Why should just looking at -pictures- be illegal? [Archive]

Checkmite

7th November 2003, 08:29 AM

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

7th November 2003, 08:54 AM

"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

7th November 2003, 09:03 AM

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

7th November 2003, 03:17 PM

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

7th November 2003, 03:24 PM

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

7th November 2003, 07:21 PM

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

8th November 2003, 12:28 AM

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

8th November 2003, 12:44 AM

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

8th November 2003, 05:22 AM

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

8th November 2003, 05:31 AM

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

8th November 2003, 09:45 PM

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

8th November 2003, 10:30 PM

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

9th November 2003, 05:24 AM

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

9th November 2003, 06:20 AM

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

9th November 2003, 07:25 AM

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

9th November 2003, 11:34 AM

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

9th November 2003, 01:31 PM

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

9th November 2003, 03:13 PM

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

10th November 2003, 06:04 PM

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

10th November 2003, 07:07 PM

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

10th November 2003, 07:57 PM

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

10th November 2003, 08:10 PM

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

11th November 2003, 02:57 AM

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

11th November 2003, 09:22 AM

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

11th November 2003, 11:31 AM

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

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

May Flower

rockoon

11th November 2003, 02:07 PM

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

11th November 2003, 07:15 PM

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

12th November 2003, 04:17 AM

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

12th November 2003, 07:42 AM

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

12th November 2003, 09:19 AM

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

12th November 2003, 10:04 AM

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

12th November 2003, 10:44 AM

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

12th November 2003, 11:02 AM

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

12th November 2003, 01:58 PM

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

12th November 2003, 03:55 PM

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

12th November 2003, 04:58 PM

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

12th November 2003, 07:45 PM

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

12th November 2003, 09:56 PM

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

13th November 2003, 05:35 AM

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

13th November 2003, 08:25 AM

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

13th November 2003, 08:35 AM

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

13th November 2003, 08:38 AM

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

13th November 2003, 09:04 AM

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

13th November 2003, 09:36 AM

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

13th November 2003, 09:41 AM

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

13th November 2003, 09:56 AM

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

13th November 2003, 10:24 AM

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

13th November 2003, 10:28 AM

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

13th November 2003, 07:24 PM

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

14th November 2003, 11:09 AM

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

14th November 2003, 05:12 PM

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

16th November 2003, 07:15 AM

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

16th November 2003, 08:44 AM

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

17th November 2003, 07:49 AM

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

17th November 2003, 11:00 AM

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

17th November 2003, 12:51 PM

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

17th November 2003, 08:20 PM

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

17th November 2003, 09:10 PM

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

17th November 2003, 10:15 PM

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

18th November 2003, 09:02 AM

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 only way law enforcement has of trying to catch any of them. And so that anyone that does in fact have pictures, but has not in fact ever abused or touched a child is just a casuality along the way. Take your cathedral example, all that effort, in the end the distribution of porn was shutdown, so that's good I suppose, but in the end 18 children were identified. Does this also mean the abusers of these 18 children were also identified? And if so were they then charged? If they weren't then what really have you accomplished? You've shut down a distribution ring, so kudos for that, you've identified 18 children from photo's, but if you have not identified and charged any perpetrators, then their potential abuse continues. And you have several suicides on your hands from people, "distributors" who have potentially never even touched a child, because of morale and societal humilation at being discovered. How sorry one should feel for those peoples situation is hard to judge, I'm not sure how I feel about it myself even. But my whole point is that the process is inefficient, and you seem to agree, but we continue doing it for lack of anything better.

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.

Fair enough. My question would be is that are the majority of child porn distribution centres setup like the club scenario you described above? Is that the overwhelming default setup? Or is there still large distribution over newsgroups and IRC fserves? I'm certain some people could be found this way.

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.

So then you're agreeing with me here that most often raiding end-users produces no leads. Correct? This fluke is different. Pictures were found in the mans home of girls or children he was obviously familiar with, making it obvious he was one of the perpetrators of the abuse. This evidence was brought to light by a complete fluke situation, and he was caught. So this scenario really has no clear bearing on the discussion of end-users keeping and distributing files, as from what I gleamed from your summary there, this man was not sharing the images.

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.

Again what I believe is the moot point here is it doesn't matter in my opinion if they have the files, or if their trading them by the thousands. Have they themselves abused any children, and do they themselves have any information that could lead us to the people that do. If not, then its a wasted effort of sorts.

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?

You misunderstand what I'm trying to do with the definition here. I'm trying to seperate between people who have abused the children, or have direct knowledge of the people that do, from the people that merely have the pictures on their computers. Obviously with file sharing and whatever else anyone can be considered a distributor, but what I'm trying to get at is that if possible we should be trying to find and go after those that could lead us to the original perpetrators. I'm not sure how we should go about this either, and I realized law enforcement is simply doing all they think they can at present. But lets take again your Cathedral example. Of all the people caught and charged in the operation how many were admitted, or found guilty of actual child abuse? Were they charged with proven child abuse, or were they charged for possession and distribution of child pornography? I'm asking mostly because I don't know, its not clear in your post above. My concern is that if none of them were, then again, what have you really accomplished.

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...

Of course it warrants attention. I'm admitting that I don't know how they could narrow down who had pertinent information. Perhaps I'm begging the question, seeing if anyone else has an idea.

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.

This is sort of the crux of what I'm getting at. Its becoming obvious the more we talk about this that its not the collection of porn persay that gets most people looked into in the first place. There are hints from people, or family members or work members or someone that molestation is likely occuring. Then after going off on these tips they obviously find collections of child porn, which they then try to use to lead them to other perpetrators. Let me put forth a crazy thought here. Since the actual perpetrators are going to have images regardless, and we usually find these "end-users" by other means in conjunction with their collections, isn't it helpful if the perpetrator has a large collection of images, that may lead to another perpetrator? A large collection of images is no guarantee of any abuse, or at the very least no guarantee of increased abuse. My main point being that it doesn't matter whether the images should be illegal or not, their just used as a tool with which to hopefully track down the perpetrators of the crime, or should be. I've not been shown anywhere here how the viewing of the images in contributing to increased child abuse, that it drives up the "demand" leading to more abuse and molestation. From all I see here it seems as though some of the people committing the abuse try to find ways too share and view images with other perpetrators, or just people at large. I'm not seeing how this leads to more abuse, and in fact actually benefits law enforcement on some level because it gives them potential leads to other perpetrators, once one perpetrator has been caught, and his "collection" looked at.

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.

This is not true by your own posts. Some people have attention brought to bear on them because of their collections of porn. Others because it is suspected and tips given that they indeed are child molesters. Busting collectors is not the only way these people are ever caught. That I refuse to believe, and your own statements seem to suggest this as well. In some cases it would seem that the porn collection is just the legal foot in the door they need to go get a warrant.

In summary I believe we're stuck in a catch-22. On one hand there is no groundwork to assume that possesion of child porn is an admittion of, or likelyhood that said collector is actually abusing and molesting children. Its shown that more often than not busting collectors doesn't lead to convictions of actual perpetrators. I don't believe its proven (but feel free to point me to contrary information) that porn distribution and possession leads to further acts of abuse and molestation, but rather is just an act of mass sharing of abuses and molestations that are taking place, and would take place anyway. In the end it seems possession or viewing of child porn is illegal simply because we have morally deemed it so, not based upon any act, but rather the assumption of potential acts.

On the other hand we have law enforcement despretely trying to catch perpetrators where the victims are of an age and mindset that they probably will never turn in their perpetrators. They realize its almost impossible to trace these images back to the original perpetrators, but aside from direct tips from other people about possible child molesters, this is their only other outlet for perhaps tracking them down. They realize that most often it will lead nowhere, but the fact that possession is illegal gives them a foot in the door to seize the computers and the collections, and then just hope they get lucky and get a lead to an actual perpetrator. Its a horribly inefficient manner of trying to track these people down, that everyone seems to acknowledge, but its tolerated because it occasionally produces leads and convinctions, and since we find it morally reprehensible that people would want to look at these images for any reason, we get to shutdown the distribution centres and thus satisfy our morale brownie points. I'm not saying this is bad, I'm not even saying I particularily disagree with it. But I think people need to realize the above statement for what it is. And keep it in mind when they ask themselves whether possesion of the images, in and of itself, should be illegal.

Checkmite

18th November 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by voidx

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?

Yes, the "clubs" are common, but not the exclusive means of distribution. There are some clubs which require payment, but I don't have a dollar figure to give you. There are some organizations that advertise online but do not trade there, which do require payment, such as the Russians found by police from Italy (http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/4680.html). A lot of the paid-for porn usually makes it to the internet eventually (as in the case of "Hela", see below), yet those groups stay in business. The only way they can do that is by supplying fresh photos, and there's only one way to get fresh photos. As for the "billions" of dollars, I do not know. I don't recall giving such a figure.

Originally posted by voidx
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 only way law enforcement has of trying to catch any of them. And so that anyone that does in fact have pictures, but has not in fact ever abused or touched a child is just a casuality along the way.

Possession is a crime as well. When a person is found in possession of child pornography, that's a prize, an "end" unto itself. If police can use information from that case (from the computer, or from data readily volunteered by suspects who know they're busted) to find other collectors or producers, that's cool. If not, fine. Police do not bust collectors just to see if they can trace the photos back to a distributor.

Originally posted by voidx
Take your cathedral example, all that effort, in the end the distribution of porn was shutdown, so that's good I suppose, but in the end 18 children were identified. Does this also mean the abusers of these 18 children were also identified? And if so were they then charged? If they weren't then what really have you accomplished? You've shut down a distribution ring, so kudos for that, you've identified 18 children from photo's, but if you have not identified and charged any perpetrators, then their potential abuse continues.

