GP is a Troll, so don't mistake this for advocating his point of view.
I'm interested in the idea that you think there are cultures out there in the world that aren't organized around greed, selfishness, and making money. Where in the the world does such a thing exist? I'll grant you small, isolated communities - but any system large enough to have an economy at all revolves around greed and selfishness.
Many of the tribal cultures such as in Africa or the Native Americans had an economy based on sharing. It was basically a kind of socialism based around take what you need, and share the rest with the group. They also had sharing with other tribes according to gift giving rituals, very much like how we have Xmas rituals.
They did not have a concept of greed and this is one of the main reasons tribal cultures did not develop the level of technology and sophistication, or the kinds of weaponry. Greed is something which had to be taught to people. When you barter it's a lot more difficult to be greedy. When you live off the land and everyone has plenty of food and water theres no reason to be focused on greed.
Greed came about in Europe because of scarcity. At some point in time it made sense to be greedy because of the harsh environment. There was no tropical environment so there were entire tribes of Europeans who existed in a life where they basically were Vikings, or Pirates, and would survive by killing other tribes and robbing them with advanced weapons. This loot and plunder mentality is where greed came from. It came from the fact that some cultures were experts at making weapons, and this is because their survival didn't depend on farming but depended on killing human and non-human animal.
The cultures which could farm the land did not have to live like this. They simply worked the land and the land gave them unlimited food supply. The cultures who had no food had to go from place to place killing, looting, plundering, and over time they became specialists in this way of living.
It's just a fact that some cultures never developed good weapons because they never needed them. They never had big wars because they never faced the type of desperate situations where killing was the only way to survive. So these cultures never developed the concept of greed.
Selfishness is a part of every culture, greed isnt.
here's a novel concept: practice your religion as you see fit to the extent that you don't coerce others against their will.
That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter. The other 10% are just annoying as hell, but are not likely to stone you or blow themselves up. Muslim, however, seem to be a different thing altogether.
If you think something is a sin, (alcohol, for instance) why can't Muslims simply choose to not drink alcohol and leave everyone else alone? The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim. Parts of the Koran specifically say to convert or kill infidels, although other parts say to respect other's beliefs and leave them alone. While most would likely prefer to convert the infidels with words, and only a minority with force, the problem is that they feel they must convert us at all. The idea of "live and let live" just isn't in their vocabulary.
It is going to take something big to see change or a large amount of time, and frankly, I don't think the rest of the world is going to be patient enough to allow a large amount of time.
The Christian right is behind the banning of homosexuality. Look it up, Sodomy was a crime. Adultery was a crime. They used the law to make being anything but Christian illegal.
So no you cannot say these people aren't still trying. They want to ban abortion and gay marriage now.
If they weren't terrorists before, if you ridicule them you are certainly going to push them in that direction. What is the result if you ridicule the kid in school who wears the funny hat?
The point of the ban is to try and force non-muslims to accept Muslim rules.
An interesting thought experiment would be to imagine that Muslims must take an oath to renounce Islam(not having to choose another religion, just renouncing Islam) upon immigration to generic, prosperous Western countries. How many would give up a safe and comfortable lifestyle and a good education, for themselves and their families, for the sake of religious self-righteousness?
Another principle-related thought experiment: Would the number of abortions increase if men were not obligated to pay child support?
Your myopic cultural bigotry does not contribute to the cause of improving the image of Americans, and it does not accomplish any military, political, diplomatic or strategic objectives. To ask anybody to give up their religion is like asking a man to move to a new society where he has to dress as a woman, or expecting gay people to renounce homosexuality. And the fact that you believe it's all about money shows your narrow thinking. Not every culture is organized around money, thats western culture.
And just because a culture isn't organized around greed, selfishness and making money it doesn't make it bad. So they wont give up their religion, so what? No other immigrant has been asked to give up their religion. Basically you are going to tell them to sign away their soul for citizenship? Why not just make it law that all immigrants must be atheists?
I'm going to assume you are trolling, because nobody but a bigot could really think those ideas are good.
Banning burkas is wrong. Banning websites is wrong. Banning ideas, books, clothing, all of this is wrong. I don't think banning does anything other than irritate and piss people off who might have been peaceable before. If you know a group of people like to wear burkas and you ban it, you just pissed them off and it makes them feel like you just banned THEM. The same can be said if you have millions of people who smoke weed legally and suddenly it's banned. It's the same as if this website were banned.
It's wrong because it fans the flames of hatred against US policy for no real gain politically, culturally, diplomatically, militarily. This accomplishes what?
Not a surprise either. States that have a state religion are firmly rooted in the age of ignorance and oppression. Calling them primitives would be too kind.
