Why should just looking at -pictures- be illegal?

[Checkmite]

In the tradition begun with my racism thread, I've given this one sort of a provocative title. Sorry to anyone who's gotten the wrong impression. :D If you became angry, or flushed upon reading the title though, I feel you.

I've learned to dislike many things over my long and tedious life (of 23 years). Racism is one; another is child pornography. The mere mention of those two words is enough to repulse some people. Indeed, there isn't much debate about the subject simply because of its utter repulsiveness.

There have been accusations from certain obscure segments of society that the common reaction by most people to child pornography is the result of conditioned behavior, brainwashing by the media, or PC yokels taking control of our thoughts. Some of these people have been brash and demand its legalization (from anonymity, of course); most of these people simply try to question its illegality: what's so bad about looking at mere photographs? It's not like people who trade pictures on the net are necessarily abusing kids, right? Right?

To put it succinctly - wrong. Of course, nobody likes a succinct answer, especially on forums like ours. And I was in the process of writing a very unsuccinct answer when it occurred to me that my opening post would run on forever. See, this is a topic a feel passionate about. In fact, of the three total pages that make up my huge personal website, one is devoted specifically to the fight against child pornography - and I don't think it's large enough.

In any case, once it became apparent that my dissertation on the evils of child pornography would be sort of longish, I decided to save it as an MS Word html file and make it available on my site. For those of you interesting in reading it, click this link (http://www.geocities.com/jkorosi) to go to my homepage. Once there, click the "Help Stop Child Pornography" link, and from that page you can access the file, entitled "Arguments Against Child Pornography". On that document you'll learn what prompted me to start this thread, along with several concise rebuttals to questions or assertions commonly offered by child pornography apologists. Consider it an extension of my O.P. in this thread.

Arguments? Comments? Support?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Support,

I think the topic will remain taboo for a time yet and when discussed there will be controversy.

Law enforcement, educators, consumer advocacy groups, and child advocacy groups are starting to see that with the internet comes a greater risk to children.

It is not a victimless crime as you touched on in your "Arguments".



CSEC (http://www.usemb.se/children/csec/)

Because of the criminal nature of commercial sexual exploitation of children, it is difficult to collect accurate data. However, it is known to be a multi-billion dollar sex trade, into which each year some one million children are drawn. Research suggests that the age of the children involved is decreasing. Most are poor children between the ages of 13 and 18, although there is evidence that very young children, babies even, are also caught up in this horrific trade. They come from all parts of the world.

The term white slave trade or white slave traffic, until recently, was only applied to women drawn into prostitution, but the lucrative trade is accessing children younger and younger . In some cases, traffickers have tattooed girls with their gang symbols, according to a Italian-U.S. working group. Uncooperative girls have been disfigured and even killed.

Albania (http://www.msnbc.com/news/736680.asp)

Eighteen Year Old (http://www.msnbc.com/news/725802.asp)

the international police force created to help maintain order in Bosnia has formed a squad that has raided nearly 100 bars and clubs suspected of holding sex slaves.

Held in Bosnia (http://www.msnbc.com/news/736679.asp)

There are an estimated 770 Bulgarian pimps working at home and abroad — mostly in the Czech Republic and Hungary, Vasil said — controlling 10,000 Bulgarian women, some as young as 14.

Vulgar Bulgaria (http://www.msnbc.com/news/736677.asp)

Police questioned 1,017 suspects, arrested 150 and confiscated firearms and drugs.
They also freed 10 girls ages 17 to 25 from Romania and Moldova who had been kept as sex slaves.


Slaves in YugoSlavia (http://www.msnbc.com/news/736678.asp)


Not to highjack this thread, but to highlight the demand for young meat

A Canadian province tackles child prostitution (http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/edmonton_2000/gandm-001221.html) more than 427 apprehensions have been made involving 194 girls and boys. Most were aged 15 and 16, but there were several 12 year-olds.

ALBERTA COURTS RULE AGAINST CHILD PROSTITUTION LAW
EDMONTON, Aug 1 (LSN.ca) - Last week BC Provincial Court Judge Karen Jordan ruled Alberta's Protection of Children in Prostitution was unconstitutional. The law allows police and social workers to apprehend children working in the sex trade, and take them off the streets for three days. Since its enactment 18 months ago, there have been 183 suspected child prostitutes ranging in age from 12 to 17 have been apprehended and 61 have reformed their lives.

The Alberta government has said it will amend the law according to some of the concerns raised by Judge Jordan but it will continue to enforce it and has appealed Jordan's ruling.

From the National Post August 1, 2000

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

CHild Sex Abuse (http://www.ncptsd.org/facts/specific/fs_child_sexual_abuse.html)

What are the possible long-term effects of child sexual abuse?
If child sexual abuse is not effectively treated, long-term symptoms may persist into adulthood. These may include:

-PTSD and/or anxiety
-Depression and thoughts of suicide
-Sexual anxiety and disorders
-Poor body image and low self-esteem
-The use of unhealthy behaviors, such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, self-mutilation, or bingeing and purging, to help mask painful emotions related to the abuse

Sexual exploitation of children is not as benign as the apologists would like people to believe.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

However, it is known to be a multi-billion dollar sex trade, into which each year some one million children are drawn.

At the risk of being treated like Genghis Pwn*, I'm calling you out on that statement.

None of your links provide this evidence. Where did you find it? A multi-BILLION dollar industry, you say? This is quite a claim.

Look, I'm as anti-exploitation as the next rational person, but your post smacks of unwarranted fearmongering.

*(Not that GP doesn't need to be drawn and quartered, but . . .)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


At the risk of being treated like Genghis Pwn*, I'm calling you out on that statement.

None of your links provide this evidence. Where did you find it? A multi-BILLION dollar industry, you say? This is quite a claim.

Look, I'm as anti-exploitation as the next rational person, but your post smacks of unwarranted fearmongering.

*(Not that GP doesn't need to be drawn and quartered, but . . .)

from CSEC http://www.usemb.se/children/csec/ click on fact sheets, then scope of the problem.

http://www.usemb.se/children/csec/scope.html

LFTKBS, define unwarranted

btw, your challenge is acceptable

all facts/numbers are debatable, there will be controversy, and there will be little if any consensus on the scope of the problem.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

not a recent example but

.
suspects' names were passed to the British authorities by the United States Postal Inspection Service, whose investigation of a now-defunct Texas-based Internet pornography empire led to the arrest of its proprietors, Janice and Thomas Reedy, in December 1999. The Reedys, whose company, Landslide Productions, took in millions of dollars from subscription fees, provided their customers with access to thousands of pedophile Web sites, many of them based in other countries.

310,000 world wide (in this case)subsribers paid $29.95 a month per site for the privilege of viewing files with names like "Child Rape," "I am Fourteen," and "Russian Underage."


Britain's Hunt for Child Pornography Users Nets Hundreds Besides Pete Townshend (http://www.tecrime.com/llartP08.htm)

Crackdown on Wonderland (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/UK/01/10/london.porn.02/index.html)

Italy (http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/italy/10/28/rome.porn/index.html)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Crucify me if you must for this, but:

Evidence that child molestation harms children is not evidence that viewing child porn harms children.

Obviously you can't make hard-core child porn without molesting a child. That should go without saying. But if it's just a picture of a naked kid, it is not necessarily the case that a kid was harmed to make the photo.

It's also worth pointing out that if depictions of rape are evil, then we should be locking up every sicko who has sold, rented or watched Deep Throat. Since that film was made under coercion, and is rape on film by any reasonable definition.

My first point is that our attitudes to child pornography are illogical. Mostly, I think, because "child pornography" covers everything from a photo of an unmolested tot playing on the beach to things too yucky to mention, and it's just not sensible to treat the two extremes the same way.

My second point is that society at large does not display a similar degree of concern about adults who engage in prostitution or pornography, even though the difference is only a matter of age (a few years difference in some cases).

I think it's pretty obvious that "just looking at pictures" is utterly harmless. Conceivably looking at erotic pictures of kids could cause someone to rape a kid, but then again the internet is awash in pictures of adult women ostensibly being raped, date raped or coerced into having sex. (My bet is that these are all or almost all faked, because it has to be cheaper and safer to pay a model than to risk a jail term. I'm sure you get better pictures that way too). Unless the rate at which rapes are committed amongst the net-connected has skyrocketed, I doubt that there is a causal link between viewing ostensibly violent/forbidden erotica and committing sex crimes.

That's why I cringe a bit when I hear about people being locked up for possession of "child pornography", because the news rarely goes into detail about the actual content of the forbidden material. I'm on balance in favour of locking up people who pay for hard-core child pornography, but locking up people who have soft-core material seems about as sensible as locking up homosexuals "because they are a danger to society". I want to see evidence that those people are, beyond reasonable doubt, child rapists before we lock them up.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Crucify me if you must for this, but:

Evidence that child molestation harms children is not evidence that viewing child porn harms children.

Obviously you can't make hard-core child porn without molesting a child. That should go without saying. But if it's just a picture of a naked kid, it is not necessarily the case that a kid was harmed to make the photo.

Firstly, perhaps I should be made clear. I use the NCMEC's definition of child pornography; to wit: "a visual depiction of a child engaged in explicit sexual conduct, alone or with others". I discount "nude beach" photos and other such examples that don't fit the above definition.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
It's also worth pointing out that if depictions of rape are evil, then we should be locking up every sicko who has sold, rented or watched Deep Throat. Since that film was made under coercion, and is rape on film by any reasonable definition.

I don't know about this "Deep Throat" film; however, if any scene within it depicts a real rape, then yes it is evidence of a crime. If someone did not know that the tape documented an actual rape, they cannot be faulted for watching it, just as surely as someone who downloads allegedly legal porn which turns out to be child porn doesn't get arrested if they report the incident. If somebody knows that the flim depicts an actual rape and chooses to watch it anyway, they probably do have serious mental problems.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
My first point is that our attitudes to child pornography are illogical. Mostly, I think, because "child pornography" covers everything from a photo of an unmolested tot playing on the beach to things too yucky to mention, and it's just not sensible to treat the two extremes the same way.