Common sense dictates that identified children (that were alive when identified) were able to in turn identify their abusers barring anything drastic like the perpetrators skipping town. However, I'll grant that there's a theoretical possibility that for some odd reason a couple of the children were unable to identify their perpetrators. I don't have any hard data, so this point cannot be debated. The children obtained support and counseling, which is a good thing.

Originally posted by voidx
Fair enough. My question would be is that are the majority of child porn distribution centres setup like the club scenario you described above? Is that the overwhelming default setup? Or is there still large distribution over newsgroups and IRC fserves? I'm certain some people could be found this way.

I don't know about the majority of distribution centers. I do know that newsgroups and IRC used to be very popular until a certain incident in which several computer hacker groups cooperating with several other anti-child-porn groups managed to somehow compromise the security measures of a few such entities and turned the perpetrators' IPs over to the authorities. I do not have exact details at the moment, though I'll retrieve them in the future and post them, but I recall hearing that since then newsgroups and IRC aren't as faddish for these people anymore. In fact, I believe that incident is one of the prime reasons for the creation of such exclusive "clubs".

Originally posted by voidx
Again what I believe is the moot point here is it doesn't matter in my opinion if they have the files, or if their trading them by the thousands. Have they themselves abused any children, and do they themselves have any information that could lead us to the people that do. If not, then its a wasted effort of sorts.

It does matter if they have or trade files, because that's illegal. That's what they are arrested for to begin with. It's only after that particular show is over that police go over data to see if they can use the perpetrator's case to find other illegal possessors. If they can follow a chain all the way down to the person who took the photos, that's excellent. That's a block party. However, even if they can't, that wasn't the point in arresting the collector in the first place.

Originally posted by voidx
You misunderstand what I'm trying to do with the definition here. I'm trying to seperate between people who have abused the children, or have direct knowledge of the people that do, from the people that merely have the pictures on their computers. Obviously with file sharing and whatever else anyone can be considered a distributor, but what I'm trying to get at is that if possible we should be trying to find and go after those that could lead us to the original perpetrators. I'm not sure how we should go about this either, and I realized law enforcement is simply doing all they think they can at present. But lets take again your Cathedral example. Of all the people caught and charged in the operation how many were admitted, or found guilty of actual child abuse? Were they charged with proven child abuse, or were they charged for possession and distribution of child pornography? I'm asking mostly because I don't know, its not clear in your post above. My concern is that if none of them were, then again, what have you really accomplished.

What has been accomplished is that the traders - the people who facilitate the distribution of the material - are caught. If the police destroy an "elite" club and manage to stop any number of "new" images from being traded, that's preventing victims' privacy from further violation. That's a worthy cause.

Originally posted by voidx
This is sort of the crux of what I'm getting at. Its becoming obvious the more we talk about this that its not the collection of porn persay that gets most people looked into in the first place. There are hints from people, or family members or work members or someone that molestation is likely occuring. Then after going off on these tips they obviously find collections of child porn, which they then try to use to lead them to other perpetrators.

No, people don't just get reported for abusing children, they also get reported when they leave child pornography in places where concerned third parties find it. The material itself isn't proof that the owner has committed any actual child abuse, but possession is illegal in and of itself, and that's why the police investigate.

Originally posted by voidx
Let me put forth a crazy thought here. Since the actual perpetrators are going to have images regardless, and we usually find these "end-users" by other means in conjunction with their collections, isn't it helpful if the perpetrator has a large collection of images, that may lead to another perpetrator? A large collection of images is no guarantee of any abuse, or at the very least no guarantee of increased abuse. My main point being that it doesn't matter whether the images should be illegal or not, their just used as a tool with which to hopefully track down the perpetrators of the crime, or should be. I've not been shown anywhere here how the viewing of the images in contributing to increased child abuse, that it drives up the "demand" leading to more abuse and molestation.

The most "famous", or perhaps infamous victim of child pornography is a girl identified only as "Hela". Her victimization began when she was about 9, with a simple series of "Hela lolita" nudes - not polaroid quality photographs, but rather "professional" (using industrial-grade cameras, lighting, and the like). They were originally sold over the mail, however a few of the buyers apparently decided to put them on the internet. They were inhaled by the collector community back when newsgroups were in vogue, and the newsgroup members vocally demanded more photos. After some time, a new set became available, was pruchased, and eventually put online, then another, then one including sex acts with adults, then one including a boy her age, and so forth. It is obvious that the new sets were produced in response to the direct demand for them from collectors.

In Cathedral, 750,000 different images were confiscated. In all those images, there were only a bit more than 1,200 different children. That means that several of the children were used in series, or sets of series. Let's allow that fully half of those children were imaged not by "professional" child porn producers, but by child abusers who happened to take pictures as an afterthought, and let's say that such abusers took an extremely optimistic 200 photos of each of those kids (the real number is usually less than a hundred, but I don't want to be accused of "cheating"). That would account for 120,000 of the photos. That leaves 630,000 photos and an average of 1,050 photos per child taken specifically for the purpose of online distribution and trading. Couple that with the fact that these aren't pocket-digital-camera quicksnaps, and it should be readily apparent that the vast majority of child pornography is produced for that specific reason, and such products can only be the result of a known demand for material. People will not set up studios, use that equipment, and take 630,000 photos of 600 kids on the off chance somebody might like to see them.

Originally posted by voidx
From all I see here it seems as though some of the people committing the abuse try to find ways too share and view images with other perpetrators, or just people at large. I'm not seeing how this leads to more abuse, and in fact actually benefits law enforcement on some level because it gives them potential leads to other perpetrators, once one perpetrator has been caught, and his "collection" looked at.

Let's say an abuser molests his daughter (for example), and one time took or had taken a set of a dozen photos of the abuse. He puts them online to trade with others, who ask him if he has anymore. If this person was already willing to molest children and take photos of it once, it may not take much persuasion to make him produce more photos to share. There's only one way to produce the more photos, so the person commits more abuse. Is this scenario really so far out of the realm of probability? Surely it can be argued that the person could've abused the child more anyway, whether people wanted more photos or not. But the photos add insult to injury, as now you have a den of pedos begging to invade this child's privacy further.

Suppose the perpetrator feels guilty. Would it hinder or encourage the perpetrator's confidence to know there are a lot of "non-abusers" who share his "interests" and want him to continue his abuse for their gratification?

Originally posted by voidx
This is not true by your own posts. Some people have attention brought to bear on them because of their collections of porn. Others because it is suspected and tips given that they indeed are child molesters. Busting collectors is not the only way these people are ever caught. That I refuse to believe, and your own statements seem to suggest this as well. In some cases it would seem that the porn collection is just the legal foot in the door they need to go get a warrant.

Having the collection is illegal enough. Perhaps I should amend my statement: links from receivers of the material and tips from direct witnesses are the only ways producers of child porn are caught.

Originally posted by voidx
In summary I believe we're stuck in a catch-22. On one hand there is no groundwork to assume that possesion of child porn is an admittion of, or likelyhood that said collector is actually abusing and molesting children. Its shown that more often than not busting collectors doesn't lead to convictions of actual perpetrators. I don't believe its proven (but feel free to point me to contrary information) that porn distribution and possession leads to further acts of abuse and molestation, but rather is just an act of mass sharing of abuses and molestations that are taking place, and would take place anyway. In the end it seems possession or viewing of child porn is illegal simply because we have morally deemed it so, not based upon any act, but rather the assumption of potential acts.

Well there's the whole kids' right-to-privacy thing, but I suppose that's not important...

Originally posted by voidx
On the other hand we have law enforcement despretely trying to catch perpetrators where the victims are of an age and mindset that they probably will never turn in their perpetrators. They realize its almost impossible to trace these images back to the original perpetrators, but aside from direct tips from other people about possible child molesters, this is their only other outlet for perhaps tracking them down. They realize that most often it will lead nowhere, but the fact that possession is illegal gives them a foot in the door to seize the computers and the collections, and then just hope they get lucky and get a lead to an actual perpetrator. Its a horribly inefficient manner of trying to track these people down, that everyone seems to acknowledge, but its tolerated because it occasionally produces leads and convinctions, and since we find it morally reprehensible that people would want to look at these images for any reason, we get to shutdown the distribution centres and thus satisfy our morale brownie points. I'm not saying this is bad, I'm not even saying I particularily disagree with it. But I think people need to realize the above statement for what it is. And keep it in mind when they ask themselves whether possesion of the images, in and of itself, should be illegal.

Collectors of the material are not innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire between police and the producers of child pornography. You may deny or disbelieve that the good majority of child pornography is created to supply for a demand, but the data is available should you care to look for it, and it's a fact not in question as far as law enforcement and childrens' services entities are concerned. There are many children who are abused for the specific reason that abusers know there are "non-abusers" who will pay to have pictures of it. There is the right-to-privacy issue that nearly everybody here seems to want to avoid discussing, but I personally feel it's one of the most pertinent arguments.

voidx

19th November 2003, 02:13 PM

You've clarified several of you're points, at least to my eye in the process of this thread, and that's a good thing. You've cleared up some things for my own perspective. I do in fact understand that possession is illegal, so yes as you point out, many of the raids mostly likely start out on that basis. And really that was the topic of the thread and so I'm merely just raising questions. If we seperate for a moment possession out from actual abuses, then you're right-to-privacy idea is really at the core of the possession issue, with possession increasing demand also in there. My problem here is how much distribution is acceptable. You'll never get rid of it completely, so is there a level at which a pictures distrubution is ok as far as a childs right-to-privacy is ok, and a level at which it is not? If these picture exists at all, their privacy has already been violated, and at least to me it seems that how much it is distributed after that gets more and more moot. These are my concerns and questions regarding the right-to-privacy issue:

1). Yes everyone has the right to privacy, and I'm not saying they don't, but its a hard fact that by being abused and photographed in the first place their privacy has already been violated. Now while you may consider it insult to injury, we have to reach an agreement of just how much further harm is caused by the continued distribution of the material. The initial picture taking and act violate the privacy the most. A guy 14 levels down the chain who only views the image, violates the privacy much less. How much attention do we pay to the ever lowering levels of privacy breached? And at what level would the time be better spent trying to catch the original perpetrators.

