had a truly evil ex-wife waiting in the wings for any excuse to take the son away from him and make sure that he never saw his son again. My friend couldn't afford to take any chances. He couldn't talk honestly to a counselor, because if he did the counselor might decide he had to report it -- and as soon as the phone call was made my friend's ex-wife would find out and legal action (that my friend couldn't afford) would ensue. And going to the ex-wife wouldn't be better for the kids for reasons too complicated to explain. Suffice it to say that she's pretty much a sociopath. He couldn't talk to most friends, because they might report him too. He couldn't talk to an attorney, because he couldn't afford one. Finally, he talked to a pastor, who is not (in Virginia) a mandated reporter. Fortunately, the pastor had taken a lot of counseling classes in seminary and was able to help him. But ... this situation went on for years after my friend knew he needed help. And in a lot of states pastors are mandated reporters.

Then what does the marginal "offender," who just needs some help without the risk, do? Mandated reporting is like zero-tolerance laws. It's built on the assumption that good rules are better than good people. And that's just not the case.

Re:The problem with "mandated reporting"

[Aighearach]

If it is bad enough that he can't talk to friends, maybe he is minimizing how bad it is when he talks to you.

Re:The problem with "mandated reporting"

[Rich0]

Even so, what good does the law do?

The state STILL doesn't know about the situation, and now nobody who could possibly do something to help does either.

Re:Tell that to the Arabs and Muslims.

[lsatenstein]

Your last sentence makes great sense.

US Bishop Charged For Not Reporting Priest's Child

[Anachragnome]

"US Bishop Charged For Not Reporting Priest's Child Porn To Police"

I wonder how much they charged him.

Signed,
Obviously Oblivious

Human Nature

[Spawn of the Spiral]

Institutional rot implies a previously unrotten state; what we are actually seeing though is the consequence of a poisonous idea held in place by hubris. The poisonous idea is abstinence. Over the course of weeks or months, the male body will eventually ejaculate without any physical stimulation; this is commonly called a wet dream. A vow of true abstinence is guaranteed to fail for a male, because his own body will eventually betray him. Sexuality cannot be contained; our species depends on it. For as long as Catholicism insists upon abstinence for its priests, there will be sexual problems such as child molestation. For the problem of child molestation by priests to ever truly be resolved, the Catholic Church would have to swallow their hubris and accept the fact that sexuality is part of human nature.

Re:Human Nature

[shutdown -p now]

The irony is that Catholics have pretty much made the whole abstinence thing up - it was never truly mandated, not even by Paul.

It's also quite telling that other Christian denominations - and not just the reformist Protestants, but also Orthodox (where the name is kinda self-explanatory) let priests marry. Actually, let me amend that - not only priests can marry, but they are largely expected to marry, and then act as role models for Christian family life. Admittedly, I don't know that much about Protestants, but an unmarried Orthodox priest would generally be treated with suspicion by his parish, unless he's clearly too young or too old.

Re:Police are always looking for Porn.

[darthdavid]

( Are they just an inferior non-registered gang that seeks the privilege of the reigning court? )

yes

I just love how this fuels the sterotype.

[thelonesun]

The catholic stereotype of pedophilia is just going to get fueled by this case. Not that I mind, I'm not a particularly religious person.

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[houghi]

And from the bad ideas file: "guilt by association" and "people who don't agree with me are inhuman scum".

You mean like "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists" kind of stuff.

I agree completely. Very bad idea.

70 years ago, in Europe ....

[lolococo]

... you could get arrested - or even executed - for not reporting jews to the local gestapo. Is this the same mindset I can see emerging here? Please, convince me it isn't.

Re:70 years ago, in Europe ....

[HiThere]

It's closely related. The only difference that I see is that the Catholic Church has a long history of shielding priests from any consequences.

But the current wave of hysteria around "child molesters" is way out of hand and beyond all reason. They do exist, and they should be stopped. But a wide definition of what "child molestation" consists of isn't helpful, and is corrupting society. It's a part of the "think of the children" theme that Congress has been pushing to get coercive laws passed. Some people would like to extend it to just looking at a kid. Where the reasonable boundary is, is a quite difficult question. But having it be too broad is worse than not having any laws at all. And since there isn't an actual sharp edged boundary, you can't come to a reasonable agreement for a legal boundary. Anything you pick will be arbitrary.