Are you saying that Utah a Mormon controlled state is currently being run by uncouth primitives? I think you are ignorant and religiously intolerant for passing judgement on cultures you know little to nothing about. Yes there are aspects of Muslim culture which are backwards and primitive, but there are just as many aspects of American culture which are backward and primitive.
Do you think our greed is good bigger is better sexist racist homophobic culture is any better? Are we better because we destroy peoples lives for money while they do it for honor, respect or something they value more than money? The action is wrong based on the fact that innocent people are harmed or is it only wrong because it's not done to increase profits?
I agree that we have a responsibility to evolve and help develop other cultures but we should not assume that our culture is "better", or that we know everything and cannot learn from other cultures. We can learn a lot from these cultures just as these cultures can learn from us and the problem we have as a society in the west is that we refuse to learn from other cultures but we demand other cultures learn from us.
On top of this we import the worst of our culture along with the best. So they'll get all the polluting Corporate personhood profit is everything mafia style political culture along with free speech and thats it? Look at China, they kept the worst of their traditional backwardness and merely added the worst of our culture on top of it and now they have the worth of both worlds. What they are doing right is they did end torture so thats a positive step but their culture in terms of their form of capitalism is even more destructive than ours.
No culture is superior unless you have a quantitive measurement not based on economic growth but based on the happiness of the individuals living under that culture.
As much as I support free speech and the right of individuals to make fun of Christ, Muhammad, this isnt about the free speech issue. I'm certain that if Muslims made fun of Christians tightly held cultural and religious beliefs there would be outrage from Christians. We all know that Christians have banned more books, censored more ideas than any other religious institution yet we expect Islam to be held to a higher standard?
If we made a website declaring Jesus Christ was a homosexual, wouldn't this anger Christians in this country and don't you think that certain individuals would want the website banned? So lets not be hypocrites here, the majority of Americans support censorship for cultural reasons just like the majority of any other country. Only we want to ban violence, extreme sexuality and other stuff which we consider taboo.
In all honesty any website should be able to post anything as I support free expression. I just find it hypocritical that people can switch from being for free speech in one instance but then when it's free speech that can apply to America suddenly we have to crack down and censor.
Are Jenna Jamenson video's illegal? She was only 17 when she started in the porn industry, but faked her age. I saw it on a VH1 special about her. So are all Jenna Jamenson fans pedophiles? If I looked for her first film would that be child pornography? I also probably spelled her name wrong, but I'm not about to Google her name to double check being at work and all...
My advice to anyone who has a Jenna Jameson video, immediately destroy it. Physically pull the film out of the tape and either dump it in acid or burn it beyond recovery. Then bury it somewhere so that the feds can't dig it out of the trash someday.
If its on your computer then you better wipe with an NSA level wipe after encrypting the file system. It's illegal enough that you could get years in prison just for one picture, and if its a movie you'll probably be treated as a pedophile and make the list/registry.
The problem is that children can be and are victimized. Buying videos of a child's rape should be a crime, you should not be able to just be a passive viewer. This is like buying stolen merchandise, attending dog fights, etc. These are not thought crimes, because there's not just thoughts here; videos are bought, web sites subscribed to, secret exchange networks maintained, etc.
Of course, people are arguing from two sides here. There's the one extreme which I hope most people object to, the rape of a prepubescent child captured on film or video for sale, then the other extreme you've got pictures at a nude beach of someone not quite 18 yet.
The law unfortunately has difficulty with clearly delineating these things. You can't make easy legal tests to determine that someone is sexually and emotionally mature and giving fully informed consent without coercion.
Nobody is arguing that financially supporting the child porn industry should be illegal. This is as evil as giving financial support to terrorists. We are debating whether or not possession of the digital information should be illegal. I don't believe possession of any digital information should be illegal because thats a thought crime.
On the other hand if you subscribe to a child porn site you should go to prison. The reason is because you are financially supporting and promoting the actual abuse. All they have to do is change the law so that possession isn't what makes it illegal. Financial support should be illegal, to assist in the abuse of children or promote it financially should be illegal.
Wouldn't it be logical to create an animated child porn industry? Cartoon child porn would reduce demand for actual child porn according to your logic.
If the goal is to reduce demand without reducing liberty, fake child porn accomplishes that goal.
Lets be realistic, the majority of human beings aren't that. And if the majority aren't crazy like that it makes no sense to create laws expecting people to act like that. Lets put it simple, if you saw someone murdered on tape you wouldn't go and murder somebody would you? Because you have a conscience right?