2). Right to privacy as a means for making possession illegal based on the idea that furthered viewing infringes on the childs right to privacy is a losing battle. Again, what level of distribution is acceptable? You will never eliminate it all. My fear is that if too much time is spent on battling possession, we'll lose sight of going after perpetrators. Yes I know some possessor's are also perpetrators, Yes I know possession is illegal, and yes I know that possession can lead to the actual perpetrators. I'm merely suggesting that right to privacy is a rather weak flag to wave in terms of the individual issue of possession, and whether it should be illegal. On some level people have to admit that right to privacy as it pertains to possession is concentrated on, in some forms, because we cannot as effectively catch the original perpetrators and stop the intial violation of the victims privacy. So we're merely trying to retroactively keep the distribution to a minimum, but this does nothing to restore the victims already violated privacy.

You've made many good and convincing points about possession, but I do not think right-to-privacy is one of them, for the reasons stated above. The ultimate way to protect a childs right to privacy is by doing as much as possible to stop these abuses from happening in the first place. Trying to stop the flow of their distribution afterwars feels like a band-aid fix, and a never ending one at that.

Posted by Joshua Korosi
Common sense dictates that identified children (that were alive when identified) were able to in turn identify their abusers barring anything drastic like the perpetrators skipping town. However, I'll grant that there's a theoretical possibility that for some odd reason a couple of the children were unable to identify their perpetrators. I don't have any hard data, so this point cannot be debated. The children obtained support and counseling, which is a good thing.
Common sense dictates many things that are not indeed the case. So by that statement above are you verifying that the original perpetrators of the 18 children identified were indeed prosecuted where and when they could be found? Some of the children, even in adulthood might not have been willing to reveal the identity perhaps due to shame or trauma or whatever. I would think that if any procescutions of the actual child molesters where made, the documentation of this operation would have clearly stated so. Is it the case that it does not? While I agree the identified children obtaining support and counselling is good I'd also feel better if the documentation clearly stated the child molestors where possible were found and charged.

It does matter if they have or trade files, because that's illegal. That's what they are arrested for to begin with. It's only after that particular show is over that police go over data to see if they can use the perpetrator's case to find other illegal possessors. If they can follow a chain all the way down to the person who took the photos, that's excellent. That's a block party. However, even if they can't, that wasn't the point in arresting the collector in the first place.
Obviously its illegal. But we were debating the point that whether or not having the pictures also meant they had pertinent information, or had commited actual abuse themselves. Perhaps moot was the wrong word, its merely less important. Again, if we minus off our own morale repugness at the thought of people having these images, hence making them illegal to own, they basically only serve as a tool to allow police to shut down distribution, and hopefully find leads to others, or find that the collector has indeed committed abuses of their own, and so get them off the streets also.

What has been accomplished is that the traders - the people who facilitate the distribution of the material - are caught. If the police destroy an "elite" club and manage to stop any number of "new" images from being traded, that's preventing victims' privacy from further violation. That's a worthy cause.
While I basically agree with this, we have to keep something in mind. Further violation of the victims privacy. Does this matter at all to the victim? And just think objectively here. They already know their pictures are out there. And I think we can probably agree that you will never eliminate 100% their circulation. So do you think the victims differeniate between a small level of distribution, or a large level of distribution of the material that robbed them of their privacy? Has anyone asked them this? Does the wide distribution of their photo's in any way have a further effect on their trauma that we can trace back? Does it further it, make it worse than it already is? If at the end of the day the answer is no, then are we actually protecting the victims privacy for them, or for ourselves and our own morale reasons?

No, people don't just get reported for abusing children, they also get reported when they leave child pornography in places where concerned third parties find it. The material itself isn't proof that the owner has committed any actual child abuse, but possession is illegal in and of itself, and that's why the police investigate.
Good point. But just remember that the illegality of possession was also the topic of discussion. So while in reality now yes you have a point, we are trying to kind of discuss the pro's and con's of said illegality of possession.

The most "famous", or perhaps infamous victim of child pornography is a girl identified only as "Hela". Her victimization began when she was about 9, with a simple series of "Hela lolita" nudes - not polaroid quality photographs, but rather "professional" (using industrial-grade cameras, lighting, and the like). They were originally sold over the mail, however a few of the buyers apparently decided to put them on the internet. They were inhaled by the collector community back when newsgroups were in vogue, and the newsgroup members vocally demanded more photos. After some time, a new set became available, was pruchased, and eventually put online, then another, then one including sex acts with adults, then one including a boy her age, and so forth. It is obvious that the new sets were produced in response to the direct demand for them from collectors.
Fair enough. But the question remains that if the first set of photo's had not been popular, would that have stopped the molestation and abuse? Is it not entirely possible the abuse would have continued, but simply not distributed for perceived lack of interest. While I agree and will concede it might make the scenarious and imagination put into the abuses and molestation more varied due to demand, we can't also assume that if no one showed interest in the photo's, the children would never have been molested again.

In Cathedral, 750,000 different images were confiscated. In all those images, there were only a bit more than 1,200 different children. That means that several of the children were used in series, or sets of series. Let's allow that fully half of those children were imaged not by "professional" child porn producers, but by child abusers who happened to take pictures as an afterthought, and let's say that such abusers took an extremely optimistic 200 photos of each of those kids (the real number is usually less than a hundred, but I don't want to be accused of "cheating"). That would account for 120,000 of the photos. That leaves 630,000 photos and an average of 1,050 photos per child taken specifically for the purpose of online distribution and trading. Couple that with the fact that these aren't pocket-digital-camera quicksnaps, and it should be readily apparent that the vast majority of child pornography is produced for that specific reason, and such products can only be the result of a known demand for material. People will not set up studios, use that equipment, and take 630,000 photos of 600 kids on the off chance somebody might like to see them.
Very true. However the large number of photo's makes sense. Unlike normal porn the number of willing, or rather coerced children to star in the movies would be much smaller, and harder to come by. So when you did have one, its obvious you would garner as much material as possible off each one. But again, if the demand wasn't there, the studio's wouldn't be setup, but then neither is that a guarantee that the abuses would stop either.

I'm willing to admit that yes demand probably does in some cases add up to more potential molestation. Whats harder to quantify is how much more. Its hard to think in such terms, and its easy to say that no level of increased abuse is acceptable, clearly its not, but such statements aren't very practical either. At the end of the day what significant effect does the illegality of possession have on preventing further abuses? And how justified is the fear that if it were not illegal, the number of abuses would alarmingly increase? We also have to consider how much of the material is made in countries that have illegal possession laws. Obviously for material being made in countries without possession laws, our own possession laws can have no real effect at potentially helping those children being molested.

Let's say an abuser molests his daughter (for example), and one time took or had taken a set of a dozen photos of the abuse. He puts them online to trade with others, who ask him if he has anymore. If this person was already willing to molest children and take photos of it once, it may not take much persuasion to make him produce more photos to share. There's only one way to produce the more photos, so the person commits more abuse. Is this scenario really so far out of the realm of probability? Surely it can be argued that the person could've abused the child more anyway, whether people wanted more photos or not. But the photos add insult to injury, as now you have a den of pedos begging to invade this child's privacy further.

Suppose the perpetrator feels guilty. Would it hinder or encourage the perpetrator's confidence to know there are a lot of "non-abusers" who share his "interests" and want him to continue his abuse for their gratification?
No, its not out of the realm of possibility, but its just as likely as, abuser takes photo's, distributes them, no one seems interested, but they continue said abuse anyway, but simply no longer distribute it. As for the guilt, it would either hinder, or encourage the individual. It depends. And so I don't feel its right to start making assumptions here.

Well there's the whole kids' right-to-privacy thing, but I suppose that's not important...
Obviously it is as I've stated above. But it does not change the fact that their privacy has already been violated, the trauma already received. What good is it doing the victims in their recovery if we go out and mop up the distribution of their pictures after the fact? I'm not saying it doesn't help, but has anyone asked the question period? Has anyone looked into it? If it doesn't help in their recovery then who are we helping by shutting down distribution? I'm merely trying to find out your thoughts here.

Collectors of the material are not innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire between police and the producers of child pornography. You may deny or disbelieve that the good majority of child pornography is created to supply for a demand, but the data is available should you care to look for it, and it's a fact not in question as far as law enforcement and childrens' services entities are concerned. There are many children who are abused for the specific reason that abusers know there are "non-abusers" who will pay to have pictures of it. There is the right-to-privacy issue that nearly everybody here seems to want to avoid discussing, but I personally feel it's one of the most pertinent arguments.
Well the first sentence depends on your morale viewpoint. Since we deem the viewing of child pornography illegal yes, they are not innocent. The arguement here is that they are guilty of creating a demand which propogates more abuse in the form of child pornography. The flipside of the coin is whether having pictures, or rather having pictures that create a demand for the depiction of illegal acts, should itself be illegal. Should creating a demand for others to go out and photograph illicit acts be itself illegal. On one hand I would have to say no. But on the other are we justified in the case of child pornography because of its nature of coersion of minors? I think if by doing so we can help stop the original abuses from happening then yes we are. But we have to be able to demonstrate that we are indeed reducing cases of molestation and abuse. I agree this is hard to tally as most such cases go unreported. Joshua, have you seen any research that shows a decline in the cases of child molestation, or even perhaps an increase in molestation in the years since Internet file trading has made distribution easier?

rockoon

19th November 2003, 06:21 PM

I still want to know how you tell if the person in the picture is 15 or 18?