Again, I assert my definition of child pornography as photos which depict activity of a sexual nature.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
My second point is that society at large does not display a similar degree of concern about adults who engage in prostitution or pornography, even though the difference is only a matter of age (a few years difference in some cases).

Illegal prostitution rings are broken up with regularity, in the United States. As for adult pornography, the difference is that adults 1) make the material purposefully and willingly, and 2) they are legally old enough to decide to willingly produce the material.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I think it's pretty obvious that "just looking at pictures" is utterly harmless. Conceivably looking at erotic pictures of kids could cause someone to rape a kid, but then again the internet is awash in pictures of adult women ostensibly being raped, date raped or coerced into having sex. (My bet is that these are all or almost all faked, because it has to be cheaper and safer to pay a model than to risk a jail term. I'm sure you get better pictures that way too). Unless the rate at which rapes are committed amongst the net-connected has skyrocketed, I doubt that there is a causal link between viewing ostensibly violent/forbidden erotica and committing sex crimes.

It's not normal people we're talking about. Normal people won't happen upon a few photos of kids being molested and magically turn into pedophiles. The casual consumers of such material are already inclined toward that direction, as are the ones who use the material to "groom" target kids.

The differences between child porn and legal adult films are manifold. First, again, adult films (even ones suggesting "rape") are made consentually (with the exception of ones like your example above). There are plently of adult porn tapes which even feature women trying to look like minors - but nevertheless it is consentual, legal, and protected by the actors' freedom of speech, however distasteful to you and me.

The reason why child pornography is so expansive, as opposed to other illegal things like documentation of actual rape, is that while rape victims will talk to the authorities immediately, children can be coerced into silence with little effort.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
That's why I cringe a bit when I hear about people being locked up for possession of "child pornography", because the news rarely goes into detail about the actual content of the forbidden material. I'm on balance in favour of locking up people who pay for hard-core child pornography, but locking up people who have soft-core material seems about as sensible as locking up homosexuals "because they are a danger to society". I want to see evidence that those people are, beyond reasonable doubt, child rapists before we lock them up.

Well, what's your definition of "hard core" and "soft core"? The person I spoke to on Yahoo! chat defined "hard core child pornography" as material involving kids with adults, and "soft core" as everything else. If you are using the same definition, then yes, there are still numerous problems.

If you, however, define "soft core" as photos of a non-sexual nature, then I tend to agree with you. Arresting a woman for taking photos of her kid in the bath is ridiculous, and trivializes the real problem of child pornography in the eyes of the public.

[Michael Redman]

"Just looking at the pictures" is illegal for the same reason that driving with an open container of alcohol in the car is illegal. That act, taken by itself, is not necessarily harmful, but it is nearly impossible to seperate that act from other associated and very harmful acts, and so, as a pragmatic measure, that act is also outlawed to make law enforcement easier.

[no one in particular]

I apologize, I have not read this thread in its entirety, so my little bit of impute may be naive about the way this thread has evolved. Not that I am not interested – no, wait, that is it.

Anyway, to look at a picture requires that there is a picture at which you are looking, right? By looking or seeking out the picture at which to look you are creating a demand for such pictures. And, increasing demand will necessarily drive up the supply of the pictures. So, in the case of child porn, more children will be sought to fill the supply.

This is the reason I am not offended by “deviant” anime porn, I see no reason to assume that any form of entertainment will motivate someone to harm others. As long as others are not already being harmed from that form of entertainment, I have no problem with it.


edited -- oops, spelin'.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by no one in particular
I apologize, I have not read this thread in its entirety, so my little bit of impute may be naive about the way this thread has evolved. Not that I am not interested – no, wait, that is it.

Anyway, to look at a picture requires that there is a picture at which you are looking, right? By looking or seeking out the picture at which to look you are creating a demand for such pictures. And, increasing demand will necessarily drive up the supply of the pictures. So, in the case of child porn, more children will be sought to fill the supply.

This is the reason I am not offended “deviant” anime porn, I see no reason to assume that any form of entertainment will motivate someone to harm others. As long as others are not already being harmed from that form of entertainment, I have no problem with it.


edited -- oops, spelin'.

What about people who are over 18 and are made to look younger, either with make-up or with some computerized graphic techniques? No children are being harmed. I still am unsure how I feel about this.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by rachaella


What about people who are over 18 and are made to look younger, either with make-up or with some computerized graphic techniques? No children are being harmed. I still am unsure how I feel about this. In this situation, at least in the US, no minors are being subjected to criminal activity, so I certainly would have no problem with that.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rachaella


What about people who are over 18 and are made to look younger, either with make-up or with some computerized graphic techniques? No children are being harmed. I still am unsure how I feel about this.

This is tricky. I may have my own opinion of those who would consume such material, but none of my arguments against true child pornography could hold up here.

I would caution anyone who creates or collects such material, however. I've always been under the impression that photos altered thusly were stupidly obvious. But, I suppose if somebody created material with such "skill" (if that's the word) that the person depicted does in fact look like a minor, the whole "It's an adult just digitally altered to look like a kid" argument may be difficult to support and may not hold much water in the courts.

[Thumper]

In this age of PageMaker, how does one prove it really is a minor? Well, actually, in this age of non-minors purposefully trying to appear underage, how does one prove it really is a minor? Or is the burden of proof on the accused?

[RPG Advocate]

Mere possession of any matter, whether it be drugs, guns, or child porn, should never be illegal. Possession laws are a police state's best friend. For something to be illegal, it needs to be an overt act that causes direct harm.

In the linked article, you seem to suggest that looking at a child porn image is an extension of the crime committed as a result of making that image. As much as you hate the idea, these are two seperate acts. Merely looking at the image is a victimless crime, while the creation of that image is not. Those involved in the molestation process and those whol film these acts should receive long prison terms (10-20 years per count), but not mere possessors. Traiffickers are somewhere in between. They should be receive prison terms between 10% and 80% of the length of the original creators, based on how much and what type of porn is being trafficked.

Regarding the right-to-privacy argument, it's the creators and traffickers that are causing the privacy violation, not possessors.

Tar and feather me if you must, but I believe targetting enforcement efforts at only the direct threat will do a better job at interdicting the supply of child porn, while protecting relatively harmless citizens from prosecution.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
Regarding the right-to-privacy argument, it's the creators and traffickers that are causing the privacy violation, not possessors.


That's false. Looking through somebody's bedroom window and taking pictures while they're changing, for instance, is a blatant violation of privacy - whether he knows it's happening or not. There is no fundamental difference between looking through a kid's bedroom window and viewing child pornography. You don't have permission. In the case of a minor, you cannot legally get permission. "Viewing an image" is doing the same thing as looking through the window, just doing it remotely.

Besides, the demand from the consumers of such material are the reason the "creators and traffickers" exist in the first place. It is for the "innocent" possessors' gratification that children are abused. It is impossible to seperate them from the process.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Thumper
In this age of PageMaker, how does one prove it really is a minor? Well, actually, in this age of non-minors purposefully trying to appear underage, how does one prove it really is a minor? Or is the burden of proof on the accused?

If the subject of the photo appears beyond a reasonable doubt to be a minor, he/she is considered a minor by the court. Remember, even in the case of real child pornography, the state does not actually need to have identified the subject in order to prosecute.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


If the subject of the photo appears beyond a reasonable doubt to be a minor, he/she is considered a minor by the court. Remember, even in the case of real child pornography, the state does not actually need to have identified the subject in order to prosecute.

So, guilty until proven innocent.

[RPG Advocate]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


That's false. Looking through somebody's bedroom window and taking pictures while they're changing, for instance, is a blatant violation of privacy - whether he knows it's happening or not. There is no fundamental difference between looking through a kid's bedroom window and viewing child pornography. You don't have permission. In the case of a minor, you cannot legally get permission. "Viewing an image" is doing the same thing as looking through the window, just doing it remotely.

Besides, the demand from the consumers of such material are the reason the "creators and traffickers" exist in the first place. It is for the "innocent" possessors' gratification that children are abused. It is impossible to seperate them from the process.

Perhaps, but if you accept this notion of "trickle-down liability", then you must also accept other onerous scenarios. For instance, under your logic, if a paprazi photographer takes a picture of a celebrity and is later found to be liable for violating that celebrity's right to privacy, then anyone who ever viewed that photograph would also be liable. Of course, this doesn't happen. Only those who create the infringing matter and those who facilitate its mass distribution (such as a tabloid or newspaper) are held liable.

The only difference between child porn and the case cited above is the fact that child pron is morally repugnant, which generates shock value. Of course, the Drug War, with its stupid possession laws, is also conducted on "shocking statistics" Trickle-down liability gives the state carte blanche to abuse its authority to prosecute (again, see the Drug War for numerous examples of outrageous proseuctions).

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate


Perhaps, but if you accept this notion of "trickle-down liability", then you must also accept other onerous scenarios. For instance, under your logic, if a paprazi photographer takes a picture of a celebrity and is later found to be liable for violating that celebrity's right to privacy, then anyone who ever viewed that photograph would also be liable. Of course, this doesn't happen. Only those who create the infringing matter and those who facilitate its mass distribution (such as a tabloid or newspaper) are held liable.

That's because the people who purchased the newspaper or tabloid were not necessarily aware that this or that particular set of photographs were violations of privacy; everybody is used to seeing plenty of non-violative photos of celebrities and they typically don't give it a second thought. There are journalistic standards, and consumers cannot be faulted for expecting this or that newspaper to uphold them. Since many such suits celebrities bring are settled out of court regularly, end-users typically will never know that a set of photographs has in fact been deemed violative.

On the other hand, there isn't a single instance of child pornography that is not a violation of privacy. In fact, necessary violation of privacy is one of the main intentions behind the stuff, the whole point. When it comes to child pornography, everybody who intentionally downloads the images is, in essence, a "tabloid" that the pornographer is selling his wares to. Just as surely as paparazzi would take fewer and fewer offending photos if there was no demand for them, child pornography would not be so widely available if there wasn't an audience - the end users - constantly demanding newer and more explicit photos.