But really, forbidding parents to take pictures of their own infants when nude! That's totally bat-shit crazy.

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[Aighearach]

Sonny, show some respect to your elders. Shut up and listen quietly when uncle slug speaks. And stay off his lawn, too.

Re:citation please

[hebertrich]

A many religious orders here in Quebec have had histories and run ins for what they did.
It's impact is very deep here.It partially explains why the churches are now empty.
We stopped beleiving watching them act, abuse of their power , abused the most vulnerable.
And they were preaching to us ! .. How dare they ? We came to despise them. As a whole for
they acted together and all knew what was happening. I know . i was in a private school run by " brothers " where abuse took place.
They were despicable low lifes. Preaching one , doing the other . How could we beleive in their God ?
IT's a bunch of rubbish that was used to exert control over people. We revolted , became free thinkers and now free from
their lies worked hard at making a better society.

Free yourselves.

It Works Like This

[RobotRunAmok]

It's hardly "news for nerds"

It's not "news for nerds," of course, but it does cause the heads of the shallow-minded Church-hating/privacy&porn-venerating hipsters to explode, and that's always entertaining, so let it slide.

Re:It Works Like This

[shinobiX]

It's hardly "news for nerds"

It's not "news for nerds," of course, but it does cause the heads of the shallow-minded Church-hating/privacy&porn-venerating hipsters to explode, and that's always entertaining, so let it slide.

it involves the potential incarceration of someone entirely for the way in which a few pixels are arranged on a screen, that sounds like a YRO submission at least.

Re:It Works Like This

[Doc Ruby]

And you love the child-raping church. Not entertaining. Not letting it slide.

Re:Not just the RCC

[couchslug]

The purpose is to shut up the denialists who defend the church.

I'll add titles in future, but links demonstrating that the abuse problem is enormous and world-wide are appropriate.

Re:Study is in order

[citizenr]

Has anyone done a study on this yet?

Louis CK did
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k

whenever child porn comes up on slashdot

[circletimessquare]

I look at the comments and I feel like I am at a NAMBLA convention

"think of the children" is just dumb useless hysteria, right?

you keep believing that

what i see is the reproductive imperative at work: not the social desire, but the biological need to produce healthy children. anything that is a threat to that basically means a threat to the continuation of your genes. therefore, yes, simple possession of pictures of children in sexually suggestive ways is pretty much an atavistic, primal declaration of war on the integrity of the reproduction of homo sapiens. sexual contact with children damages their psychological development in terms of self-image, identity, self-esteem, etc: weakening their ability to successfully pass on their parents genes when they are adults

so wax and wane philosophical about free rights and liberties and fascism and hysteria, blah blah blah... zzz

your high and noble principles just ran into a buzzsaw: sexualizing children basically means going to war with the forces of evolution

the urge to protect children is primal, savage, rooted at a spot as deep as the need for food and shelter. there's a reason even in prison otherwise amoral impulse driven convicts will happily beat a pedophile to death: the opposition to the sexualizition of children is something rooted so deeply in our biological makeup that no rationalization of yours will ever root around them

sexualizing children, even just with possession of pictures, puts you at war with human society not on the grounds of abstract legal principles, but on the grounds of innate biological drive. and you're going to lose, either at the end of the parent's gun, in the courtroom, or at the end of a broom handle in prison

so any of you out there in possession of child porn and who thinks it harmless and everything is just hysteria: i strongly advise you to get rid of it, and do whatever the hell you can possibly do to get rid of this desire of yours to see children in a sexual manner

it will not end well for you otherwise. your compulsion is at war with the reproductive imperative, and you're not going to win

oh and ps: just possessing pictures of children (not teenagers who are physically mature) is indeed harmful: it gets produced somewhere. your possession and desire for that product is called demand. demand invokes supply. it is a simple economic formula, whether real money is involved or not.so go ahead and argue around that all you want, you are an idiot if you deny the concept of supply and demand

Re:Tell that to the Arabs and Muslims.

[Thiez]

> As well, Muslim men often have MANY wives numerating as high as a recent 100 women slaves a franction of their age with many under-13 wives even as young as 5 that are ritually sodomized if not consumed of all innocence like an American male drinks a 6-pack of beer.