My point against possession laws is that there is this big grey area and while its simple to point out cases where its obvious, nobody has tackled when it isnt obvious.

I believe it allows for witch hunts against people who deserve no fault.

Another area where there is no fault is the pictures of naked babies which is technically a crime but clearly not for a rational reason.

There is some age, lets call it X, where if the person is less than that age then its not rationally a crime to possess naked pictures of them. Maybe X is 1 year old. Maybe its higher.

And there is some age, lets call it Y, where its sufficiently close to the acceptable age that the viewer cannot possitively say that the picture is legal or not.

0 < Baby Pictures < X < Obvious Childporn < Y < Adult porn

With problem areas being near X and near Y where it could be rationaly argued that possessing the material is a no-fault crime.

Checkmite

19th November 2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by voidx
You've clarified several of you're points, at least to my eye in the process of this thread, and that's a good thing. You've cleared up some things for my own perspective. I do in fact understand that possession is illegal, so yes as you point out, many of the raids mostly likely start out on that basis. And really that was the topic of the thread and so I'm merely just raising questions. If we seperate for a moment possession out from actual abuses, then you're right-to-privacy idea is really at the core of the possession issue, with possession increasing demand also in there. My problem here is how much distribution is acceptable. You'll never get rid of it completely, so is there a level at which a pictures distrubution is ok as far as a childs right-to-privacy is ok, and a level at which it is not? If these picture exists at all, their privacy has already been violated, and at least to me it seems that how much it is distributed after that gets more and more moot. These are my concerns and questions regarding the right-to-privacy issue:

1). Yes everyone has the right to privacy, and I'm not saying they don't, but its a hard fact that by being abused and photographed in the first place their privacy has already been violated. Now while you may consider it insult to injury, we have to reach an agreement of just how much further harm is caused by the continued distribution of the material. The initial picture taking and act violate the privacy the most. A guy 14 levels down the chain who only views the image, violates the privacy much less. How much attention do we pay to the ever lowering levels of privacy breached? And at what level would the time be better spent trying to catch the original perpetrators.

2). Right to privacy as a means for making possession illegal based on the idea that furthered viewing infringes on the childs right to privacy is a losing battle. Again, what level of distribution is acceptable? You will never eliminate it all. My fear is that if too much time is spent on battling possession, we'll lose sight of going after perpetrators. Yes I know some possessor's are also perpetrators, Yes I know possession is illegal, and yes I know that possession can lead to the actual perpetrators. I'm merely suggesting that right to privacy is a rather weak flag to wave in terms of the individual issue of possession, and whether it should be illegal. On some level people have to admit that right to privacy as it pertains to possession is concentrated on, in some forms, because we cannot as effectively catch the original perpetrators and stop the intial violation of the victims privacy. So we're merely trying to retroactively keep the distribution to a minimum, but this does nothing to restore the victims already violated privacy.

I disagree, but in a way which makes detailed explanation necessary.

First, know that I agree there are “levels” or “degrees” of privacy violation. For example, a photograph taken of an accident victim comatose in a hospital bed is a violation of privacy, but less of a violation than, say, a hidden camera in a changing room; and forcing a person to perform sexual acts for the purpose of making photographs is an even greater violation.

I will also concede that a person who views a photo does not violate the subject’s privacy as much as the person that took it; but only in that the photographer has somewhat personal contact with the victim, was in violation of the victim’s privacy for longer than the instant captured on film, and may have committed some abuse that isn’t documented on the image. Succinctly, a person viewing an image is seeing the exact same thing that the person holding the camera did; so in essence, everybody who views that image is symbolically standing in the same living room/studio/wherever at the same moment in which the photo was originally taken.

Now, you say that a person 14 steps down the line is in a much lesser violation of privacy, but frankly I don’t see how. The 14th, 40th, and 400th person to download a photograph commits exactly the same violation as the first person who downloaded it. What could possibly lessen the violation? The content of the photo doesn’t change, nor does the method by which it was obtained. Does the mere fact that somebody has seen a photograph before you did make that photograph lesser of a violation in your possession than in his? I can conceive of no possible mechanism by which this is true.

Originally posted by voidx
You've made many good and convincing points about possession, but I do not think right-to-privacy is one of them, for the reasons stated above. The ultimate way to protect a childs right to privacy is by doing as much as possible to stop these abuses from happening in the first place. Trying to stop the flow of their distribution afterwars feels like a band-aid fix, and a never ending one at that. [/B]

OK, let me try to offer analogous scenarios of criminal activities. We seem to have no debate over the people who actually take the photographs, so let’s leave them out and stick specifically to collectors. For this exercise I will contend that there are 3 types of child porn collectors: (1) those that directly demand or “commission” the material (and receive it as a result of that demand or commission); (2)those who are aware of the criminal nature of, but have absolutely nothing to do with, the production of the material and purchase it simply because it is available; and (3) those who are aware of the criminal nature of, but have absolutely nothing to do with, the production of the material and download it for free simply because it is available (I see no difference between the second and third instances, but I’m covering all the bases).

The closest analogy to these offenders would be an individual or individuals that hire a “hit man” to kill or injure someone. It is one perpetrator compelling another to commit a crime. When the hit man is caught, the people who hired him also face criminal charges for conspiracy, because the hit man was essentially an extension of their own interests. To argue that a person who commissions a work of child pornography is less guilty because the pornographer himself would likely have abused the child anyway, is to argue that the person(s) that hired the hit man are less guilty because the hit man would likely have eventually have been hired by somebody else to kill some other victim anyway.

In the second instance, the crime has already been committed independently, and the collector doesn’t benefit until after the fact. Does this make him less guilty? For this analogy, imagine that a friend of yours has told you that you can get a brand-new Mercedes for real cheap because of his special method of “acquisition”. Further checking reveals that he actually steals his cars and modifies them so that they cannot be recognized by the original owners (new paint, fake VIN, etc). The car was already stolen, and the thief was not even thinking of you at the time of the crime. But you still know that it was stolen, and the money you pay will in all likelihood go to help fund the stealing and modification of other cars; just as surely as money paid a child pornography production organization would undoubtedly be used to aid in the abuse of more children. Would you buy the car? If you did, you would be in trouble for “knowing receipt of stolen goods”. Benefiting from the results of a crime is still illegal, whether you took part in that crime or not, because you benefit at the expense of damage to another person, physically or otherwise, and the fact that you are out some money for it doesn’t make a difference.

Say another acquaintance of yours is directly involved in a bank heist, which you again have absolutely nothing to do with. The crime is already committed again, and this time it’s unlikely the perpetrator would commit it again. But because you are such a good friend, he offers to give you a cut – a few thousand dollars, no strings attached, just because he’s a caring and generous person, and hell – he can spare it. You know the money was taken illegally. Do you accept the gift? You shouldn’t. There is little, if any, moral difference between the person who accepts money he certainly knows was ill-gotten and the person who robbed the bank in the first place; neither has any integrity, one simply has bigger cajones. The only real difference between this child porn collector and the one mentioned above is that this one doesn’t have to pay, so no money of his is going to the abuse of more children. Nevertheless, he knows a child was necessarily abused to produce the material, yet he claims complete innocence because he “didn’t actually take the photos”. He still benefits at the fundamental and necessary expense of somebody else.

Originally posted by voidx
Common sense dictates many things that are not indeed the case. So by that statement above are you verifying that the original perpetrators of the 18 children identified were indeed prosecuted where and when they could be found? Some of the children, even in adulthood might not have been willing to reveal the identity perhaps due to shame or trauma or whatever. I would think that if any procescutions of the actual child molesters where made, the documentation of this operation would have clearly stated so. Is it the case that it does not? While I agree the identified children obtaining support and counselling is good I'd also feel better if the documentation clearly stated the child molestors where possible were found and charged. [/B]

The documentation also happens to be a news article. It is very much possible that the molesters were found and charged. I agree that I would feel better also if the article came out and said as much; but as I said, we’re debating data we don’t have here.

Originally posted by voidx
Obviously its illegal. But we were debating the point that whether or not having the pictures also meant they had pertinent information, or had commited actual abuse themselves. Perhaps moot was the wrong word, its merely less important. Again, if we minus off our own morale repugness at the thought of people having these images, hence making them illegal to own, they basically only serve as a tool to allow police to shut down distribution, and hopefully find leads to others, or find that the collector has indeed committed abuses of their own, and so get them off the streets also. [/B]

Okay, that’s fine. Yes, that could be seen as a “positive” aspect of child pornography. But bear in mind it still exists at the expense of the victims. Is allowing children to be harmed further justifiable if that further harm allows the perpetrators to be caught? That’s a fascinating question, one I’m still thinking about.

Originally posted by voidx
While I basically agree with this, we have to keep something in mind. Further violation of the victims privacy. Does this matter at all to the victim? And just think objectively here. They already know their pictures are out there. And I think we can probably agree that you will never eliminate 100% their circulation. So do you think the victims differeniate between a small level of distribution, or a large level of distribution of the material that robbed them of their privacy? Has anyone asked them this? Does the wide distribution of their photo's in any way have a further effect on their trauma that we can trace back? Does it further it, make it worse than it already is? If at the end of the day the answer is no, then are we actually protecting the victims privacy for them, or for ourselves and our own morale reasons? [/B]

Every single victim ever asked has indicated that they do not want the photographs in circulation. Further, in younger victims a fear complex sometimes develops for this reason, when the child imagines being recognized by somebody who may have seen his photographs. It doesn’t happen to all of them, maybe not even the bulk of them, but many victims of child pornography have become nervous wrecks when the implications of the material’s purpose and distribution finally hit them.