[Tez]

Lets imagine that the 100% digital "people" that the japanese in particular are expending much energy in creating become so good that the child porn can be made purely digitally - a function only of some sick adults mind. My question is, is there any scenario under which distribution of such material could be illegal? Analogy: Is distribution of racist literature inspiring people to go out and kill all blacks etc illegal? I think in some places (Germany?) it may be.. What if, instead of literature specifically inciting people, digitally created pictures of blacks being tortured were distributed. Would they be illegal? Should they be? What if they weren't created digitally?

[no one in particular]

Greetings, Tez. I do not think that a simulation, of any kind, of a crime should be considered a crime. Another analogy, and something we are very used to, is murder on television and in movies. I see no practical difference in a violent movie and anime child porn. Both are simulated crimes. I would require good evidence that viewing entertainment encourages the viewed behavior. If that turns out to be the case, then we have a massive entertainment industry that should be up for an overhaul.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tez
Analogy: Is distribution of racist literature inspiring people to go out and kill all blacks etc illegal? I think in some places (Germany?) it may be...

You´re right. It is illegal in Germany.

Anyway, back to the topic...

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Tez
Lets imagine that the 100% digital "people" that the japanese in particular are expending much energy in creating become so good that the child porn can be made purely digitally - a function only of some sick adults mind. My question is, is there any scenario under which distribution of such material could be illegal?

I'm not sure, but I don't think so.

Originally posted by Tez
What if, instead of literature specifically inciting people, digitally created pictures of blacks being tortured were distributed. Would they be illegal?

Again I'm not sure, but I don't think so.

Originally posted by Tez
What if they weren't created digitally?

Depends. In the case of a non-digitally-created-yet-still-simulated instance, I don't suppose it would be. In fictional works, black (and white) people get shot, stabbed, run over and ripped apart by dinosaurs on something of a regular basis. Were somebody to create and distribute actual photographs of any person being tortured - then (like child pornography) the photographs are technically records that document a crime, and are evidence which can be used against the perpetrators.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Were somebody to create and distribute actual photographs of any person being tortured - then (like child pornography) the photographs are technically records that document a crime, and are evidence which can be used against the perpetrators. Well put. That is precisely what I have been trying to say. I will take it a bit further and add that anyone who purchases material that depicts an actual crime should be considered an accessory to the crime. This is because they are creating the demand for the material.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Well put. That is precisely what I have been trying to say. I will take it a bit further and add that anyone who purchases material that depicts an actual crime should be considered an accessory to the crime. This is because they are creating the
demand for the material.

So I cant buy a video of the J.F.K. assassination?

How about a video of a bank robbery?

The media goes out of its way to show us video of crimes in progress.

Think about it.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


That's because the people who purchased the newspaper or tabloid were not necessarily aware that this or that particular set of photographs were violations of privacy; everybody is used to seeing plenty of non-violative photos of celebrities and they typically don't give it a second thought. There are journalistic standards, and consumers cannot be faulted for expecting this or that newspaper to uphold them. Since many such suits celebrities bring are settled out of court regularly, end-users typically will never know that a set of photographs has in fact been deemed violative.

On the other hand, there isn't a single instance of child pornography that is not a violation of privacy. In fact, necessary violation of privacy is one of the main intentions behind the stuff, the whole point. When it comes to child pornography, everybody who intentionally downloads the images is, in essence, a "tabloid" that the pornographer is selling his wares to. Just as surely as paparazzi would take fewer and fewer offending photos if there was no demand for them, child pornography would not be so widely available if there wasn't an audience - the end users - constantly demanding newer and more explicit photos.

What about people like journalists or authors who wish to view child pornography for purposes of investigation? Should they be arrested?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon


So I cant buy a video of the J.F.K. assassination?

How about a video of a bank robbery?

The media goes out of its way to show us video of crimes in progress.

Think about it.

Thought about it. Here's what I thunk up:

The person who took the JFK assassination video was not taping for the purpose of filming an assassination. It's a video of the motorcade, which happens to document the assassination. Intent is crucial. I'm sure that what Tez was referring to was an instance of a co-perpetrator intentionally taping a specific crime; perhaps as a means of bragging, humiliating the victim, or future self-gratification.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rachaella


What about people like journalists or authors who wish to view child pornography for purposes of investigation? Should they be arrested?

That's a tough one, and the primary reason there isn't a whole lot of literature about child pornography out there - fear, that without being able to view the material in question, the researcher will not have as much of a grasp on the story.

Yet off the top of my head, I can think of absolutely no single way in which viewing child pornography can assist a journalist or author in his research. Can you? If one wants to know "how bad it gets", he needs only to interview a federal agent or police officer who has to deal with the stuff as part of a victim identification program.

Again, I must suggest a book called Beyond Tolerance, by Phillip Jenkins. Jenkins obtained his data by going to newsgroups in which child porn traders discussed what they referred to as "the hobby". He interviewed police officers, searched news records, quoted perpetrators, and developed a serious in-depth study of the child pornography question without having to download a single image. If you read his book, I'm sure you'll find that there's absolutely no journalistic base that could possibly be left uncovered simply because researchers can't legally view the material itself.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Thought about it. Here's what I thunk up:

The person who took the JFK assassination video was not taping for the purpose of filming an assassination. It's a video of the motorcade, which happens to document the assassination. Intent is crucial. I'm sure that what Tez was referring to was an instance of a co-perpetrator intentionally taping a specific crime; perhaps as a means of bragging, humiliating the victim, or future self-gratification.

Well then his rule just got a thousand times more subjective.

How is the person who has a video supposed to know what the intent was when it was filmed?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon


Well then his rule just got a thousand times more subjective.

How is the person who has a video supposed to know what the intent was when it was filmed?

Let's say a video is of a man being beaten by a gang of hoods. If the camera is right up close to the action, and if the video begins when the beating starts and ends when the beating stops, and if the camera guy can be heard laughing and carrying on about the action, then it's safe to assume the intent is to videotape the beating and nothing else. In a case in Ohio which took place about 4 years ago, several kids with paintball guns got in a car at night and were driving around, coming up to pedestrians and shooting them. One of the kids in the car carried a camera and videotaped each assault. He can clearly be heard amongst the chorus of the other kids, laughing and saying things like "f*ck yeah!", and once manages to fire off a few paintballs himself. What do you think this person's intent was?

These aren't across-the-street-from-a-living-room-window, spur-of-the-moment, quick-get-the-camera-some-cops-are-beating-a-black-guy videos. The individuals filming are clearly accessories to, if not direct participants in, the crime itself. Do you see the difference?

If we apply your question to the main topic of child pornography, the person who downloads or buys the material obviously knows what the "intent when it was filmed" was, because the intent when it was filmed is one of the reasons he downloaded or bought it the first place.

[may flower]

Nah......Take a look!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't feel guilty at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

May Flower

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Let's say a video is of a man being beaten by a gang of hoods. If the camera is right up close to the action, and if the video begins when the beating starts and ends when the beating stops, and if the camera guy can be heard laughing and carrying on about the action, then it's safe to assume the intent is to videotape the beating and nothing else. In a case in Ohio which took place about 4 years ago, several kids with paintball guns got in a car at night and were driving around, coming up to pedestrians and shooting them. One of the kids in the car carried a camera and videotaped each assault. He can clearly be heard amongst the chorus of the other kids, laughing and saying things like "f*ck yeah!", and once manages to fire off a few paintballs himself. What do you think this person's intent was?

These aren't across-the-street-from-a-living-room-window, spur-of-the-moment, quick-get-the-camera-some-cops-are-beating-a-black-guy videos. The individuals filming are clearly accessories to, if not direct participants in, the crime itself. Do you see the difference?

If we apply your question to the main topic of child pornography, the person who downloads or buys the material obviously knows what the "intent when it was filmed" was, because the intent when it was filmed is one of the reasons he downloaded or bought it the first place.


This is all well and good. Youve pointed out places where its not subjective. Now please address my question about when it IS subjective.

The stand was made that watching a crime on video made you an accessory to the crime. Then later it was ammended to include only those cases where the intent by the perpetrator was to record and profit from the crime.

Consider that the definition of child is different in various places on this wonderful planet of ours. In some countries (and not backwards ones, either) it is perfectly legal to include 13 year olds in pornography (hard-core and soft-core). 13 year olds can also get married in these cultures. Clearly in those cultures the intent isnt a crime.

Too many ways to go on witch hunts. Also such a generalized rule seems to make research a crime.

[Edited to add: How do you know what you are downloading until you've downloaded it?]

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon

Consider that the definition of child is different in various places on this wonderful planet of ours. In some countries (and not backwards ones, either) it is perfectly legal to include 13 year olds in pornography (hard-core and soft-core). 13 year olds can also get married in these cultures. Clearly in those cultures the intent isnt a crime.

In those places, what we refer to as child pornography is not illegal. But right now, at this time, and in this culture, it is illegal. It is also a crime to import illegal material to the United States, even if that material may be legal elsewhere. The United States has jurisdiction (and has exercised it in the past) over foreigners who purposefully transport illegal material into the United States. Note: uploading a file to a computer located in the United States is considered transporting it into the United States.

Originally posted by rockoon
Too many ways to go on witch hunts. Also such a generalized rule seems to make research a crime.

I've covered the "research" angle in a reply to someone else.

Originally posted by rockoon
[Edited to add: How do you know what you are downloading until you've downloaded it?]


New to the net? :)

Depends on where you are downloading it from. If you are on a peer-to-peer network and you download a file with a name like "Man raping 9-year-old girl", that indicates intent to download illegal material, and you are busted if you are caught. If you download something like "Sunset over Glacier Bay in June" and it turns out to be child porn, you will not be considered to have committed a crime if you delete it straight away. Elsewhere on the internet, it's the same thing. If you go to a site advertizing child porn, and an image is downloaded to your computer, you are busted. If you surf to a site with an innocent name and inadvertently download an illegal image, you will not be charged as long as you delete it.