It has been shown, in multiple studies, that pornography leads to sexual deviancy and inconsistent expectations of sex -- and that individuals will seek out to attempt these acts. Pornography is based on lust and greed. Those two fellows tend to erode a person's sense of morality to the point where they, like you, completely lose their sense of morality. One year ago, you probably considered even the CONCEPT of having child pornography as something despicable. Now, if you bother to look, you're advocating the filth. It's not the world that's changed -- you've probably even degraded to the point where you'll tell me that there's not even such a thing as "right" and "wrong" because those are oh so relative!
The greatest flaw in your psychopathic argument, however, is your disregard for disregard. Normal individuals will see movies where people are murdered and banks are robbed. They will chuckle and label the deeds as "bad" or "misbehavior" and move on. Normal individuals, however, will not masturbate to pictures of death and thievery. Sexuality is one of humanity's most powerful stimuli, and it becomes very dangerous in the hands of people who have lost their sense of right and wrong.
Come on man, you call yourself corporate suit. Let me guess, you are a borderline sociopath who can't get laid and who unlike a normal person cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality?
Unlike you, I do have a conscience and I know right from wrong. I also know the difference between fantasy and reality. Reality is a lot less fun.
If you think pornography makes people into crazed maniacs who are morally bankrupt then explain why Japan has lower incidents of rape and murder than the USA? They have the most pornography so shouldn't they have the most murder? They have prostitution so shouldn't they have the most rapes?
Kiddie porn pictures are not a substitute for "the real thing". If anything, there is considerable evidence that kiddie porn pictures incent the possessor to go and get the real thing.
Also, in most cases these pictures are sold, not given away freely. If there is a demand and a marketplace there will be folks that will supply it. All you need is a camera and a child or two. And children are pretty easy to get. If a child isn't interested in cooperating, they will be after a few slaps.
Just having such a marketplace is incredibly destructive to children. If it was all about just passing pictures around for free and children freely taking them for people's enjoyment that would be a completely different matter.
So you believe it's a statistic fact beyond the margin of error that people do what they watch on TV? People watch horror movies because they secretly want to kill people? People watch gross videos on the internet because they secretly want to do it? This is basically saying that anything a person thinks about for a long enough time, they will be compelled to do it.
This is not true. I'm sure the majority of us have thought about killing people but how many of us are actually murderers? Less than 1% probably. How many individuals who look at child porn or who have been convicted of possession of child pornography are violent enough to actually go molest a child?
The majority of adult individuals know the difference between fantasy and reality. Fantasy is stuff people imagine doing because they'll never be able to do it. People enter fantasy worlds to escape from the mundane real world. Then you have sick monsters who hear voices and have to obey the voices in their head, or who are without conscience and empathy and can rape and torture a child without remorse.
Lets be realistic, the majority of human beings aren't that. And if the majority aren't crazy like that it makes no sense to create laws expecting people to act like that. Lets put it simple, if you saw someone murdered on tape you wouldn't go and murder somebody would you? Because you have a conscience right?
Way ti really, really oversimplify. If CP was just 17 year olds that you had no reason to believe they where below legal age, you would have a point. No take 10 years off that age. Whole new ballgame. While someone will occasional be busted for the reason you described, there are rare and a result of forcing judges to not think about the context of the situation.
really, you're being stupid with that argument. Stupid about how law enforcement is done, stupid about the legal system and stupid about the total spectrum of who this involves.
How are you supposed to believe that to a jury? Physically there is no difference between a 17 and 18 year old. Anybody can be fooled. Honestly there is no difference from 16-20 in some cases. This doesn't change the fact that people can go to jail just for having nude images of a 17 year old even if the 17 year old is just a few months shy of being 18.
Sure you can hack somebody and upload the child porn and charge them with possession. I'm sure this happens to many people which is one of the reasons why possession laws are so flawed. What I'm saying is that distribution would need some legal document attached to it such as a domain registery, ISP records, website logs. And I'm not talking about distributing a few megs, or gigs, but hundreds of gigs. The type of distribution you'd expect to see from a criminal distribution ring.
Traffic analysis and other techniques can be used to get a search warrant. The informants are simply to conduct the search.
Sure it can be abused, but it's a lot better than what we have now.
It's not unconstitutional. And while it's technically impossible, it helps keep it from appearing every where.
How do you have child porn without a victim?
Thought crimes violate free speech rights. Therefore it's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court might not see it that way but the Supreme Court views Corporations as immortals in the highlander sense of the word.
I never said production of child porn isn't child abuse. Obviously to create child pornography is a crime and usually involves child abuse. But you have situations where two children can create child porn themselves and who is the victim here?