Originally posted by voidx
Fair enough. But the question remains that if the first set of photo's had not been popular, would that have stopped the molestation and abuse? Is it not entirely possible the abuse would have continued, but simply not distributed for perceived lack of interest. While I agree and will concede it might make the scenarious and imagination put into the abuses and molestation more varied due to demand, we can't also assume that if no one showed interest in the photo's, the children would never have been molested again. [/B]

That’s true, but does it matter? If it’s obvious that a set of photographs was made due to a specific demand from specific people, then those people share responsibility for its production.

Originally posted by voidx
I'm willing to admit that yes demand probably does in some cases add up to more potential molestation. Whats harder to quantify is how much more. Its hard to think in such terms, and its easy to say that no level of increased abuse is acceptable, clearly its not, but such statements aren't very practical either. At the end of the day what significant effect does the illegality of possession have on preventing further abuses? And how justified is the fear that if it were not illegal, the number of abuses would alarmingly increase? We also have to consider how much of the material is made in countries that have illegal possession laws. Obviously for material being made in countries without possession laws, our own possession laws can have no real effect at potentially helping those children being molested. [/B]

Fine, but that doesn’t relieve our society of the obligation to defend the morals it has established for itself. And I believe the illegality of possession is an effective deterrent. That’s why only 1,200 children were abused, for example, despite the existence of more than a few hundred thousand collectors. The social stigmas, the prison terms, and the likelihood of being caught without outrageous security precautions (and even despite them) makes, I think, many people consider the business of actual child abuse not worth the cost.

Originally posted by voidx
Obviously it is as I've stated above. But it does not change the fact that their privacy has already been violated, the trauma already received. What good is it doing the victims in their recovery if we go out and mop up the distribution of their pictures after the fact? I'm not saying it doesn't help, but has anyone asked the question period? Has anyone looked into it? If it doesn't help in their recovery then who are we helping by shutting down distribution? I'm merely trying to find out your thoughts here. [/B]

From that angle, I believe it does help in their recovery. Peace of mind is important, especially to people with the aforementioned fear complex. Every perpetrator arrested is one less person who’s seen you, and maybe that person was the last who had any of your photos. Maybe, by stopping him, you stopped new photos of some other victim from being distributed at all.

Originally posted by voidx
Well the first sentence depends on your morale viewpoint. Since we deem the viewing of child pornography illegal yes, they are not innocent. The arguement here is that they are guilty of creating a demand which propogates more abuse in the form of child pornography. The flipside of the coin is whether having pictures, or rather having pictures that create a demand for the depiction of illegal acts, should itself be illegal. Should creating a demand for others to go out and photograph illicit acts be itself illegal. On one hand I would have to say no. But on the other are we justified in the case of child pornography because of its nature of coersion of minors? I think if by doing so we can help stop the original abuses from happening then yes we are. But we have to be able to demonstrate that we are indeed reducing cases of molestation and abuse. I agree this is hard to tally as most such cases go unreported. Joshua, have you seen any research that shows a decline in the cases of child molestation, or even perhaps an increase in molestation in the years since Internet file trading has made distribution easier? [/B]

Since we have absolutely no way of researching the number of cases of child molestation per year, I can’t provide any figures. We do know that tracing of photographs has led to prosecution and conviction of original offenders in the past. If we can’t get them all, we can at least get some. I’m more inclined to support that philosophy, as opposed to “if we can’t get them all, we may as well not bother to get any.”

Checkmite

19th November 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by rockoon
I still want to know how you tell if the person in the picture is 15 or 18?

My point against possession laws is that there is this big grey area and while its simple to point out cases where its obvious, nobody has tackled when it isnt obvious.

It's difficult. Of course, as I look back, I cannot find one instance of somebody being convicted for having pornography involving a 17-year-old in which the victim was not him-or-herself identified (and therefore known to be a minor). If the person in the photograph could be 18, the possessor is given the benefit of the doubt, and the authorities must prove the subject is a minor. On the other hand, the vast overwhelming majority of child pornography involves children under 13, and in a case when the subject is obviously much younger than 18, his or her status as a minor is acknowleged immediately.

Originally posted by rockoon
Another area where there is no fault is the pictures of naked babies which is technically a crime but clearly not for a rational reason.

There is some age, lets call it X, where if the person is less than that age then its not rationally a crime to possess naked pictures of them. Maybe X is 1 year old. Maybe its higher.

I disagree here, very strongly. A child being merely nude isn't enough. "Child pornography" means that the emphasis of the photo must involve sex, or a sexual act. A "picture of a naked baby" merely sitting in a bed or in a bathtub comes nowhere close to this definition. Meanwhile, a "picture of a naked baby" being molested is criminal. Likewise, there are websites of nudist organizations, with many photos that happen to feature nude children, and they have been ruled as perfectly legal. I think you're chasing imaginary dragons with a wooden sword here.

Originally posted by rockoon
And there is some age, lets call it Y, where its sufficiently close to the acceptable age that the viewer cannot possitively say that the picture is legal or not.

0 < Baby Pictures < X < Obvious Childporn < Y < Adult porn

With problem areas being near X and near Y where it could be rationaly argued that possessing the material is a no-fault crime.

Again, courts tend to rule that if the subject of a photo is not obviously underage, the authorities must prove it. Your "grey areas" have already been inked out.

rockoon

20th November 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

[blah blah blah deleted]

Again, courts tend to rule that if the subject of a photo is not obviously underage, the authorities must prove it. Your "grey areas" have already been inked out.

Ah and when they prove it, then what? You seem to fail to respond every single time. You are ducking the issue. Please do not respond if you are going to duck the issue.

Prosecutor proves the person in the picture is under age. Then its a crime period, right? RIGHT?? Isnt that the LETTER OF THE LAW? Do you have so much faith in prosecutors that they will never convict a person who has broken the letter of the law because it happens to be a grey area? Are you so sure people arent in jail for this very thing?

Do you not suspect the FBI invistigates this very sort of thing and ruins the lives of people?

I can give you many links to this very thing.

Might I remind you that the courts are not kind to close-but-no-cigar statutory rape claims because one of the people involved is 9 months away from being legal? I can give you many links to this very thing too.

I'm so glad you put so much trust into the justice system of this country. I just hope that you never personally find out how little trust the system deserves. There are no good intentions.

Corey

20th November 2003, 09:00 AM

I didn't bother to read ALL the posts in this thread (yes, I'm lazy, deal with it), because I just wanted to get to my point, so this might be and probably is redundant.

People can argue that while child molestation is obviously wrong and has serious negative results immediately and later in life, that LOOKING at child porn doesn't hurt anyone.

I disagree.

First of all, this argument does not exist in a vacuum, it's connected to very sensitive and strong emotions. That said, to creat child porn, a child has to be exploited. Whether it is the "artistic nudity" of photographers that portray themselves as capturing the innocent beauty of children and barely hide behind constitutional freedoms (while their books are bought up by pedophiles) or the amatuer nudity or sexual intercourse that sneaks its way around the net, it's exploitation. Children don't have the intelligence, maturity, forthought or presence of mind to give consent to a sex act or to pose nude. It comes down to people in positions of trust and authority telling the child to do something or convincing them that it's ok and normal with little to no regard for the physical and psychological impact on the child, for their own sexual gratification and/or financial benefit.

So, down to the core of the matter, summarized. While it can be argued that looking at something doesn't hurt anyone and is a personal choice, the source of the image has to be considered. Part of that is supply and demand, but I tend to think people who make child porn are more concerned with their own sexual gratification than making money, but I don't have any personal experience in that area to know (thankfully). Someone may say it may not be "wrong" to look at a picture of a murder victim, but what if the picture is taken by the murderer? People who subscribe to websites or mailing lists or trade child pornography are taking part in one of the most damaging exploitations of children

Checkmite

20th November 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by rockoon

Ah and when they prove it, then what? You seem to fail to respond every single time. You are ducking the issue. Please do not respond if you are going to duck the issue.

Prosecutor proves the person in the picture is under age. Then its a crime period, right? RIGHT?? Isnt that the LETTER OF THE LAW? Do you have so much faith in prosecutors that they will never convict a person who has broken the letter of the law because it happens to be a grey area? Are you so sure people arent in jail for this very thing?

Yes, it's a crime, period. If somebody makes and distributes pornographic pictures of a person who is proven to be underage, even by only one or two years, they will go to jail. I don't see where there's a "grey area" here at all. Proximity of age is no excuse. And guess what? Minors that produce and distribute child pornography still get charged!

Originally posted by rockoon
Do you not suspect the FBI invistigates this very sort of thing and ruins the lives of people?

I can give you many links to this very thing.

Might I remind you that the courts are not kind to close-but-no-cigar statutory rape claims because one of the people involved is 9 months away from being legal? I can give you many links to this very thing too.

I'm so glad you put so much trust into the justice system of this country. I just hope that you never personally find out how little trust the system deserves. There are no good intentions.

Over and over and over again, I hear this. "What about the 18-year-old charged with statuatory rape for having sex with a 17-year-old the night before her 18th birthday?" People say it with emotion, like I'm supposed to pity such unfortunates. I don't.

A society has the right to set and enforce the moral standards it chooses. Our society has chosen to set the "magic number" at 18, and laws have been drafted accordingly. There will always be dissenters in every society, but they are overruled by the majority. You don't like statuatory rape laws? Get them changed. If you can't change them, dammit you have to live with them, or move someplace that doesn't have them. Disagreement with a law is not an effective legal defense.