For extremely small values of 'often' perhaps. For every guy that has 100 women, 99 guys have to go without. Given that men and women are born in about equal numbers, your baseless accusation of Muslim men is a logical impossibility. Citation needed?

Midevil...

[bussdriver]

Mid-evil church with old traditions... actually, far far older than that!

Arranged marriages starting at 12 years old were totally acceptable and normal and old men were probably never unusual (hell, its a stereotype today with rich old men... at least in the past it was not as extreme because of life expectancy!)

History is actually on their side and they are quite strongly tied to the past, what can one expect?? I'm sure the other ancient religions have similar issues but lack the massive organizational hierarchy (which may or may not increase incidents; it may only make them leak out more...despite policies to cover things up.)

Then you have the nutty OLD policies that came from a fanatic group in charge of the church that removed all sex from clergy and made the whole thing even more 'evil' than it was previously... and this was old enough to be inherited by later off shoots. Brilliant power play by the organization back in the day; I'm surprised they didn't make breathing a sin to which they were the only path to salvation.

Perhaps the church should have defended marriage at 12 and allowed sex to be natural and let their officials have spouses? I bet the incidence rate and how it is handled would be quite different than today (or not necessarily better... but it is kind of a magnet to people with problems in the area, don't you think?)

All this having been said, people should realize that the stats for them are actually better than a lot of other institutions... high schools for example are worse; the #1 place for pedophiles: friends and family.

Things done or said in confidence

[davidwr]

when you see someone committing a crime like this, what *should* you do?

Hypothetically, if a person walked into a lawyer, psychiatrist, therapist, or minister's office seeking legal, emotional, or spiritual counseling, opened up their laptop and said "here be kiddie pron" then absent another law requiring disclosure this would be protected under the privacy laws that govern these professions.

That's not the case in this incident, but it does answer your question.

The same laws provide privacy if the person confesses to murder, terrorism, or almost any other crime except those few that are specifically excluded. Child abuse, elder abuse, abuse of a vulnerable person, and domestic abuse are common exceptions for non-lawyers. For lawyers, I think the only exceptions that have been upheld by courts have to deal with future crimes, not past crimes, but I could be wrong.

Jury nullification is absent in a just society

[davidwr]

When a law is clearly wrong, or being applied wrongly, it is the civic duty of any citizen to not support it, and when opportunity provides for it, participate in jury nullification.

In jurisdictions where prosecutors care about justice instead of getting another notch on their belt, unjust laws are never enforced and laws which can be applied unjustly aren't.

In other words:

1) Jury nullification, when properly applied, is a sign that the prosecution needs to be retrained or replaced, and

2) In a just society, jury nullification will never happen because it will never need to happen.

Please report evidence to civil authorities

[davidwr]

If you have evidence to back up your story please provide it to the relevant civil authorities and religious watchdogs.

And as for Freemasons in the United States at least, as a group they have zero interest in supporting child pornography or bringing down the Roman Catholic church.

As for individuals who happen to be Freemasons, anyone seeking to do either is a hypocrite and should resign his Masonic membership.

Re:Please report evidence to civil authorities

[michaelmalak]

See the following books:

• Vatican II, Homosexuality and Pedophilia
• The Rite of Sodomy Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church
• The Devil's Final Battle

Although there hasn't been a serious suggestion that I am aware of that Benedict XVI is a freemason, objectively speaking, he is too close to the situation, having participated in Vatican II and having been the sexual misconduct watchdog under JPII, and continuing to this day to participate in coverup and permissiveness. There is no need for me to report him to the authorities because he has already been served with a lawsuit.

And as for Freemasons in the United States at least, as a group they have zero interest in supporting child pornography or bringing down the Roman Catholic church.

From Albert Pike's book Morals and Dogma:

Thus the Order of Knights of the Temple was at its very origin devoted to the cause of opposition to the tiara of Rome and the crowns of Kings

Re:Please report evidence to civil authorities

[davidwr]

I stand by what I said.

Especially the part about making sure the relevant civil authorities see all available credible evidence.*

*In any big even, there will be some people submitting bogus evidence (e.g. moon-landing deniers). Before contacting the police, please screen the evidence for credibility so you don't waste others' time.

How is it illegal? Easy...