It is worth noting that it is astronomically unlikely that you will ever "accidentally" come upon child pornography - but if it does happen, you're safe. It would also be helpful to report it.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

It is worth noting that it is astronomically unlikely that you will ever "accidentally" come upon child pornography - but if it does happen, you're safe. It would also be helpful to report it.

New to the net?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon


New to the net?

No, I'm a regular net vet. That's why I'm qualified to make such a statement.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


No, I'm a regular net vet. That's why I'm qualified to make such a statement.

You have over-rated your qualifications. That much is clear to this net vet.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon


You have over-rated your qualifications. That much is clear to this net vet.

Fair enough. How often, and where, have you accidentally come across child pornography?

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Fair enough. How often, and where, have you accidentally come across child pornography?

Saying where is probably a crime. Lets just say that mixed in with regular porn is child porn and that often the filenames do not give it away. Also mixed in with porn are snuff films and anime.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon


Saying where is probably a crime.

:confused: I don't see how. I'm not looking for URLs, just descriptions, like "a commercial porn site" or "a personal webpage".

I assume that you deleted any illegal files as soon as you encountered them? In that case, you are safe, at least.

But I wonder; did you bother to report the sites that were distributing this material?

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


:confused: I don't see how. I'm not looking for URLs, just descriptions, like "a commercial porn site" or "a personal webpage".

I assume that you deleted any illegal files as soon as you encountered them? In that case, you are safe, at least.

But I wonder; did you bother to report the sites that were distributing this material?

Ok.. file sharing services.

Report what exactly? That some bloke in Chile is offering pictures of naked 13 year olds for download? Its legal in Chile. Its also legal in: Burkina Faso, Columbia, Guyana, Korea (North and South), Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraquay, Phillipines, Spain, Syria, and Zimbabwe.

The list I give is probably not complete and may not include recent changes to the laws of these countries. All of these countries allow SEX between 13 year olds and what we would traditionally call adults (they would say 13 year olds are adults).

[Keneke]

Yeah..the ONLY time such a mix-up like that happens is file sharing services. Are they part of the internet? I dunno, just saying.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Firstly, perhaps I should be made clear. I use the NCMEC's definition of child pornography; to wit: "a visual depiction of a child engaged in explicit sexual conduct, alone or with others". I discount "nude beach" photos and other such examples that don't fit the above definition.


Fair enough.

That's still a definition that might capture some things I find unobjectionable, depending on what you mean by "explicit". Does "explicit" mean a kiss, or nudity, or full frontal nudity, or penetration, or what?

Depending on where you draw the line, I might or might not agree that child-porn-by-your-definition is necessarily wrong.


I don't know about this "Deep Throat" film; however, if any scene within it depicts a real rape, then yes it is evidence of a crime. If someone did not know that the tape documented an actual rape, they cannot be faulted for watching it, just as surely as someone who downloads allegedly legal porn which turns out to be child porn doesn't get arrested if they report the incident. If somebody knows that the flim depicts an actual rape and chooses to watch it anyway, they probably do have serious mental problems.

Sorry, but it seems to me that you have evaded the question.

Deep Throat is a very famous pornographic film from the 70s. The lead actress was forced to make the film. This is a matter of public record.

Are you in favour of arresting those who sell or rent the film? Those who view the film? If not, why not? What's the difference between Deep Throat and the kind of child porn you think people should be locked up for viewing?


Illegal prostitution rings are broken up with regularity, in the United States. As for adult pornography, the difference is that adults 1) make the material purposefully and willingly, and 2) they are legally old enough to decide to willingly produce the material.


That's a legal difference, but is it a moral difference?

It's perfectly conceivable that someone who is legally underage in the USA could purposefully and willingly participate in making a pornographic film or picture.

Saying "they aren't young enough to consent" is articulating a legal fiction, not a moral truth. There are some very mature and sensible fifteen year olds in the world, and some very silly twenty year olds. Plus there are many places in the world where it's perfectly legal for an adult to have sex with a consenting partner who would be a minor by USA standards.

There is also an element of real moral weirdness about people who froth with rage at the idea that a 15 year old might see the sex industry as an attractive option because of their circumstances, but shrug their shoulders at an 18 year old in the same position. If it's terrible for one person to be in that position, it's terrible for anyone, and if it's okay it's okay for everyone.


It's not normal people we're talking about. Normal people won't happen upon a few photos of kids being molested and magically turn into pedophiles. The casual consumers of such material are already inclined toward that direction, as are the ones who use the material to "groom" target kids.


This actually works against the case that viewing pictures causes harm.


The differences between child porn and legal adult films are manifold. First, again, adult films (even ones suggesting "rape") are made consentually (with the exception of ones like your example above).


Yes, but the idea that people under 18 cannot consent is a legal fiction. The existence of this fiction is not evidence that viewing pictures causes harm.


There are plently of adult porn tapes which even feature women trying to look like minors - but nevertheless it is consentual, legal, and protected by the actors' freedom of speech, however distasteful to you and me.


I don't care what other people do or watch in the privacy of their bedrooms, unless someone gets hurt. It doesn't do it for me particularly, but I don't see it as distasteful any more than I see furries as distasteful. Dress up as a pumpkin if that turns you or your partner on, it's none of my business.


The reason why child pornography is so expansive, as opposed to other illegal things like documentation of actual rape, is that while rape victims will talk to the authorities immediately, children can be coerced into silence with little effort.


Factual error: lots of adult rape victims do not talk to the authorities.


Well, what's your definition of "hard core" and "soft core"? The person I spoke to on Yahoo! chat defined "hard core child pornography" as material involving kids with adults, and "soft core" as everything else. If you are using the same definition, then yes, there are still numerous problems.


My understanding was that HC depicted actual sex acts, as opposed to SC which shows nudity but not actual sex.

I don't see how having their picture taken nude is going to be more stressful for a child than, say, being yelled at or physically punished by a parent. There are far worse things that adults can legally do to kids, or can do to kids without going to prison, than taking their picture.

If making a kid feel awful is a heinous crime, then a lot of physical ed teachers should be in prison along with the child molesters. So there has to be more to it than that, if locking people up for viewing pictures is to make sense.


If you, however, define "soft core" as photos of a non-sexual nature, then I tend to agree with you. Arresting a woman for taking photos of her kid in the bath is ridiculous, and trivializes the real problem of child pornography in the eyes of the public.

Agreed.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon


Ok.. file sharing services.

Report what exactly? That some bloke in Chile is offering pictures of naked 13 year olds for download? Its legal in Chile. Its also legal in: Burkina Faso, Columbia, Guyana, Korea (North and South), Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraquay, Phillipines, Spain, Syria, and Zimbabwe.

The list I give is probably not complete and may not include recent changes to the laws of these countries. All of these countries allow SEX between 13 year olds and what we would traditionally call adults (they would say 13 year olds are adults).

If the person in Chile (where it is legal) uploads an image on your computer which is in the United States (where it is illegal), the person in Chile has committed a crime. By the way, I assume you've confirmed that this person does, in fact, live in a country where the material is legal.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Fair enough.

That's still a definition that might capture some things I find unobjectionable, depending on what you mean by "explicit". Does "explicit" mean a kiss, or nudity, or full frontal nudity, or penetration, or what?

I can think of no instance in which a kiss alone has been classified as explicit sexual conduct. Nor can I think of an instance in which any sort of nudity in and of itself is classified as explicit sexual conduct, since nudity isn't "conduct". I'm not sure if you're serious, or you're being purposefully obtuse. To help you out: "explicit sexual conduct" literally means "activity which is unequivocally sexual in nature". Yes, penetration is conduct, and it is explicitly sexual.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Sorry, but it seems to me that you have evaded the question.

Deep Throat is a very famous pornographic film from the 70s. The lead actress was forced to make the film. This is a matter of public record.

That something is a matter of "public record" means nothing; I'm sure many people weren't and aren't aware of that fact.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Are you in favour of arresting those who sell or rent the film?

No.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Those who view the film?

No.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
If not, why not?

Because there's no way to prove absolutely whether or not they were aware that the film depicted an illegal act.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
What's the difference between Deep Throat and the kind of child porn you think people should be locked up for viewing?

The difference is that, as opposed to your example, everybody knows that child pornography is illegal. It's not just a fact that happens to be publically available; it's a fact that is actually common knowledge. There is a reason why nobody who's ever been caught with the stuff has tried to use "I didn't know it was illegal" as an excuse - it's not valid.

Of course, the actress certainly has the ability to sue to prevent anybody from selling or renting the movie. She has that recourse. Children do not.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
That's a legal difference, but is it a moral difference?

In and of itself, no. There are moral objections, such as the fact that children typically need to be abused in order to produce the material; there is also the before-mentioned "right to privacy" objection - though I suppose if one doesn't consider kids' right to privacy an important enough point, it won't stop them.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
It's perfectly conceivable that someone who is legally underage in the USA could purposefully and willingly participate in making a pornographic film or picture.

Saying "they aren't young enough to consent" is articulating a legal fiction, not a moral truth. There are some very mature and sensible fifteen year olds in the world, and some very silly twenty year olds. Plus there are many places in the world where it's perfectly legal for an adult to have sex with a consenting partner who would be a minor by USA standards.

A couple of points. Firstly, the vast overwhelming majority of child pornography involves children younger than 13 (according to Children For Sale by Ellen Lukas). Secondly, while there may be very mature and sensible fifteen-year-olds, there is absolutely no way to tell whether the subject is one through looking at photographs. I've seen the relativity argument in several places, most recently it was given by a friend who protested "drinking and driving", and drinking age laws. According to him, each person should be restricted according to how well he personally holds his liquor. In theory that would be the most fair way; however, police often do not know that a person has passed his "safe drinking point" until they find him already driving recklessly or behaving dangerously. Because the determination of each single person's limit would be pretty much impossible without violating Due Process law and expending an exorbitant amount of resources, the people of each state have approved the use of a blanket legal limit applicable to everyone. In order to uphold the people's edict, the police apply the limit equally to everyone. That means that if police find somebody who is obviously driving inebriated, but is below the legal blood-alcohol limit, they can keep him until he sleeps it off but cannot charge him with drunk driving.