It's just not a simple problem to solve. I think the only thing we can do is make sure adults are not preying upon children. Adults should go to prison if they create child pornography. I think everyone universally agrees on this. Adults also should go to prison if they profit from child pornography and everybody universally agrees on this.
Where people disagree is on how we take on the distributors, and on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of possession of bits/thoughts as being a crime. I don't believe possession should be a crime and I think the Japanese have it right. I do believe it should be illegal to make a child porn website or try to profit from child porn because this is preying on the victims of child abuse.
If you think possession being a crime solves a particular problem why don't you highlight what problem it solves?
and searched usenets for childporn. I found it, and then deleted it. Months later my computer was seized by law enforcement because the guy I was renting a room from was under investigation for a completely separate matter.
The deleted cp was discovered and I was charged with posession. No jail time, but did have to work at the local animal shelter for a couple days a week for a couple months. The lawyer bill was about $4,000.
I would probably be much more bitter about the whole episode had I ended up being a Registered Sex Offender. Turns out that in my state the offender registry is reserved for the more serious offenses.
Witches are being hunted down, non-believers are being tortured: it's easy to see all our technological progress and think that we've progressed far beyond the fire and stake.
--
The situation is stupid very stupid and a waste of resources. Did LE ask you to help them track down the maker of the child pornography? I don't see what arresting you has accomplished in the context of making children safer.
This is equal to arresting somebody for possession of a joint, it doesn't stop the flow of narcotics or accomplish anything beyond just having somebody to arrest so that it looks like something is being accomplished.
There are so many cameras and surveillance, with camera phones and facebook that its just too late to be concerned about childrens privacy. Nobody has privacy anymore.
The monster in this situation is the individual who molests the child and then tape records it. The recording is evidence and in my opinion has to be analyzed, the individuals who like watching the evidence might not be actual child molesters and the utilitarian thing to do would be to pay these individuals to find and download child pornography and act as informants to help track down the source.
I don't really think it's a good idea to put people in prison for having illegal bits on their computer. But I do understand that in order to get informants you have to have at least the threat of putting them in prison. That being said I don't think anyone put in prison for having illegal bits should be treated like a sex offender, I think the concept of sex offender now includes anyone convicted of any sort of sex cirme for any reason and in my opinion we need to separate the sex addicts from the violent sex offenders.
Violent sex offenders will use any means including violence, these are rapists, child molesters, the people we believe should be locked in prison for life.
Non-violent sex offenders who are actually sex addicts are in general addicted to a specific substance whether it be bits, a certain pattern of thinking, or a series of behaviors. These individuals get convicted because they have a picture of a 16 year old naked, or they are 21 and had sex with their 17 year old gf. These individuals don't belong in the same category as true violent sex offenders.
The solution in my opinion is to separate the categories so that individuals who are non violent don't get their lives ruined over something dumb. These individuals can help take down the actual violent sex offenders who rape and murder.
However, I personally commend the Japanese for being slow in attempting a censorship sweep that will cost resources and, ultimately, do between little and nothing to actually protect the actual victims.
Obviously, CP is bad.
However, I personally commend the Japanese for being slow in attempting a censorship sweep that will cost resources and, ultimately, do between little and nothing to actually protect the actual victims.
"We're making an appeal today to build a society without child pornography," said Anges Chan, a UNICEF ambassador and well-known media personality in Japan. "We're trying to build a national movement to appeal to the government to outlaw the possession of child pornography."
Unless they can statistically prove that possession of evidence of the crime leads to future crimes against children, having laws against possession is a law that is a problem in search of a solution. If police need search warrants they can find other ways to get them but having a search warrant which only leads to digital copies of evidence of the crime does not actually solve or prevent the crime.
So what is the purpose of tracking every copy? The only purpose I see in doing this is to track down the distributors. This would be fine but lets be serious, all they have to do is offer a bounty. "If you have information which leads to the arrest or conviction of a distributor of child porn you will be rewarded 500,000 yen."
Child prostitution should be illegal everywhere. Child porn is evidence of child prostitution in some cases and child abuse in others. It shouldn't be difficult to block websites from selling it.
To stop people from viewing it is a different matter entirely and in my opinion is technically impossible and unconstitutional because its relying on thought crime legislation. As long as no children are being victimized and nobody is profiting from it, it's not a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
GP is a Troll, so don't mistake this for advocating his point of view.
I'm interested in the idea that you think there are cultures out there in the world that aren't organized around greed, selfishness, and making money. Where in the the world does such a thing exist? I'll grant you small, isolated communities - but any system large enough to have an economy at all revolves around greed and selfishness.