[davidwr]

How in the fuck is it illegal to know that someone else has child porn?

How?

Because a legislature passed a law making it so and this law has not been invalidated.

That's how.

Oh, did you mean how the **** is such a law in any way reasonable? Well, I can point to a lot of laws that are not reasonable but are enforceable and enforced regularly.

Would that church welcome a sex offender?

[davidwr]

For several years, I was pastor of a small Baptist church (on a part-time basis.)

Do you think your former Baptist church would welcome as a parishioner a convicted sex offender who, as an adult over 25, molested someone under, say, 15 years old 10 years ago. Assume he either got probation and completed it or he served less than 10 years in prison and his parole is over with. Assume he fully cooperated with any in-prison and post-release court-ordered rehabilitation programs and as far as anyone can tell, he's successfully completed them.

What about the same situation but he plead down to a non-sex crime so he's not a "convicted sex offender." The only real difference is that he won't present a public relations issue and he might not cause your insurance company to raise your rates.

What about the same situation but he was never charged with any related crime. Assume prosecution is barred for some reason and any civil cases have been settled "under seal" so no record will appear in any background check. Assume he got into therapy shortly after his last criminal act and has been fully cooperative. Assume that the only reason you know is that he came to the minister or governing board voluntarily before asking to join the church.

Now, what about each of these 3 scenarios but it's only been 4 or 5 years since the criminal act? How about if it's only been 1 or 2 years? 1 or 2 months?

In each case, if the church says "no, we don't want you here," where would the church recommend the person worship in a corporate setting? Assume both your former church and the prospective member believe that God requires corporate worship when possible.

--

Would your current Anglican congregation see things any differently?

Mod parent up

[davidwr]

if you are someone who is dealing with a problem, it means you can't seek help from anyone.

Mod parent up.

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[davidwr]

How dare you or any modern man defend superstition, let alone Microsoft Windows?

There, fixed^H^H^H^H^Hgeekified that for you. :)

Yes and no

[davidwr]

1) You can consume child porn without requiring new abuse.

BUT

2) if you consume it in a way that "registers" with any current producers, they may see you as a potential customer and ramp up production.

Example of NOT child abuse:

An elderly man has a stash of now-illegal 1960s magazines. He dies. His horny teenage grandson is cleaning out the house and is aroused by what he sees. No new children were harmed in him looking at them. No producers have any reason to see him as a potential customer. If he enjoyed the photos and the kids weren't his own age he needs therapy and in any case he needs some legal education. The photos need to be destroyed or turned over to a legally-licensed archive (the only ones I know of in the USA are run by the government). However, from a child-abuse perspective this is isn't abuse. What damage that occurred has already happened and there will be no new damage to innocent minors, assuming the horny teenage son isn't viewed as an "innocent" minor.

Example of ramping up demand for child abuse:

A person searches for and finds a web site that is run by child porn producers. Using a proxy so he won't get caught, he downloads enough that the producers notice the increased server load. They say "hmm, looks like we've got a new customer" and they ramp up production hoping the guy comes back for more.

Example of where consumption actually does require new harm to a child, albeit not the child that was in the porn that the viewer looked at:

Assuming an earlier post about child-porn-trading web sites is true, a parent who so far has not abused his kids finds such a site. He sees the "teaser" and gets hooked. In order to sign up for "full access" he has to provide fresh materials. His poor kids are victimized the next day.

maybe... :)

[davidwr]

If they are watching it while driving the very car that is on TV!

*cue rimshot*

Re:Study is in order

[Doc Ruby]

You just did. An anti-intellectual study that shows how different actual studies are from just asking obnoxious questions.

Charge the church itself

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Since the Bishop is a representative of the church, can't the church itself be charged?

We in the US regard corporate entities as persons, as such, they should not be able to reap the benefits of person-hood without suffering the penalties as well.

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[Pseudonym Authority]

Are you trying to insinuate that I am a child? If so, well met. You are clearly superior in intellect to me, what with a jab so clever as yours. I truly commend thee.

Teachers suffer the same false accusations

[msobkow]

Every single male teacher I know has been accused of molestation, abuse, or rape several times by veangeful students or by students who had a "crush" on them that were pissed off over being rejected. Several of the female teachers I know have also been accused, though thats far less common.