Apply this principle to legal minority status. The people of the United States have decided that since there's absolutely no way in hell the police can determine the mental and emotional maturity of every single person, there will be a blanket legal age of maturity. That means the law cannot say "we think this person is mature enough" if they are under the age of majority; it also means the law cannot stop a 25 year old that's obviously too immature to really take care of himself or make significant decisions from doing anything he wants.

When the victims portrayed in child pornography speak of their experiences, a clear trend emerges - the subjects are either coerced, or perform because they believe they are expected to (as opposed to actively consenting). Even in the case of admitted consentual sex, no minor has ever claimed to have invited the dude who comes in with the camera. Since the ratio of minor participants in child pornography that relate pleasant experiences to minor participants that relate unpleasant experiences is nearly nil, evidence in hand can only lead us to conclude that children used in pornography will in all probability have a negative experience, will most likely not overtly consent to the acts performed, and will almost certainly not consent to the photographs being taken. This information is what has led to the determination that child pornography will always be considered a coerced act.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
There is also an element of real moral weirdness about people who froth with rage at the idea that a 15 year old might see the sex industry as an attractive option because of their circumstances, but shrug their shoulders at an 18 year old in the same position. If it's terrible for one person to be in that position, it's terrible for anyone, and if it's okay it's okay for everyone.

This argument is sort of tangental and irrelevant.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
This actually works against the case that viewing pictures causes harm.

My argument was IRT the consumers of child pornography. Harm from the viewing of the pictures is done to the victim portrayed in the photograph, both directly (as the demand for pictures encourages the producer to abuse the child further) and indirectly (violation of privacy), and to victims of child molesters who use the photos to "prove" to them that what the molester wants to do is "ok" or "normal".

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Yes, but the idea that people under 18 cannot consent is a legal fiction. The existence of this fiction is not evidence that viewing pictures causes harm.

Covered.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I don't care what other people do or watch in the privacy of their bedrooms, unless someone gets hurt. It doesn't do it for me particularly, but I don't see it as distasteful any more than I see furries as distasteful. Dress up as a pumpkin if that turns you or your partner on, it's none of my business.

Exactly. The same right to privacy should be afforded to children, in theory; yet some people are completely lost on this, and make a point of violating kids' privacy for their own gratification.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I don't see how having their picture taken nude is going to be more stressful for a child than, say, being yelled at or physically punished by a parent. There are far worse things that adults can legally do to kids, or can do to kids without going to prison, than taking their picture.

Victims have expressed a sense of constant fear or shame knowing that "inappropriate" photographs of them have been copied hundreds of times and scattered all over the world. Is the fundamental right to privacy simply not a good enough reason for you? I can think of plenty of worse things to. Not being "the worst possible thing" doesn't make something a-OK.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
If making a kid feel awful is a heinous crime, then a lot of physical ed teachers should be in prison along with the child molesters. So there has to be more to it than that, if locking people up for viewing pictures is to make sense.

There is more to it. People who collect child pornography create a demand for child pornography. Demand for child pornography means more children must be abused to satisfy the demand.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


If the person in Chile (where it is legal) uploads an image on your computer which is in the United States (where it is illegal), the person in Chile has committed a crime. By the way, I assume you've confirmed that this person does, in fact, live in a country where the material is legal.

I did not. How was I going to do that? By the time i'm viewing it the download is done so even if I have the technical savvy to get the IP address while the download is happening its kind of late for that.

Also, while viewing it, I see only what *appears* to be someone who is under-age, an act that *appears* to be a rape, or an act that *appears* to be animal abuse. What I know for certain is those times ive mistakenly gotten this stuff, the audio has never been in english.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon


I did not. How was I going to do that? By the time i'm viewing it the download is done so even if I have the technical savvy to get the IP address while the download is happening its kind of late for that.

Also, while viewing it, I see only what *appears* to be someone who is under-age, an act that *appears* to be a rape, or an act that *appears* to be animal abuse. What I know for certain is those times ive mistakenly gotten this stuff, the audio has never been in english.

On P2P networks you'll run into the stuff, and of course it's not your responsibility to run IP checks or anything. Had you run into the stuff on the internet (where it is astronomically hard to find, as I mentioned), it would be different.

Whenever something "appears" to be illegal, the prudent thing is to delete it anyway, and notify the police where applicable - it's up to them to determine whether something that "appears" to be child porn really is. If for some reason you were found with the material on your computer, you could try running a list of places where the stuff is legal by the judge, or insist that while it "appears" to be illegal, you were giving in the benefit of the doubt; but the outcome is bound to be unpleasant.

[Chanileslie]

I usually avoid threads like this because it tears my heart to think of all the children who are hurt and abused by adults who should know better, but don't give a flying fig about the welfare of the child. I believe children should be loved, coddled and spoiled rotten.

That said, to address some of the comments I have seen in this thread.

Viewing child pornography doesn't hurt the child: Bull puckey. A child had to be used to make that child porn, and veiwing it creates a demand that will lead to more children being abused in this horrific manner. So does viewing it hurt a child? Yes, it does.

Will a child ever recover from child abuse of a sexual nature? Yes, many will and will go on to lead productive happy lives, but it is not an easy thing to do when ones trust and happiness was exploited so young by those who should have been trust worthy.

I have seen how much pain a child can be in from this type of behavior from guilt, confusion, hurt, and physical pain. Children many times will blame themselves for the behavior and will even believe that some how they brought this on to themselves. Confusion from the conflicting emotions that a trusted adult violated that trust and from adults who claim it is 'okay'. Hurt from the implied and sometimes actual threats that are made to the child so the child will not tell. Physical pain because very young children are not physically developed to accept the sexual advances of a full grown adult and it can cause much damage.

A child is not a fully developed human being in body and mind, and are often not equipped to deal with the consequences of these acts of violence. Mentally and physically, and to take advantage of someone in such an intimate manner that a person has power and authority over, is the worse kind of abuse.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


On P2P networks you'll run into the stuff, and of course it's not your responsibility to run IP checks or anything. Had you run into the stuff on the internet (where it is astronomically hard to find, as I mentioned), it would be different.


Oh my.. are you saying P2P isnt part of the internet? I think you are confusing 'The World Wide Web' with 'The Internet'. I thought you were a net vet. In the beginning there was no WWW there was only The Internet made up chiefly of the 3 main protocals: Telnet, Gopher, and FTP. Other popular protocals have since appeared such as HTTP (aka WWW), POP3, etc.. all of these protocals communicate over the internet.


Whenever something "appears" to be illegal, the prudent thing is to delete it anyway, and notify the police where applicable - it's up to them to determine whether something that "appears" to be child porn really is. If for some reason you were found with the material on your computer, you could try running a list of places where the stuff is legal by the judge, or insist that while it "appears" to be illegal, you were giving in the benefit of the doubt; but the outcome is bound to be unpleasant.

Who are you preaching to? I delete the stuff as soon as I discover what it is. Why are you preaching? This all stems from the claim that the intent of the film makers somehow is applicable to the legality of the films. Since then we have been speaking about something where the intent of the film makers is legal in their juristiction. Preaching to me is an avoidance of the very clear problem with the original claim about the intent being important.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon

Who are you preaching to? I delete the stuff as soon as I discover what it is. Why are you preaching?

For the benefit of the audience. I try it as much as possible.

This all stems from the claim that the intent of the film makers somehow is applicable to the legality of the films. Since then we have been speaking about something where the intent of the film makers is legal in their juristiction. Preaching to me is an avoidance of the very clear problem with the original claim about the intent being important.

The intent is still important, and I've already explained why. That there are places in the world where such material may not be illegal is what's completely irrelevant. If we lived in Chile, you would have a point. We don't, so you don't. We are not in any of those places, nor is material coming here from those places somehow "exempt", nor does the fact that such places exist nullify the "intent" problem.

Children are not required to obtain a basic education in Oman, Nigeria or Zimbabwe either. Would you use such an argument to insist that the United States' mandatory education laws should be stricken?

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

The intent is still important, and I've already explained why.


No, you have not. You have done everything but do that.


That there are places in the world where such material may not be illegal is what's completely irrelevant.


Its completely relevant to the intent of the film makers. Please stop avoiding this issue. Either face the fact that the intent of the film maker is NOT an issue, or please explain why it is. So far you have done everything but do that. My stand is that the intent is not an issue at all and never enters the picture. That murder on video is LEGAL regardless of the intent because there are no laws against the possession of murder on video. This is why we can buy a video of J.F.K. being hit with bullets or any of the video series 'Faces of Death' where there is certainly crimes on video including murder and suicide.


We are not in any of those places, nor is material coming here from those places somehow "exempt", nor does the fact that such places exist nullify the "intent" problem.

Children are not required to obtain a basic education in Oman, Nigeria or Zimbabwe either. Would you use such an argument to insist that the United States' mandatory education laws should be stricken?

You fail to see why we are not exempt. It is because we have laws against the possession of such material. Intent doesnt play a role.

[ceptimus]

Why are you so worried about the depiction of (simulated) child abuse, but tolerate, even encourage and support the depiction of other crimes?

Watch any film and you will likely see speeding cars. You will likely also see cold blooded murder. The same is true of computer generated graphics, even including roll playing games where you, 'get to be the murderer'.

Now is child abuse is a worse crime than murder? If it is permitted that murder be depicted in films and roll playing games, why the double standard? If I want to watch or buy films depicting child abuse (and I know that no child was actually abused in the making of the film) then I should be allowed to do so. Similarly, I should be allowed to buy a roll playing computer game where I 'get to be the child abuser'.

I don't wish to be drummed out of this forum, so I must add that I don't wish to watch or buy these things. It is a sad reflection on the lack of critical thought that takes place in this so-called critical thinking forum, that I should feel the need to add this rider.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon


You fail to see why we are not exempt. It is because we have laws against the possession of such material. Intent doesnt play a role.