Many of the tribal cultures such as in Africa or the Native Americans had an economy based on sharing. It was basically a kind of socialism based around take what you need, and share the rest with the group. They also had sharing with other tribes according to gift giving rituals, very much like how we have Xmas rituals.
They did not have a concept of greed and this is one of the main reasons tribal cultures did not develop the level of technology and sophistication, or the kinds of weaponry. Greed is something which had to be taught to people. When you barter it's a lot more difficult to be greedy. When you live off the land and everyone has plenty of food and water theres no reason to be focused on greed.
Greed came about in Europe because of scarcity. At some point in time it made sense to be greedy because of the harsh environment. There was no tropical environment so there were entire tribes of Europeans who existed in a life where they basically were Vikings, or Pirates, and would survive by killing other tribes and robbing them with advanced weapons. This loot and plunder mentality is where greed came from. It came from the fact that some cultures were experts at making weapons, and this is because their survival didn't depend on farming but depended on killing human and non-human animal.
The cultures which could farm the land did not have to live like this. They simply worked the land and the land gave them unlimited food supply. The cultures who had no food had to go from place to place killing, looting, plundering, and over time they became specialists in this way of living.
It's just a fact that some cultures never developed good weapons because they never needed them. They never had big wars because they never faced the type of desperate situations where killing was the only way to survive. So these cultures never developed the concept of greed.
Selfishness is a part of every culture, greed isnt.
Is the goal to rid countries of Muslims or to rid countries of extremists of all types?
If you want to bring back the dark ages, vote for Sarah Palin.
I'm not from Europe but I heard that hate sites are banned. Can you explain how this is any different than banning pictures of Muhammad?
here's a novel concept: practice your religion as you see fit to the extent that you don't coerce others against their will.
That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter. The other 10% are just annoying as hell, but are not likely to stone you or blow themselves up. Muslim, however, seem to be a different thing altogether.
If you think something is a sin, (alcohol, for instance) why can't Muslims simply choose to not drink alcohol and leave everyone else alone? The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim. Parts of the Koran specifically say to convert or kill infidels, although other parts say to respect other's beliefs and leave them alone. While most would likely prefer to convert the infidels with words, and only a minority with force, the problem is that they feel they must convert us at all. The idea of "live and let live" just isn't in their vocabulary.
It is going to take something big to see change or a large amount of time, and frankly, I don't think the rest of the world is going to be patient enough to allow a large amount of time.
The Christian right is behind the banning of homosexuality. Look it up, Sodomy was a crime. Adultery was a crime. They used the law to make being anything but Christian illegal.
So no you cannot say these people aren't still trying. They want to ban abortion and gay marriage now.
If they weren't terrorists before, if you ridicule them you are certainly going to push them in that direction. What is the result if you ridicule the kid in school who wears the funny hat?
An interesting thought experiment would be to imagine that Muslims must take an oath to renounce Islam(not having to choose another religion, just renouncing Islam) upon immigration to generic, prosperous Western countries. How many would give up a safe and comfortable lifestyle and a good education, for themselves and their families, for the sake of religious self-righteousness?
Another principle-related thought experiment: Would the number of abortions increase if men were not obligated to pay child support?
Your myopic cultural bigotry does not contribute to the cause of improving the image of Americans, and it does not accomplish any military, political, diplomatic or strategic objectives. To ask anybody to give up their religion is like asking a man to move to a new society where he has to dress as a woman, or expecting gay people to renounce homosexuality. And the fact that you believe it's all about money shows your narrow thinking. Not every culture is organized around money, thats western culture.
And just because a culture isn't organized around greed, selfishness and making money it doesn't make it bad. So they wont give up their religion, so what? No other immigrant has been asked to give up their religion. Basically you are going to tell them to sign away their soul for citizenship? Why not just make it law that all immigrants must be atheists?
I'm going to assume you are trolling, because nobody but a bigot could really think those ideas are good.
Banning burkas is wrong. Banning websites is wrong. Banning ideas, books, clothing, all of this is wrong. I don't think banning does anything other than irritate and piss people off who might have been peaceable before. If you know a group of people like to wear burkas and you ban it, you just pissed them off and it makes them feel like you just banned THEM. The same can be said if you have millions of people who smoke weed legally and suddenly it's banned. It's the same as if this website were banned.
It's wrong because it fans the flames of hatred against US policy for no real gain politically, culturally, diplomatically, militarily. This accomplishes what?
Not a surprise either. States that have a state religion are firmly rooted in the age of ignorance and oppression. Calling them primitives would be too kind.
Are you saying that Utah a Mormon controlled state is currently being run by uncouth primitives? I think you are ignorant and religiously intolerant for passing judgement on cultures you know little to nothing about. Yes there are aspects of Muslim culture which are backwards and primitive, but there are just as many aspects of American culture which are backward and primitive.