If you are an adult and you have sex with someone you know is a minor, you commit statuatory rape. That's it, period. Everybody knows it, usually from the time they are very young. Nobody can claim ignorance, nobody can claim trickery. You will go to jail. If you try to use some bullsh*t copout like "I love her so much, I just couldn't control myself and had to screw her", then you need to go to jail. The ability to make choices and intercept animal instincts sets humans apart from the rest of the kingdom. "Love" is no excuse. Pedophiles claim to "love" the 10-year-olds they rape. Another excuse everybody likes to use is that stupid-as-hell "she seduced me" argument. What kind of worm allows somebody to herd them into ruining their lives like that? I have no sympathy for these people, or any other people who simply refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

If you "love" a girl or boy, and want to "be there" for them, you wait, so that by the time they're legal you actually will be there (and not sitting in a cell somewhere). If you are already having sex and one of you turns 18 before the other, you pull your damn pants up and wait again (though IIRC the law makes exception for people already engaged in a sexual relationship). Think with your head. There is no excuse.

You keep saying I'm ducking the issue. Is it because I refer to things being illegal without defining whether I personally agree with those laws or not? Is it my personal opinion you want? Here it is: when it comes to statuatory and child protection laws, I agree. 100%.

rockoon

20th November 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Yes, it's a crime, period. If somebody makes and distributes pornographic pictures of a person who is proven to be underage, even by only one or two years, they will go to jail. I don't see where there's a "grey area" here at all. Proximity of age is no excuse. And guess what? Minors that produce and distribute child pornography still get charged!

More ducking. Seriously. This thread and what I have posted about is about someone who possesses pictures of naked children, not someone who happened to take the pictures. And I believe you knew that but didnt know how to respond or are just trolling.

The rest of your babble will not be responded to since it was not a response to my point but just another re-iteration of things you have said already about something not pertaining to my post.

Checkmite

20th November 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by rockoon

More ducking. Seriously. This thread and what I have posted about is about someone who possesses pictures of naked children, not someone who happened to take the pictures. And I believe you knew that but didnt know how to respond or are just trolling.

The rest of your babble will not be responded to since it was not a response to my point but just another re-iteration of things you have said already about something not pertaining to my post.

I've explained, in a post to another person, why "mere" possessors lack just as much integrity as the people who actually take the pictures. They are still scum. For your convenience, I will reiterate.

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

OK, let me try to offer analogous scenarios of criminal activities. We seem to have no debate over the people who actually take the photographs, so let’s leave them out and stick specifically to collectors. For this exercise I will contend that there are 3 types of child porn collectors: (1) those that directly demand or “commission” the material (and receive it as a result of that demand or commission); (2)those who are aware of the criminal nature of, but have absolutely nothing to do with, the production of the material and purchase it simply because it is available; and (3) those who are aware of the criminal nature of, but have absolutely nothing to do with, the production of the material and download it for free simply because it is available (I see no difference between the second and third instances, but I’m covering all the bases).

The closest analogy to these offenders would be an individual or individuals that hire a “hit man” to kill or injure someone. It is one perpetrator compelling another to commit a crime. When the hit man is caught, the people who hired him also face criminal charges for conspiracy, because the hit man was essentially an extension of their own interests. To argue that a person who commissions a work of child pornography is less guilty because the pornographer himself would likely have abused the child anyway, is to argue that the person(s) that hired the hit man are less guilty because the hit man would likely have eventually have been hired by somebody else to kill some other victim anyway.

In the second instance, the crime has already been committed independently, and the collector doesn’t benefit until after the fact. Does this make him less guilty? For this analogy, imagine that a friend of yours has told you that you can get a brand-new Mercedes for real cheap because of his special method of “acquisition”. Further checking reveals that he actually steals his cars and modifies them so that they cannot be recognized by the original owners (new paint, fake VIN, etc). The car was already stolen, and the thief was not even thinking of you at the time of the crime. But you still know that it was stolen, and the money you pay will in all likelihood go to help fund the stealing and modification of other cars; just as surely as money paid a child pornography production organization would undoubtedly be used to aid in the abuse of more children. Would you buy the car? If you did, you would be in trouble for “knowing receipt of stolen goods”. Benefiting from the results of a crime is still illegal, whether you took part in that crime or not, because you benefit at the expense of damage to another person, physically or otherwise, and the fact that you are out some money for it doesn’t make a difference.

Say another acquaintance of yours is directly involved in a bank heist, which you again have absolutely nothing to do with. The crime is already committed again, and this time it’s unlikely the perpetrator would commit it again. But because you are such a good friend, he offers to give you a cut – a few thousand dollars, no strings attached, just because he’s a caring and generous person, and hell – he can spare it. You know the money was taken illegally. Do you accept the gift? You shouldn’t. There is little, if any, moral difference between the person who accepts money he certainly knows was ill-gotten and the person who robbed the bank in the first place; neither has any integrity, one simply has bigger cajones. The only real difference between this child porn collector and the one mentioned above is that this one doesn’t have to pay, so no money of his is going to the abuse of more children. Nevertheless, he knows a child was necessarily abused to produce the material, yet he claims complete innocence because he “didn’t actually take the photos”. He still benefits at the fundamental and necessary expense of somebody else.

If this doesn't satisfy you, you ought to just come out and directly state the point you're trying to make, instead of trying to have others do it for you. I don't mind debating this topic at all, as it's something I feel strongly about; but I'm tired of spending 45 minutes typing out a miles-long missive countering what I believe to be the particular point you're trying to make in a certain post, and then watching you dismiss the entire thing with condescension and "you're ducking the issue" wave-offs. If the point you need to make is so important, make it straight out so we can debate it, and stop attempting to be clever.

rockoon

20th November 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

If this doesn't satisfy you, you ought to just come out and directly state the point you're trying to make, instead of trying to have others do it for you. I don't mind debating this topic at all, as it's something I feel strongly about; but I'm tired of spending 45 minutes typing out a miles-long missive countering what I believe to be the particular point you're trying to make in a certain post, and then watching you dismiss the entire thing with condescension and "you're ducking the issue" wave-offs. If the point you need to make is so important, make it straight out so we can debate it, and stop attempting to be clever.

I did directly state the point. you directly avoided it and went on about a different topic. You went on about photographers and child molesters when my post never mentioned either. You went on and on about the wrong topic and if you are 'tired' of posting long replies about the wrong topic, the fault is yours for posting long replies about the wrong topic. You are far too eager to be on the soap box.. apparently so much so that you fail to make sure you understand what you are replying to. Thats your fault not mine.

The point, directly:

How do you tell if the person in the picture is 15 or 18? You can't necessarily tell. But in one case you go to jail if you have the picture, in another you don't. Sure its up to the prosecution to prove the age of the person in the picture. The letter of the law, however, does not care about your knowledge of the persons age as you have already pointed out. If the person is 'obviously' under age then the prosecutor doesnt have to prove the age. What exactly does 'obviously' mean? Whats the egal definition?

The legal definition of pornography is "I know it when I see it". Hence the legal definition of child pornography is "I know it when I see it".

Checkmite

20th November 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by rockoon

I did directly state the point. you directly avoided it and went on about a different topic. You went on about photographers and child molesters when my post never mentioned either. You went on and on about the wrong topic and if you are 'tired' of posting long replies about the wrong topic, the fault is yours for posting long replies about the wrong topic. You are far too eager to be on the soap box.. apparently so much so that you fail to make sure you understand what you are replying to. Thats your fault not mine.

The point, directly:

How do you tell if the person in the picture is 15 or 18? You can't necessarily tell. But in one case you go to jail if you have the picture, in another you don't. Sure its up to the prosecution to prove the age of the person in the picture. The letter of the law, however, does not care about your knowledge of the persons age as you have already pointed out. If the person is 'obviously' under age then the prosecutor doesnt have to prove the age. What exactly does 'obviously' mean? Whats the egal definition?

The legal definition of pornography is "I know it when I see it". Hence the legal definition of child pornography is "I know it when I see it".

Well, that's just the way things go. If you want to stay out of trouble, make sure you get your photos only from places which can guarantee the majority status of the subject. If a victim is proven to be underage, you as the "collector" will technically possibly get into trouble unless you can prove you had good faith reason to believe the subject was not a minor. But typically in such cases, only the photographer goes to jail and nobody else gets ripped. In fact, I've never heard of anyone going to jail for incidentally possessing a pornographic photo of a 17-year-old he wasn't involved in making. Have you?

What does "obviously" mean? It means cannot possibly be 18, because of stature, apparent physical maturity, et al. Or to be more succinct, "obvious" means "the material leads the judge to believe that a reasonable doubt as to the majority status of the subject exists". Anyone between the ages of 0 and 14 years is obviously a minor, no matter what "Genghis" or any of his apologists may say. After that age, the obviousness is not apparent all the time, so evidence becomes necessary. Without a victim, evidence is practically nonexistant; which is why, as I stated, the vast overwhelming majority of child pornography cases involve victims 13 and under. Police won't bother with cases they can't prove.

If you are concerned that this is a real danger, I challenge you to find any case wherein a person has been jailed for merely possessing "child pornography" where the subject of the material is exclusively 16 or 17 years of age (and the person didn't possess photos of younger kids as well). You said you could provide links, so provide them.

Kevin_Lowe

21st November 2003, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Over and over and over again, I hear this. "What about the 18-year-old charged with statuatory rape for having sex with a 17-year-old the night before her 18th birthday?" People say it with emotion, like I'm supposed to pity such unfortunates. I don't.

A society has the right to set and enforce the moral standards it chooses. Our society has chosen to set the "magic number" at 18, and laws have been drafted accordingly. There will always be dissenters in every society, but they are overruled by the majority. You don't like statuatory rape laws? Get them changed. If you can't change them, dammit you have to live with them, or move someplace that doesn't have them. Disagreement with a law is not an effective legal defense.

I submit that you have missed the point.

The issue is not what the laws are - I think we all know what they are.