Nonsense. In our legal system, intent is key. Indeed, in most criminal cases, intent (or "motive") is crucial. If a person dies at your hands, intent decides to what degree you will be punished. If you unwittingly download (and therefore possess, even for a few seconds) child pornography, lack of intent means that you won't get in trouble for it. If a child pornographer intends to create illegal photographs, exposes the film, and takes the film to a developer where it is discovered, he still gets in trouble - even though he never technically possesses any actual illegal photographs, because the intent is evident. If a computer is given to a repair shop, and the repair shop discovers illegal material on it, the repair shop doesn't get charged even though they are in technical possession of the material, because there was no intent on the repair shop's behalf. If somebody comes to a website which claims in no uncertain terms to sell pornographic photographs of 8-year-old girls for a fee, and that somebody initiates a transaction without knowing the process is being monitored by the authorities, he is put in jail, because even though he never possessed any illegal material, it is clear he intended to.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
That there are places in the world where such material may not be illegal is what's completely irrelevant. If we lived in Chile, you would have a point. We don't, so you don't. We are not in any of those places, nor is material coming here from those places somehow "exempt", nor does the fact that such places exist nullify the "intent" problem.

Well, I find the Chilean porn director case to be quite interesting. The relevancy of the legality in Chile of making this porn is highly relevant. In fact, I think the worst you could charge this director with is smuggling (transporting the material across borders illegally). However, a good case could be made that the downloader is the only one doing the smuggling, as they are actually bringing it across the border. However, the downloader might not be aware he has illegal material (perhaps the actors appear over 18, and the video was not labeled as child porn because it is not, in Chile). Has any crime been committed? What is it?

A similar case would be if I wrote books on how the Holocaust never happened, called them 'European historical documents' or something not anti-Semitic, and some German fellow downloads them from my website while looking for actual European historical documents. Who has committed crimes?

[Andalyn]

You guys are mixing two issues slightly -

One: Intent to commit crime. On crimes such as what we are describing - it is generally considered an element of the crime, and falls apart without it.

Crimes such as traffic law, and other certain misdemeanors don't require intent.

TWO: Possession. Again, for the matter of child porn - you would certainly have to prove possession, or in some of the examples listed - the Chain of Possession.

In other words, take the porn photographer who takes his film to the developer and leaves the film to be developed.

You must prove chain of possession from photographer to developer. Developer had no intent to knowingly possess photos - nor did he knowingly cause the photos to be created - therefore by chain of possession we find the accused, then attempt to prove intent.

We must show possession - then intent. We really need to get the photos or film in the hands of the photographer at some time during the incident - if possible.

However, what if someone was just intending to photograph young girls - but was stopped before hand? He had the intent - but did not complete the act.

Well, that is illegal here - and would be proven then by access and communication to the minors in question, possession of equipment, etc.

[Eos of the Eons]

I've seen zillions of sites with 'lolitas', and saying it is art. Then there's all those kids who are posing as 'models', and dirty old men send them clothes to pose in. Those poses are hardly model poses, but explicit.

Then you get to the child abuse that happens. I've seen sites where kids are in explicit positions with animals even. Why the hell anyone would want some dog get fallacio from a kid is beyond me.

Then a zillion more young girls nude who looked stoned and drunk.

Sad thing is that I've never gone looking for the shi*t. It's there and pops up when doing searches on the most innocent of subjects.

Someone pretending to get murdered is different than someone pretending to be raped as a child. That kid has to go through some stuff that no kid should be depicting. I can play dead. It's not a big deal. Kids in sex acts with adults is deplorable.

Does anyone go out of their way to watch actual murders? Yes. I've heard of snuff films. but millions more get their hands on actual depictions of child abuse.

Murder is illegal, and an actual murder on tape is sickening. Murders you see on tv aren't actual murder, and you don't see someone actually die. To deptict child abuse though, a child has to be abused. It's not pretend.

Rights to watch what you want? How do watch child abuse that is 'pretend child abuse'? Murders on tv are pretend and we know the difference.

I like how some people put their rights to look at something over the rights of children.

[voidx]

Just to address a few internet points. Intent to purposely download could be a hard area to pin down on the net. As Rockoon mentions, on IRC using Fserves while directories exist dividing pics into categories, it happens that at times pics filenames and the like are mislabelled. Also I've seen it happen that people have nick lists that they just at random send files too. If you accept DCC transfers by default and minimize them, you often don't always notice the transfer as with high speed the file is sent within seconds. One wouldn't necessarily know until they went looking through their files and found these extraneous pics. I do agree that if you're going to a webpage or newsgroup specifically labelled as such then you also have knowledge of what you are downloading, and are doing it purposefully.

Also the comment of a guy in brazil running an fserve with images that while legal in his country are illegal in ours, that if I download something from him, you could go after him for importing said content into the US or Canada. This is another grey area, and until concrete laws are made to govern these area's of the internet, you cannot make this statement. Guy in Brazil has no control over WHO connects to his Fserve and downloads WHAT content, so it makes it pretty hard to show that he is purposefully helping import illegal contents. One could say that this is the chance he takes, but I just see this as a useable, and perhaps lawfully so, loophole for guy in Brazil to get away with this.

Also while yes on some level people looking at these pictures, or any fetish pictures encourage more demand for them we also have to remember that most people take these pictures in the first place to satisfy their own pleasures and fetishes, legal or not, whether we like it or not. While its mentioned how much money is made of child porn and while I was surprised at the number mentioned and would want to look at it more closely as it seems very high. It would have to be shown that the majority of people taking child porn pics where doing so for profit and money, and not for their own purposes. If most people do it for their own purposes and then it ends up on the internet as merely a side affect after, then people looking at the pictures are having less of an influence in created a so-called demand for it.

If children are being exploited more as a result of internet porn, and I'm sure on some level this is the case, and if it can be shown, then we need to be doing more in this regard and I'm all for it. But as with all things I must set aside my own repugnance with the idea of it, and try to look at it as objectively as possible. It just appears to me on the issue of viewing increasing demand that its not perhaps as cut and dried as you are putting forth. And as usual again we have to make sure that the actions we're taking are having a noticeable and efficient effect. If going after the viewers of porn, is in the end too much effort for too little a noticeable decrease in the child porn being created and distributed, then perhaps our time, money and effort and yes even legislation can be put to better use attacking this problem from a different angle.

[Eos of the Eons]

And as usual again we have to make sure that the actions we're taking are having a noticeable and efficient effect. If going after the viewers of porn, is in the end too much effort for too little a noticeable decrease in the child porn being created and distributed, then perhaps our time, money and effort and yes even legislation can be put to better use attacking this problem from a different angle.

Yes. I totally agree.


Why are the kids being exploited? Are people taking the pictures close to the kids? We should do more to stop the making of it. Stopping the viewing is redundant. Do kids know who and how they can report being taken advantage? Do kids know that someone taking pictures of them naked is not right, especially if that person is making money off of it, and especially if they are abusing the kids and making money, not just taking pictures.


You have to get to the root to kill the network.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Nonsense. In our legal system, intent is key. Indeed, in most criminal cases, intent (or "motive") is crucial. If a person dies at your hands, intent decides to what degree you will be punished. If you unwittingly download (and therefore possess, even for a few seconds) child pornography, lack of intent means that you won't get in trouble for it. If a child pornographer intends to create illegal photographs, exposes the film, and takes the film to a developer where it is discovered, he still gets in trouble - even though he never technically possesses any actual illegal photographs, because the intent is evident. If a computer is given to a repair shop, and the repair shop discovers illegal material on it, the repair shop doesn't get charged even though they are in technical possession of the material, because there was no intent on the repair shop's behalf. If somebody comes to a website which claims in no uncertain terms to sell pornographic photographs of 8-year-old girls for a fee, and that somebody initiates a transaction without knowing the process is being monitored by the authorities, he is put in jail, because even though he never possessed any illegal material, it is clear he intended to.

You have continued to avoid discussing the intent of the film maker and how that might apply to my possession of the material.

You've done this multiple times. Thanks.

I think its safe to say at this point that the second claim that the intent of the film maker is important has now been avoided so much that the intent of the film maker is moot.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by rockoon


I think its safe to say at this point that the second claim that the intent of the film maker is important has now been avoided so much that the intent of the film maker is moot.

Okay.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Why are the kids being exploited? Are people taking the pictures close to the kids? We should do more to stop the making of it. Stopping the viewing is redundant. Do kids know who and how they can report being taken advantage? Do kids know that someone taking pictures of them naked is not right, especially if that person is making money off of it, and especially if they are abusing the kids and making money, not just taking pictures.

That's why talking about the issue is important. Even people who more easily discuss other types of child abuse are sort of clammy when it comes the the pornography aspect. It's a vile subject. But, it needs to be discussed, for exactly the reasons you've mentioned - so many people think the problem is overblown or exaggerated, or that the people who actually get arrested regularly are only patrons of "teen model" websites and such.


Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

You have to get to the root to kill the network.


You're absolutely right. However, I still think that finding end-users is an important part of the big picture. In order to know where to dig and find the root, you must first find out where the trees are.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
You're absolutely right. However, I still think that finding end-users is an important part of the big picture. In order to know where to dig and find the root, you must first find out where the trees are.
I don't see that going after the end-users helps lead you to the makers and distributors of child porn. While sometimes you might get lucky and a person having the pictures also has made them. Being that these images are on the internet, doing a search and going to the website will give you as good a lead as you're going to get in tracking these people down. A viewer has no idea where the images come from, they only know what site they downloaded them off, in most cases, a site that got the image from somewhere else. The images are passed around so much and so often like all porn that it would be quite difficult to track them down. Grilling a viewer of this porn looking for information isn't going to get you anywhere.