Do you think our greed is good bigger is better sexist racist homophobic culture is any better? Are we better because we destroy peoples lives for money while they do it for honor, respect or something they value more than money? The action is wrong based on the fact that innocent people are harmed or is it only wrong because it's not done to increase profits?
I agree that we have a responsibility to evolve and help develop other cultures but we should not assume that our culture is "better", or that we know everything and cannot learn from other cultures. We can learn a lot from these cultures just as these cultures can learn from us and the problem we have as a society in the west is that we refuse to learn from other cultures but we demand other cultures learn from us.
On top of this we import the worst of our culture along with the best. So they'll get all the polluting Corporate personhood profit is everything mafia style political culture along with free speech and thats it? Look at China, they kept the worst of their traditional backwardness and merely added the worst of our culture on top of it and now they have the worth of both worlds. What they are doing right is they did end torture so thats a positive step but their culture in terms of their form of capitalism is even more destructive than ours.
No culture is superior unless you have a quantitive measurement not based on economic growth but based on the happiness of the individuals living under that culture.
As much as I support free speech and the right of individuals to make fun of Christ, Muhammad, this isnt about the free speech issue. I'm certain that if Muslims made fun of Christians tightly held cultural and religious beliefs there would be outrage from Christians. We all know that Christians have banned more books, censored more ideas than any other religious institution yet we expect Islam to be held to a higher standard?
If we made a website declaring Jesus Christ was a homosexual, wouldn't this anger Christians in this country and don't you think that certain individuals would want the website banned? So lets not be hypocrites here, the majority of Americans support censorship for cultural reasons just like the majority of any other country. Only we want to ban violence, extreme sexuality and other stuff which we consider taboo.
In all honesty any website should be able to post anything as I support free expression. I just find it hypocritical that people can switch from being for free speech in one instance but then when it's free speech that can apply to America suddenly we have to crack down and censor.
Are we for censorship or not?
And I don't care if you don't.
And this would be better for the internet. As much as we might not trust Google at least they are fair with their privacy invasion.
Are Jenna Jamenson video's illegal? She was only 17 when she started in the porn industry, but faked her age. I saw it on a VH1 special about her. So are all Jenna Jamenson fans pedophiles? If I looked for her first film would that be child pornography? I also probably spelled her name wrong, but I'm not about to Google her name to double check being at work and all...
My advice to anyone who has a Jenna Jameson video, immediately destroy it. Physically pull the film out of the tape and either dump it in acid or burn it beyond recovery. Then bury it somewhere so that the feds can't dig it out of the trash someday.
If its on your computer then you better wipe with an NSA level wipe after encrypting the file system. It's illegal enough that you could get years in prison just for one picture, and if its a movie you'll probably be treated as a pedophile and make the list/registry.
The problem is that children can be and are victimized. Buying videos of a child's rape should be a crime, you should not be able to just be a passive viewer. This is like buying stolen merchandise, attending dog fights, etc. These are not thought crimes, because there's not just thoughts here; videos are bought, web sites subscribed to, secret exchange networks maintained, etc.
Of course, people are arguing from two sides here. There's the one extreme which I hope most people object to, the rape of a prepubescent child captured on film or video for sale, then the other extreme you've got pictures at a nude beach of someone not quite 18 yet.
The law unfortunately has difficulty with clearly delineating these things. You can't make easy legal tests to determine that someone is sexually and emotionally mature and giving fully informed consent without coercion.
Nobody is arguing that financially supporting the child porn industry should be illegal. This is as evil as giving financial support to terrorists. We are debating whether or not possession of the digital information should be illegal. I don't believe possession of any digital information should be illegal because thats a thought crime.
On the other hand if you subscribe to a child porn site you should go to prison. The reason is because you are financially supporting and promoting the actual abuse. All they have to do is change the law so that possession isn't what makes it illegal. Financial support should be illegal, to assist in the abuse of children or promote it financially should be illegal.
Wouldn't it be logical to create an animated child porn industry? Cartoon child porn would reduce demand for actual child porn according to your logic.
If the goal is to reduce demand without reducing liberty, fake child porn accomplishes that goal.
Lets be realistic, the majority of human beings aren't that. And if the majority aren't crazy like that it makes no sense to create laws expecting people to act like that. Lets put it simple, if you saw someone murdered on tape you wouldn't go and murder somebody would you? Because you have a conscience right?