The issue is not whether or not society "has the right" to enforce laws - I think we all broadly agree that it does. (Or perhaps that it's best for everyone if it does so, if like me you think talk of "rights" is nonsense).

The question is whether things should be illegal. We're looking for some kind of moral claim here.

Since you brought up the issue of statutory rape by one day, let's discuss it briefly. The reason people bring that up "Over and over and over again" is that morally speaking, locking someone up on that charge is senseless.

No possible empirical test could show that anybody has been harmed. Whereas the vast harm to the youngsters involved, and the colossal waste of time and money the court case involves is obvious.

It's official idiocy in action. It's immoral. It should not happen.

Now whether various borderline, possible child pornography cases are equally counterproductive is up for grabs. But some argument from you as to why they should be illegal, as opposed to statements about why they are illegal, would go some way towards resolving the thread topic.

rockoon

21st November 2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Well, that's just the way things go. If you want to stay out of trouble, make sure you get your photos only from places which can guarantee the majority status of the subject. If a victim is proven to be underage, you as the "collector" will technically possibly get into trouble unless you can prove you had good faith reason to believe the subject was not a minor.

Translation: Guilty until proven innocent.

But typically in such cases, only the photographer goes to jail and nobody else gets ripped.

Translation: You dont read the news.

What does "obviously" mean? It means cannot possibly be 18, because of stature, apparent physical maturity, et al. Or to be more succinct, "obvious" means "the material leads the judge to believe that a reasonable doubt as to the majority status of the subject exists".

Translation: Guilty until proven innocent.

Anyone between the ages of 0 and 14 years is obviously a minor, no matter what "Genghis" or any of his apologists may say.

Translation: You think you have psychic powers.

After that age, the obviousness is not apparent all the time, so evidence becomes necessary.

Where is that written?

Translation: You made it up.

In Osborne v. Ohio the ruling was that laws criminalizing mere possession of child pornography were constitutional.

No intent needed. No obviousness needed.

Without a victim, evidence is practically nonexistant; which is why, as I stated, the vast overwhelming majority of child pornography cases involve victims 13 and under.

Translation: Who cares if innocent people get hurt in your witch hunt. The ends justify the means because a majority of the time its the right thing.

Did you know you can be convicted for mearly drawing depictions of naked children with a pencil and paper?

Thats what happened to Mike Diana in florida.

According to the law,

`child pornography' means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, drawing, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where--
`(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
`(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
`(C) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.'.

Translation: Regardless of the majority status of the person within the picture, you can go to jail for possessing child pornography.

In many states, the age of consent for sex is less than 18 years old (16 and 17 usualy) but regardless of this age, the age for being photographed naked is 18. So you can have sex with your 17 year old girlfriend you just can't take pictures of it.

Checkmite

21st November 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Now whether various borderline, possible child pornography cases are equally counterproductive is up for grabs. But some argument from you as to why they should be illegal, as opposed to statements about why they are illegal, would go some way towards resolving the thread topic.

I will address this later today, I haven't much time at the moment.

Checkmite

21st November 2003, 08:43 AM

Rockoon: I take it, then, that you cannot provide the links requested?

Just checking.

And a witch hunt? Hardly. Only people who are found to actually possess the offending material go to jail. "Accusation" is not sufficient.

voidx

21st November 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I disagree, but in a way which makes detailed explanation necessary.

First, know that I agree there are “levels” or “degrees” of privacy violation. For example, a photograph taken of an accident victim comatose in a hospital bed is a violation of privacy, but less of a violation than, say, a hidden camera in a changing room; and forcing a person to perform sexual acts for the purpose of making photographs is an even greater violation.

I will also concede that a person who views a photo does not violate the subject’s privacy as much as the person that took it; but only in that the photographer has somewhat personal contact with the victim, was in violation of the victim’s privacy for longer than the instant captured on film, and may have committed some abuse that isn’t documented on the image. Succinctly, a person viewing an image is seeing the exact same thing that the person holding the camera did; so in essence, everybody who views that image is symbolically standing in the same living room/studio/wherever at the same moment in which the photo was originally taken.

"In essense", "Symbolically" should not count for anything, particularily when it comes to prosecuting people. While we seem to agree overall its ideas like this that bother me.

Now, you say that a person 14 steps down the line is in a much lesser violation of privacy, but frankly I don’t see how. The 14th, 40th, and 400th person to download a photograph commits exactly the same violation as the first person who downloaded it. What could possibly lessen the violation? The content of the photo doesn’t change, nor does the method by which it was obtained. Does the mere fact that somebody has seen a photograph before you did make that photograph lesser of a violation in your possession than in his? I can conceive of no possible mechanism by which this is true.

Ok I'll concede this but only as you conceded by point above. That there is indeed a difference, that it is indeed a lesser violation. That was not always clear.

OK, let me try to offer analogous scenarios of criminal activities. We seem to have no debate over the people who actually take the photographs, so let’s leave them out and stick specifically to collectors. For this exercise I will contend that there are 3 types of child porn collectors: (1) those that directly demand or “commission” the material (and receive it as a result of that demand or commission); (2)those who are aware of the criminal nature of, but have absolutely nothing to do with, the production of the material and purchase it simply because it is available; and (3) those who are aware of the criminal nature of, but have absolutely nothing to do with, the production of the material and download it for free simply because it is available (I see no difference between the second and third instances, but I’m
covering all the bases).

These make sense to me. So we're in agreement.

The closest analogy to these offenders would be an individual or individuals that hire a “hit man” to kill or injure someone. It is one perpetrator compelling another to commit a crime. When the hit man is caught, the people who hired him also face criminal charges for conspiracy, because the hit man was essentially an extension of their own interests. To argue that a person who commissions a work of child pornography is less guilty because the pornographer himself would likely have abused the child anyway, is to argue that the person(s) that hired the hit man are less guilty because the hit man would likely have eventually have been hired by somebody else to kill some other victim anyway.

In the second instance, the crime has already been committed independently, and the collector doesn’t benefit until after the fact. Does this make him less guilty? For this analogy, imagine that a friend of yours has told you that you can get a brand-new Mercedes for real cheap because of his special method of “acquisition”. Further checking reveals that he actually steals his cars and modifies them so that they cannot be recognized by the original owners (new paint, fake VIN, etc). The car was already stolen, and the thief was not even thinking of you at the time of the crime. But you still know that it was stolen, and the money you pay will in all likelihood go to help fund the stealing and modification of other cars; just as surely as money paid a child pornography production organization would undoubtedly be used to aid in the abuse of more children. Would you buy the car? If you did, you would be in trouble for “knowing receipt of stolen goods”. Benefiting from the results of a crime is still illegal, whether you took part in that crime or not, because you benefit at the expense of damage to another person, physically or otherwise, and the fact that you are out some money for it doesn’t make a difference.

Say another acquaintance of yours is directly involved in a bank heist, which you again have absolutely nothing to do with. The crime is already committed again, and this time it’s unlikely the perpetrator would commit it again. But because you are such a good friend, he offers to give you a cut – a few thousand dollars, no strings attached, just because he’s a caring and generous person, and hell – he can spare it. You know the money was taken illegally. Do you accept the gift? You shouldn’t. There is little, if any, moral difference between the person who accepts money he certainly knows was ill-gotten and the person who robbed the bank in the first place; neither has any integrity, one simply has bigger cajones. The only real difference between this child porn collector and the one mentioned above is that this one doesn’t have to pay, so no money of his is going to the abuse of more children. Nevertheless, he knows a child was necessarily abused to produce the material, yet he claims complete innocence because he “didn’t actually take the photos”. He still benefits at the fundamental and necessary expense of somebody else.

You and I are in complete agreement over the first scenario. To commission the image specifically is to commission the offense. You'll get no arguement from me here.

The second scenario we have some disagreements. Your scenario's hinge on an unquantified "benefit" where child pornography is concerned. In your stolen Mercedes example the benefit is a cheap Mercedes-Benz. This is a tangible and measurable benefit. What specifically is the "benefit" a collector gains from viewing images of child pornography? Their own sexual arousal at viewing the image is not a "benefit" if you ask me. They are gaining nothing except arousal at the expense of the child's images. Do you consider this some form of "benefit"?

The third scenario is the same. The person obtains monetary benefit. What equal parrallel to benefit does the image viewer gain? If you can clarify this, then I'll concede this point to you.

Here's an analogy that makes sense to me. People are forcing or coercing minors to smoke marijuana and then photographing them doing so. Should it be illegal for a person with no contact or knowledge of the original perpatrators to view the images of minors smoking marijuana under forced or coerced conditions? That to me is an appropriate comparison. Should viewing an image of someong having an offense committed against them in a forced or coerced situation, be illegal. That is the very crux of the issue here.

The documentation also happens to be a news article. It is very much possible that the molesters were found and charged. I agree that I would feel better also if the article came out and said as much; but as I said, we’re debating data we don’t have here.

Well there's nothing to be done then since the data's not there. But myself it makes me uneasy that the data is in fact not there, and that we are left to assume the original molesters were found and charged, without being told as much.

Okay, that’s fine. Yes, that could be seen as a “positive” aspect of child pornography. But bear in mind it still exists at the expense of the victims. Is allowing children to be harmed further justifiable if that further harm allows the perpetrators to be caught? That’s a fascinating question, one I’m still thinking about.

You misinterpret the question. The children are harmed anyway, the images at their expense still exist anyway, and will continue to exist. Its not a "positive" aspect as rather something that will never be gotten rid of completely, but that can be taken advantage of in order to find new leads.

Every single victim ever asked has indicated that they do not want the photographs in circulation. Further, in younger victims a fear complex sometimes develops for this reason, when the child imagines being recognized by somebody who may have seen his photographs. It doesn’t happen to all of them, maybe not even the bulk of them, but many victims of child pornography have become nervous wrecks when the implications of the material’s purpose and distribution finally hit them.