Again to me this issue should over-ridingly be about the children affected. It very much seems to me that going after the users under the guise of decreasing demand and finding information to lead to the distributors is barking up the wrong tree. Its debatable just how much viewing increases demand, and its almost a certainty that the viewers have no idea where the images came from. It seems more of a morale crusade against the people viewing the images simply because they are easier to find. That coupled with the thought of while its disgusting someone might take these pictures in the first place, how far worse is it to be a person that then wants to view them. I think this is a societal reflex, and to me the person making the pictures in the first place is the worse of the two perpetrators here.

My biggest problem with the viewing issue is that its a grey area of sexuality. I'll state out front that I'm not being an apologist here, just stating what I understand, or think about how people view porn, all porn. In many instances porn is an escape from reality. Porn images are a quick and dirty fantasy, that are 100% safe. People view types of porn, acts depicted in images, that they would never conceive of doing in real life. To sit quietly in ones home and download a few dirty images of anything from hardcore anal sex, to golden showers, to bestiality, and for some perhaps child porn, is a safe way of fantasizing about something they would be disgusted to ever do in real life, and in fact would not be able to do. Peoples opinions of what constitutes true hardcore varies greatly. For some looking at a few pictures of anal sex might be "oh gosh so dirty", to others its run of the mill and common and so "hardcore" takes on other forms. It is impossible to 100% draw the conclusion that, porn viewed, is porn wanting to be acted out for real. In fact in many cases I believe its the opposite. Porn viewed is a fantasy, that is only ever meant for the mind, never to be played out, because real life often does not live up to our own fantasies, or porn fueled fantasies. Do some people have an unhealthy obsession with porn? Of course. Do some people act upon these obsessions? Obviously. Does viewing images of porn encourage someone to act on these obsessions, or would they have done them anyway? That part is debateable, that area is rather grey, and so I think its imprudent to go charging off and rounding up porn viewers under the flag of decreasing child porn. Strictly because the "you view child porn therefore you want to go out and have sex with children for real" conclusion cannot be concretely made. If you find their viewing habits reprehensible and against all moral decency then state that as your reason for going after them. I see this as two seperate issues. One is helping stop the distribution and making of child pornography. The other is dealing with the moral implications of the people that view such material. I myself do not think its been shown that cracking down on the latter, helps reduce or prevent the former. And if I had to choose one of the two as more important, it would overwhelming be the former.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by voidx

I don't see that going after the end-users helps lead you to the makers and distributors of child porn. While sometimes you might get lucky and a person having the pictures also has made them. Being that these images are on the internet, doing a search and going to the website will give you as good a lead as you're going to get in tracking these people down. A viewer has no idea where the images come from, they only know what site they downloaded them off, in most cases, a site that got the image from somewhere else. The images are passed around so much and so often like all porn that it would be quite difficult to track them down. Grilling a viewer of this porn looking for information isn't going to get you anywhere.

While it's true that most likely an end-user will not have information about where exactly a picture came from, it is equally true that nearly every single producer of the stuff that has been apprehended was caught because the authorities became aware of his identity through an end-user. People who download things always leave the electronic equivalent of a paper trail behind.

One of the most successful stings, Operation Cathedral, was begun when American police found a couple of end users. They followed links to other users, and in turn to other users, and eventually to a few Britons. These Britons were traced eventually to a group of over 180 pornographers who operated a highly secret worldwide collection-distribution "club". Several of these people took photographs themselves; others obtained photographs from different sources, some of which were tracked down by police in Europe.

There was an interesting fluke that happened recently, wherein a thief who was robbing a house found photos of his own underage sister in the house, leading to the owner's arrest. But the case is called a freak even by the police. The fact of the matter is, if somebody takes such pictures but never distributes them, it's unlikely he'll ever be caught. The authorities need to bust end-users because that's where the chain of evidence they need begins.

Of course, there's also the fact that most end-users caught these days are not just end-users, but are themselves also distributors; re: file-share collectors who make their collections available to "trade".

[voidx]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
While it's true that most likely an end-user will not have information about where exactly a picture came from, it is equally true that nearly every single producer of the stuff that has been apprehended was caught because the authorities became aware of his identity through an end-user. People who download things always leave the electronic equivalent of a paper trail behind.

This depends on the format by which its downloaded. If done off of IRC or fserves and newsgroups then that makes sense that someone could download something from a user, and have at least an IP address to start with. That person may not go back onto IRC under the same quise, so having any IP connected to someone who shared porn is a lead that might not be able to be obtained as easily on their own. Websites are somewhat more static. I guess what I'm getting at here is you say you raid the house of a viewer, find their pics, and try to trace back the trail of where those pics came from and the users that provided them. So raiding viewers gives you that first link in the lead. Why could this not be obtained by simply searching for this material themselves (authorities that is) and then start the trail from there? Either way you're getting that crucial first piece of information. Is raiding viewers the only way this information can be obtained? I highly doubt it. But I will concede that yes they may personally know people that they trade pics with, and that this could "possibly" lead back to distributors. But for every person that knows something, how many know nothing, and provide no clues?


One of the most successful stings, Operation Cathedral, was begun when American police found a couple of end users. They followed links to other users, and in turn to other users, and eventually to a few Britons. These Britons were traced eventually to a group of over 180 pornographers who operated a highly secret worldwide collection-distribution "club". Several of these people took photographs themselves; others obtained photographs from different sources, some of which were tracked down by police in Europe.

See this example is what I'm getting at. They raided the first users and simple got a list of other users. I find it hard to believe the only way to find this second level of users was by raiding the first level of users. How did officials find the first end-users? Why couldn't they just continue using those methods to continue the trace all the way back? In the end the result was good and the distribution centre was shutdown, however, I still fail to see how they could only have done this by raiding a viewers home and going from there. It merely troubles me that this is the justification of sorts for these raids in the first place.


There was an interesting fluke that happened recently, wherein a thief who was robbing a house found photos of his own underage sister in the house, leading to the owner's arrest. But the case is called a freak even by the police. The fact of the matter is, if somebody takes such pictures but never distributes them, it's unlikely he'll ever be caught. The authorities need to bust end-users because that's where the chain of evidence they need begins.

The chain of evidence in my opinion starts with where the photo's are being hosted from. Something that with some rudimentary searching of the internet, the officials could obtain without raiding the homes of viewers. If this man never distributed the images, busting end-users would do nothing as I've indicated. He never distributes the pictures, meaning no end-user would ever be in possesion of them, meaning no link from an end-user would ever have lead back to this man. This case was indeed a fluke, and I'd prefer to know more about it before commenting. I do certainly hope the man was also charged for B&E.


Of course, there's also the fact that most end-users caught these days are not just end-users, but are themselves also distributors; re: file-share collectors who make their collections available to "trade".
Well lets define distributors. I strongly disagree with this assertion. I download a picture of child-porn with no knowledge of who made it, where it came from etc. I then put this in my queue for a peer to peer file share program and am now "distributing" it. This absolutely does not change the fact that I have no knowledge, and had no involvement in the original offense. I define distributors as anyone making, or having direct contact with people who do make porn, with the intent of distributing it to others. So while you may term most end-users also distributors, this doesn't mean whatsoever that they have any direct involement in the process, or even any pertinent information about those that do.

I just have a problem with making an assumption that most viewers will likely have some contact with people actually making the porn, and therefore committing the actual offense. Too assume that people who view porn are also actively involved in the acts it depicts is I would challenge unfounded. You start charging people based on the groundwork of things they may have thought about doing in a fantasy scenario in their head, and I think this is getting into hazy and perhaps dangerous territory. If it could be shown that most often, raiding an end-user often results in being able to track things down to the distributor, then hey, I'm for it. Most of the examples I hear of is an end-user is caught, and the site hosting the pics, or user hosting the pics is caught and charged. In these examples I think its a wasted effort because it never gets back to the people committing the offense against the child in the first place. Of course if I'm wrong, and these raids more often then not result in catching the original perpetrators, then I'll gladly concede this too you.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by voidx

This depends on the format by which its downloaded. If done off of IRC or fserves and newsgroups then that makes sense that someone could download something from a user, and have at least an IP address to start with. That person may not go back onto IRC under the same quise, so having any IP connected to someone who shared porn is a lead that might not be able to be obtained as easily on their own. Websites are somewhat more static. I guess what I'm getting at here is you say you raid the house of a viewer, find their pics, and try to trace back the trail of where those pics came from and the users that provided them. So raiding viewers gives you that first link in the lead. Why could this not be obtained by simply searching for this material themselves (authorities that is) and then start the trail from there? Either way you're getting that crucial first piece of information. Is raiding viewers the only way this information can be obtained? I highly doubt it. But I will concede that yes they may personally know people that they trade pics with, and that this could "possibly" lead back to distributors. But for every person that knows something, how many know nothing, and provide no clues?

...

See this example is what I'm getting at. They raided the first users and simple got a list of other users. I find it hard to believe the only way to find this second level of users was by raiding the first level of users. How did officials find the first end-users? Why couldn't they just continue using those methods to continue the trace all the way back? In the end the result was good and the distribution centre was shutdown, however, I still fail to see how they could only have done this by raiding a viewers home and going from there. It merely troubles me that this is the justification of sorts for these raids in the first place.


Perhaps I should've added more information. I think you're proceeding from a set of misconceptions.


According to the latest literature (the books I've mentioned half a dozen times on this thread already), most child pornography distribution is not done using a set website which accepts credit cards, etc. Whenever a website is used, is exists only for a few hours. The website does not have a familiar domain name; only a string of numbers and letters in some nonsensical order. The website address is posted to a newsgroup or sent via email. The website is also password-encrypted, and the passwords are sent to very specific people - the "secure" people. These sorts of websites get found by actively concerned citizens regularly, but they cease to exist before law enforcement is able to examine them. While law enforcement may decide to sit and monitor the newsgroups all day (waste of resources?) until they find a hit, they won't be able to crack the password(s). Face it: unless you're one of the trusted kindred, you will never be able to access and obtain actionable information from one of these websites. Law enforcement must first find the end-users - the "trusted kindred" - before they even become aware of the existence of these networks in the first place.