It has been shown, in multiple studies, that pornography leads to sexual deviancy and inconsistent expectations of sex -- and that individuals will seek out to attempt these acts. Pornography is based on lust and greed. Those two fellows tend to erode a person's sense of morality to the point where they, like you, completely lose their sense of morality. One year ago, you probably considered even the CONCEPT of having child pornography as something despicable. Now, if you bother to look, you're advocating the filth. It's not the world that's changed -- you've probably even degraded to the point where you'll tell me that there's not even such a thing as "right" and "wrong" because those are oh so relative!
The greatest flaw in your psychopathic argument, however, is your disregard for disregard. Normal individuals will see movies where people are murdered and banks are robbed. They will chuckle and label the deeds as "bad" or "misbehavior" and move on. Normal individuals, however, will not masturbate to pictures of death and thievery. Sexuality is one of humanity's most powerful stimuli, and it becomes very dangerous in the hands of people who have lost their sense of right and wrong.
Come on man, you call yourself corporate suit. Let me guess, you are a borderline sociopath who can't get laid and who unlike a normal person cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality?
Unlike you, I do have a conscience and I know right from wrong. I also know the difference between fantasy and reality. Reality is a lot less fun.
If you think pornography makes people into crazed maniacs who are morally bankrupt then explain why Japan has lower incidents of rape and murder than the USA? They have the most pornography so shouldn't they have the most murder? They have prostitution so shouldn't they have the most rapes?
Kiddie porn pictures are not a substitute for "the real thing". If anything, there is considerable evidence that kiddie porn pictures incent the possessor to go and get the real thing.
Also, in most cases these pictures are sold, not given away freely. If there is a demand and a marketplace there will be folks that will supply it. All you need is a camera and a child or two. And children are pretty easy to get. If a child isn't interested in cooperating, they will be after a few slaps.
Just having such a marketplace is incredibly destructive to children. If it was all about just passing pictures around for free and children freely taking them for people's enjoyment that would be a completely different matter.
So you believe it's a statistic fact beyond the margin of error that people do what they watch on TV? People watch horror movies because they secretly want to kill people? People watch gross videos on the internet because they secretly want to do it? This is basically saying that anything a person thinks about for a long enough time, they will be compelled to do it.
This is not true. I'm sure the majority of us have thought about killing people but how many of us are actually murderers? Less than 1% probably. How many individuals who look at child porn or who have been convicted of possession of child pornography are violent enough to actually go molest a child?
The majority of adult individuals know the difference between fantasy and reality. Fantasy is stuff people imagine doing because they'll never be able to do it. People enter fantasy worlds to escape from the mundane real world. Then you have sick monsters who hear voices and have to obey the voices in their head, or who are without conscience and empathy and can rape and torture a child without remorse.
Lets be realistic, the majority of human beings aren't that. And if the majority aren't crazy like that it makes no sense to create laws expecting people to act like that. Lets put it simple, if you saw someone murdered on tape you wouldn't go and murder somebody would you? Because you have a conscience right?
Way ti really, really oversimplify. If CP was just 17 year olds that you had no reason to believe they where below legal age, you would have a point.
No take 10 years off that age.
Whole new ballgame. While someone will occasional be busted for the reason you described, there are rare and a result of forcing judges to not think about the context of the situation.
really, you're being stupid with that argument. Stupid about how law enforcement is done, stupid about the legal system and stupid about the total spectrum of who this involves.
How are you supposed to believe that to a jury? Physically there is no difference between a 17 and 18 year old. Anybody can be fooled. Honestly there is no difference from 16-20 in some cases. This doesn't change the fact that people can go to jail just for having nude images of a 17 year old even if the 17 year old is just a few months shy of being 18.
The laws are fundamentally stupid.
"If you have information which leads to the arrest or conviction of a distributor of child porn you will be rewarded 500,000 yen."
Might want to up the reward, that's less than $5k American, which won't rent you a crappy apartment in downtown Toyko for a month.
I know how much it is. Would you want enough money to buy a state of the art new computer if you turn in the pedophile IRC distribution channel?
Sure you can hack somebody and upload the child porn and charge them with possession. I'm sure this happens to many people which is one of the reasons why possession laws are so flawed. What I'm saying is that distribution would need some legal document attached to it such as a domain registery, ISP records, website logs. And I'm not talking about distributing a few megs, or gigs, but hundreds of gigs. The type of distribution you'd expect to see from a criminal distribution ring.
Traffic analysis and other techniques can be used to get a search warrant. The informants are simply to conduct the search.
Sure it can be abused, but it's a lot better than what we have now.
It's child abuse in all cases.
It's not unconstitutional.
And while it's technically impossible, it helps keep it from appearing every where.
How do you have child porn without a victim?