The police do not use search engines or surf the web to actively look for child porn because however many "links" they come across, they definitely will not find it. It is also very difficult for a police officer to infiltrate a network and become one of the "trusted kindred" because becoming one typically involves the "end-user" submitting child pornography to begin with. Police will not do this, so the network knows they can trust somebody who does.

You seem to not understand how these people are found. It is commonplace for police to inspect the residence of a child molester and find kiddy porn on his computer. When police become aware of a child porn collector that does not abuse kids, it is because the suspect has left evidence where third parties find it - on computers at work or school to be found by a coworker or student; on computers at home to be found by a spouse, child, or visiting friend. Thus, the person hasn't just "collected" images; through omission he has participated in the dissemination of the material, sometimes to minors, and the juju is bad.

When the "first users" were raided, they didn't simply get a list of "other users". Those other users were ipso facto distributors. In addition, none of the people arrested or implicated were folks who had 10 or 20 or even 100 images of child pornography on their computers. The pedophile club destroyed by Operation Cathedral (the "Wonderland Club") required all new members to submit at least 10,000 images of their own. The images were added to the "database" of over three quarters of a million files that the members could access. In a network, there are no real "end-users"; everybody is a distributor.


Originally posted by voidx
The chain of evidence in my opinion starts with where the photo's are being hosted from. Something that with some rudimentary searching of the internet, the officials could obtain without raiding the homes of viewers.

This is simply not true, and I've already explained why. You will come up with hundreds of "hits" and not one single lead by merely searching on the internet.

Originally posted by voidx
If this man never distributed the images, busting end-users would do nothing as I've indicated. He never distributes the pictures, meaning no end-user would ever be in possesion of them, meaning no link from an end-user would ever have lead back to this man. This case was indeed a fluke, and I'd prefer to know more about it before commenting. I do certainly hope the man was also charged for B&E.

Exactly. This man did take the photos himself (apparently along with a friend). You place a higher priority on this type of offender as compared to the so-called "end-user", and rightfully so; but if it weren't for the fluke burglary, this higher-priority offender quite possibly could never have been apprehended. Only a minority of "end-users" caught are able to actually provide a link to distributors or producers, of course. But, as of this point in time, it is currently the most effective way police have found in tracking the distributors or producers down. There really is no other "way", without relying on more flukes.

Yes, the burglar (actually, it was a kid) is charged with B&E, as he should be, because burglary is still an offense.

Originally posted by voidx
Well lets define distributors. I strongly disagree with this assertion. I download a picture of child-porn with no knowledge of who made it, where it came from etc. I then put this in my queue for a peer to peer file share program and am now "distributing" it. This absolutely does not change the fact that I have no knowledge, and had no involvement in the original offense.

File-sharing is a funny thing. True, it's impossible to follow a file-share chain to the original distibution point. But that may be a moot fact; it is very rare to find somebody who has only a couple of illegal files in his shared folder. Child pornography distributors typically share hundreds at a time. If you don't believe me, browse the file list of somebody who happens to be sharing a file with an obvious name like "10-year-old raped by babysitter". I'll tell you one thing: you probably won't find any Tom Petty in their file list. Also, people who trade such large volumes of material do not disguise the material's content. But because of fileshare's relative anonymity, the authorities are limited in their capabilities with even these people.

Originally posted by voidx
I define distributors as anyone making, or having direct contact with people who do make porn, with the intent of distributing it to others. So while you may term most end-users also distributors, this doesn't mean whatsoever that they have any direct involement in the process, or even any pertinent information about those that do.

So absolutely nobody who distributes massive amounts of child pornography can be called a "distributor" unless he is either the photographer or the photographer's agent?

If somebody is distributing hundreds of child pornography images over the internet, you don't think that warrants any attention from law enforcement, unless they can be proven to have pertinent information about the source? Ponder this: how would the police find out whether those people have any pertinent information about the source? Time's up: they arrest them, obtain a search warrant, and look for the pertinent information. If they don't find any, oh well. But if they do...

Originally posted by voidx
I just have a problem with making an assumption that most viewers will likely have some contact with people actually making the porn, and therefore committing the actual offense. Too assume that people who view porn are also actively involved in the acts it depicts is I would challenge unfounded. You start charging people based on the groundwork of things they may have thought about doing in a fantasy scenario in their head, and I think this is getting into hazy and perhaps dangerous territory. If it could be shown that most often, raiding an end-user often results in being able to track things down to the distributor, then hey, I'm for it. Most of the examples I hear of is an end-user is caught, and the site hosting the pics, or user hosting the pics is caught and charged. In these examples I think its a wasted effort because it never gets back to the people committing the offense against the child in the first place. Of course if I'm wrong, and these raids more often then not result in catching the original perpetrators, then I'll gladly concede this too you.

Again, how do you think the "end-users" are found in the first place? When police find collectors of child pornography, it is typically because they are already investigating for another crime, most often child molestation (no, this does not mean I'm saying most cp collectors are also sex offenders, because we have no way of knowing. All we know is how the cops find the collectors they find). If the collector isn't being investigated already, then he's found out because he either wittingly or unwittingly allowed the dissemination of the material. That's a crime in itself. The police never find these people on a hunch.

And again, while not every busted collector provides a chain, nearly every single chain the police do find has been provided by a collector. So while on it's face the busting of collectors may seem like an inefficient method, right now it's just about the only method - efficient or not. If police gave up busting collectors as "not worth it", no producers would ever be found.

But of course, police cannot give up busting collectors, since they have themselves committed offenses like dissemination or molestation already.

[Luggage]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

When the "first users" were raided, they didn't simply get a list of "other users". Those other users were ipso facto distributors. In addition, none of the people arrested or implicated were folks who had 10 or 20 or even 100 images of child pornography on their computers. The pedophile club destroyed by Operation Cathedral (the "Wonderland Club") required all new members to submit at least 10,000 images of their own. The images were added to the "database" of over three quarters of a million files that the members could access. In a network, there are no real "end-users"; everybody is a distributor

Operation Cathedral were, at least the part of it taking place in Norway, a complete fiasco. I think about 8 people were raided, and I'm not sure they got a single conviction out of it. One young man who were raided in this operation took his own life. It is very likely that he was innocent. The police were using irc logs obtained from a ringmember in England to find out who to raid. If you had been on a certain irc channel, you got a visit from the police.

It's possible the operation did some good other places, here it was just an example of poor policework. I'm not trying to derail your thread here, it's just that this hit very close to home with me.

--
Luggage

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Luggage


Operation Cathedral were, at least the part of it taking place in Norway, a complete fiasco. I think about 8 people were raided, and I'm not sure they got a single conviction out of it. One young man who were raided in this operation took his own life. It is very likely that he was innocent. The police were using irc logs obtained from a ringmember in England to find out who to raid. If you had been on a certain irc channel, you got a visit from the police.

It's possible the operation did some good other places, here it was just an example of poor policework. I'm not trying to derail your thread here, it's just that this hit very close to home with me.

--
Luggage

I don't have specific figures for each country, but worldwide 115 arrests and 70 convictions resulted from Cathedral. Around 25 suspects escaped trial because computer experts were unable to crack the image files, which were encrypted, on their computers. 8 suspects committed suicide. Of the countries which were identified residences of suspects, only one-quarter participated in the operation. Of the 1,200 different kids portrayed (all under the age of 15, apparently), only 18 have been positively identified.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Perhaps I should've added more information. I think you're proceeding from a set of misconceptions.

According to the latest literature (the books I've mentioned half a dozen times on this thread already), most child pornography distribution is not done using a set website which accepts credit cards, etc. Whenever a website is used, is exists only for a few hours. The website does not have a familiar domain name; only a string of numbers and letters in some nonsensical order. The website address is posted to a newsgroup or sent via email. The website is also password-encrypted, and the passwords are sent to very specific people - the "secure" people. These sorts of websites get found by actively concerned citizens regularly, but they cease to exist before law enforcement is able to examine them. While law enforcement may decide to sit and monitor the newsgroups all day (waste of resources?) until they find a hit, they won't be able to crack the password(s). Face it: unless you're one of the trusted kindred, you will never be able to access and obtain actionable information from one of these websites. Law enforcement must first find the end-users - the "trusted kindred" - before they even become aware of the existence of these networks in the first place.

The police do not use search engines or surf the web to actively look for child porn because however many "links" they come across, they definitely will not find it. It is also very difficult for a police officer to infiltrate a network and become one of the "trusted kindred" because becoming one typically involves the "end-user" submitting child pornography to begin with. Police will not do this, so the network knows they can trust somebody who does.

You seem to not understand how these people are found. It is commonplace for police to inspect the residence of a child molester and find kiddy porn on his computer. When police become aware of a child porn collector that does not abuse kids, it is because the suspect has left evidence where third parties find it - on computers at work or school to be found by a coworker or student; on computers at home to be found by a spouse, child, or visiting friend. Thus, the person hasn't just "collected" images; through omission he has participated in the dissemination of the material, sometimes to minors, and the juju is bad.

When the "first users" were raided, they didn't simply get a list of "other users". Those other users were ipso facto distributors. In addition, none of the people arrested or implicated were folks who had 10 or 20 or even 100 images of child pornography on their computers. The pedophile club destroyed by Operation Cathedral (the "Wonderland Club") required all new members to submit at least 10,000 images of their own. The images were added to the "database" of over three quarters of a million files that the members could access. In a network, there are no real "end-users"; everybody is a distributor.

I assumed most of the distribution was not through static websites, but got the impression earlier in the thread that paysites made up the massive amount of profit made off of child pornography so I'm a little confused here. On one hand you say its like a club, that you must submit a certain amount of your own images to in order to download from their collection. Is there any money involved in these clubs? Does anyone have to pay? If not then where is the stated "billions" of dollars coming from? And is the club scenario the common one? Or just an example of a somewhat successful operation against such a club?

I understand that obviously leads have to be looked into to ensure a potential collector is not in fact abusing kids. And perhaps this is where my concerns and arguements falter. You've given me the impression that basically everyone is scrutinized knowing that most often it will not lead them too the original perpetrators, but that its a means to the end because that's the onl