Thought crimes violate free speech rights. Therefore it's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court might not see it that way but the Supreme Court views Corporations as immortals in the highlander sense of the word.
I never said production of child porn isn't child abuse. Obviously to create child pornography is a crime and usually involves child abuse. But you have situations where two children can create child porn themselves and who is the victim here?
It's just not a simple problem to solve. I think the only thing we can do is make sure adults are not preying upon children. Adults should go to prison if they create child pornography. I think everyone universally agrees on this. Adults also should go to prison if they profit from child pornography and everybody universally agrees on this.
Where people disagree is on how we take on the distributors, and on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of possession of bits/thoughts as being a crime. I don't believe possession should be a crime and I think the Japanese have it right. I do believe it should be illegal to make a child porn website or try to profit from child porn because this is preying on the victims of child abuse.
If you think possession being a crime solves a particular problem why don't you highlight what problem it solves?
and searched usenets for childporn. I found it, and then deleted it. Months later my computer was seized by law enforcement because the guy I was renting a room from was under investigation for a completely separate matter.
The deleted cp was discovered and I was charged with posession. No jail time, but did have to work at the local animal shelter for a couple days a week for a couple months. The lawyer bill was about $4,000.
I would probably be much more bitter about the whole episode had I ended up being a Registered Sex Offender. Turns out that in my state the offender registry is reserved for the more serious offenses.
Witches are being hunted down, non-believers are being tortured: it's easy to see all our technological progress and think that we've progressed far beyond the fire and stake.
--
The situation is stupid very stupid and a waste of resources. Did LE ask you to help them track down the maker of the child pornography? I don't see what arresting you has accomplished in the context of making children safer.
This is equal to arresting somebody for possession of a joint, it doesn't stop the flow of narcotics or accomplish anything beyond just having somebody to arrest so that it looks like something is being accomplished.
There are so many cameras and surveillance, with camera phones and facebook that its just too late to be concerned about childrens privacy. Nobody has privacy anymore.
The monster in this situation is the individual who molests the child and then tape records it. The recording is evidence and in my opinion has to be analyzed, the individuals who like watching the evidence might not be actual child molesters and the utilitarian thing to do would be to pay these individuals to find and download child pornography and act as informants to help track down the source.
I don't really think it's a good idea to put people in prison for having illegal bits on their computer. But I do understand that in order to get informants you have to have at least the threat of putting them in prison. That being said I don't think anyone put in prison for having illegal bits should be treated like a sex offender, I think the concept of sex offender now includes anyone convicted of any sort of sex cirme for any reason and in my opinion we need to separate the sex addicts from the violent sex offenders.
Violent sex offenders will use any means including violence, these are rapists, child molesters, the people we believe should be locked in prison for life.
Non-violent sex offenders who are actually sex addicts are in general addicted to a specific substance whether it be bits, a certain pattern of thinking, or a series of behaviors. These individuals get convicted because they have a picture of a 16 year old naked, or they are 21 and had sex with their 17 year old gf. These individuals don't belong in the same category as true violent sex offenders.
The solution in my opinion is to separate the categories so that individuals who are non violent don't get their lives ruined over something dumb. These individuals can help take down the actual violent sex offenders who rape and murder.
Obviously, CP is bad.
However, I personally commend the Japanese for being slow in attempting a censorship sweep that will cost resources and, ultimately, do between little and nothing to actually protect the actual victims.
Obviously, CP is bad.
However, I personally commend the Japanese for being slow in attempting a censorship sweep that will cost resources and, ultimately, do between little and nothing to actually protect the actual victims.
"We're making an appeal today to build a society without child pornography," said Anges Chan, a UNICEF ambassador and well-known media personality in Japan. "We're trying to build a national movement to appeal to the government to outlaw the possession of child pornography."
Unless they can statistically prove that possession of evidence of the crime leads to
future crimes against children, having laws against possession is a law that is a problem in search of a solution. If police need search warrants they can find other ways to get them but having a search warrant which only leads to digital copies of evidence of the crime does not actually solve or prevent the crime.
So what is the purpose of tracking every copy? The only purpose I see in doing this is to track down the distributors. This would be fine but lets be serious, all they have to do is offer a bounty. "If you have information which leads to the arrest or conviction of a distributor of child porn you will be rewarded 500,000 yen."
Child prostitution should be illegal everywhere. Child porn is evidence of child prostitution in some cases and child abuse in others. It shouldn't be difficult to block websites from selling it.
To stop people from viewing it is a different matter entirely and in my opinion is technically impossible and unconstitutional because its relying on thought crime legislation. As long as no children are being victimized and nobody is profiting from it, it's not a problem.