Obviously they do not want the photo's in circulation, but is it causing them distress. Your own statement here admits that the bulk of them do not develop the mentioned fear complexes. But I'll concede that yes, obviously the thought of running across someone that had viewed your picture would cause varying levels of trauma in different victims. So in essence, since we can never rid the circulation of their photo's entirely, we can at least ease their suffering by promising to make sure as few people as possible will see it.

That’s true, but does it matter? If it’s obvious that a set of photographs was made due to a specific demand from specific people, then those people share responsibility for its production.

Of course it matters. If the abuse continues anyway, even after the first set of images are distributed and found unpopular, then the effect the so called "demand" created by collectors is severly lessened. You're flip flopping between two scenario's here. Specifically demanded scenario's of images, and then the more general "demand" created by the fact that the images get downloaded in the first place. In the scenario described the original abuse happened anyway, but photo's were also taken and distributed in hopes others would encourage his abuses. This is what you put forth. No if those images were not popular and no more series were made, yet the abuses continued, then there is essentially no "demand" created by the collectors in this scenario, and the abuses continue behind closed doors. In the case of an offender photographing his offense as a justification for what he's done, then there is no demand created by collectors. They merely provide validation in this scenario. Lets not start crossing our different examples.

Fine, but that doesn’t relieve our society of the obligation to defend the morals it has established for itself. And I believe the illegality of possession is an effective deterrent. That’s why only 1,200 children were abused, for example, despite the existence of more than a few hundred thousand collectors. The social stigmas, the prison terms, and the likelihood of being caught without outrageous security precautions (and even despite them) makes, I think, many people consider the business of actual child abuse not worth the cost.

Yet new rings of child porn collectors are continually found correct? And if I'm wrong here by all means let me know. If new child porn clubs keep resurfacing, then no, the illegality of possession is not acting as an efficient deterrent. I find it a little off the mark to say that only 1200 children were abused despite a larger group of collectors because of deterrents. I would say its just as likely that again the availability of children able to be forced and coerced into pornography safely, meaning able to be coerced so effectively that they do not tell anyone, or attempt to seek help has always been small. Is it shown that this number is dropping or rising one way or the other? Again do we have any statistics showing the drop in the number of child abuses and molestations? If its not dropping, then illegality of possession is not likely an effective deterrent, and while we can continue implementing it, new methods should be looked at, regardless how hard it is.

From that angle, I believe it does help in their recovery. Peace of mind is important, especially to people with the aforementioned fear complex. Every perpetrator arrested is one less person who’s seen you, and maybe that person was the last who had any of your photos. Maybe, by stopping him, you stopped new photos of some other victim from being distributed at all.

That makes sense, whoever I find it extremely unlikely that you would ever completely eliminate the circulation of all of any given victims photo's.

Since we have absolutely no way of researching the number of cases of child molestation per year, I can’t provide any figures. We do know that tracing of photographs has led to prosecution and conviction of original offenders in the past. If we can’t get them all, we can at least get some. I’m more inclined to support that philosophy, as opposed to “if we can’t get them all, we may as well not bother to get any.” [/B]
I'm not saying I don't want them to catch anyone. However you're stating that illegality of possession is a good deterrent and method for convicting the original offenders. I'm merely challenging this because that is obviously not the case. And sinse the numbers don't exist we cannot judge how effective a deterrent illegality of possession is. We are again just assuming. What if its not a good deterrent in the end? If we believe it is we may rest on our laurels thinking its effective enough when we should be looking at other possibilities to find and convict these offenders. This more than anything is why I'm discussing this with you. We both seem to agree on almost all points. I'm just asking, because its hard with a topic like this, if we're being objective and critical enough of the methods we're employing. Just because they are battling something we find morally repugnant, doesn't also mean they shouldn't come under scrutiny.

Checkmite

21st November 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I submit that you have missed the point.

The issue is not what the laws are - I think we all know what they are.

The issue is not whether or not society "has the right" to enforce laws - I think we all broadly agree that it does. (Or perhaps that it's best for everyone if it does so, if like me you think talk of "rights" is nonsense).

The question is whether things should be illegal. We're looking for some kind of moral claim here.

Since you brought up the issue of statutory rape by one day, let's discuss it briefly. The reason people bring that up "Over and over and over again" is that morally speaking, locking someone up on that charge is senseless.

No possible empirical test could show that anybody has been harmed. Whereas the vast harm to the youngsters involved, and the colossal waste of time and money the court case involves is obvious.

It's official idiocy in action. It's immoral. It should not happen.

Now whether various borderline, possible child pornography cases are equally counterproductive is up for grabs. But some argument from you as to why they should be illegal, as opposed to statements about why they are illegal, would go some way towards resolving the thread topic.

I guess I understand what you're getting at. Allow me to outline the chain of reasoning, as I see it.

First of all, I propose that, as children are among the most vulnerable members of society, us less-vulnerable members have something of an obligation to protect them from damage and keep them safe from dangerous situations until they are prepared to properly deal with such situations on their own.

Second, I propose that "proper preparation" consists of a combination of 3 basic attributes: physical maturity, mental maturity, and emotional maturity.

Third, I propose that each of these attributes is independent from the rest. This means that not only do different people attain "proper preparation" at different times, but that within individuals each of the three attributes develops and reaches minimum acceptable level at its own pace. This means one can be mentally or emotionally prepared for something, but not physically; or vice versa.

Fourth, I propose that the society in which an individual lives usually determines which levels of maturity are to be considered "proper preparation".

Fifth, I propose that there are individuals who for whatever reason seek to take advantage of the less prepared for their own benefit, in multiple ways. Since children for the most part do not reach the state of "proper preparation" until relatively late, this makes them easy targets for exploitation because they often simply do not recognize that they're being taken advantage of.

Lastly, I propose that an action which damages an individual does so regardless of whether the victim immediately recognizes the damage or not.

So, in order to protect children, it is necessary to prevent them from engaging (or prevent others from engaging them) in activities for which they are, in our opinion, not properly prepared for. In the case of sex, our society tends to consider proper preparation as the point at which individuals are physically mature enough to engage in the act, mentally mature enough to understand what's happening and weigh the consequences of their actions (esp. regarding pregnancy, VD, etc), and emotionally mature enough to be able to go through the act without feeling guilty, violated, or confused as to what they're experiencing.

It is the primary responsibility of parents, to do this job as they see fit, as they normally extend control over the activities of their children for the largest amount of time. However, there are times when parents do not have direct control over their children (and thus are exposed), and there are also times when the parents themselves are predatory. Such instances do not nullify society's self-imposed obligation to protect children, however, and so society has erected a second-line defense - the laws and those who enforce them.

Now, while one 15-year-old may be considered properly prepared by societal standards, another may not be. What would be the consequences of physically "certifying" kids as "able/unable to have sex"? Do we issue ID cards? Would an actual label of "unprepared" have its own consequences on the emotional development of the individual? We simply cannot judge every individual by him-or-herself without expending tremendous resources and raising ire; it's completely impractical. The only fair and balanced way to carry out society's protection duties via the law is to have a set age of consent which is enforced blindly, an age by which in our opinion the average individual is properly prepared for the activity. Granted, this will preclude some properly prepared individuals who haven't met the age requirement, as surely as it would include some individuals who are not properly prepared. But the only practical alternative is no protection at all, which is out of the question in our society.

Now, as different regions make their own laws, the age of consent differs. In some places it's 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18. It depends on each particular region's decision as to what level of maturity is "proper preparation".

As an aside, the trend over the last 50 or more years in nearly all regions is a lowering of the age of consent. At the same time, we are careful not to neglect our protection duties by attempting to ensure that as the age of consent drops, so does the average age at which children are properly prepared; we do this by being more open about sex in society, by educating them as to the dangers, and warning them about what constitutes abuse.

rockoon

21st November 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Rockoon: I take it, then, that you cannot provide the links requested?

Just checking.

Two links found on the first page of a google search:

Child-Porn Prisoner Set Free (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/k_alexander.html) is the story of a person who possessed virtual computer generated child porn who was sent to jail.

Then there is the story of this Poor Grandmother (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/nets_jail.html) who was emailed child porn and who tried to delete it. She got sentenced to 11 months jail time. The judge, during sentencing, also threatened to send her husband and their 40 year old daughter to jail as well.

And a witch hunt?

Clearly.

Checkmite

21st November 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by voidx

"In essense", "Symbolically" should not count for anything, particularily when it comes to prosecuting people. While we seem to agree overall its ideas like this that bother me.

The terms are crucial to any violation-of-privacy-by-extension argument.

Originally posted by voidx
The second scenario we have some disagreements. Your scenario's hinge on an unquantified "benefit" where child pornography is concerned. In your stolen Mercedes example the benefit is a cheap Mercedes-Benz. This is a tangible and measurable benefit. What specifically is the "benefit" a collector gains from viewing images of child pornography? Their own sexual arousal at viewing the image is not a "benefit" if you ask me. They are gaining nothing except arousal at the expense of the child's images. Do you consider this some form of "benefit"?

The third scenario is the same. The person obtains monetary benefit. What equal parrallel to benefit does the image viewer gain? If you can clarify this, then I'll concede this point to you.

It is absolutely a benefit. Consider: the most basic definition of "benefit" is "a positive result". Any crime involving an act (as opposed to an omission) takes place because the perpetrator considers the possible benefits (positive results) to be greater than the possible detriments (bad results). For example, the thief considers the possibility of getting rich worth the risk of going to jail. Most of the time, the "benefit" is indeed material or tangible.

In sex crimes, both the benefit to the perpetrator and the damage to the victim are often intangible or immaterial. What positive results does a rapist expect from his rape? Arousal, gratification, "power trips", and the like. Those are the benefits - intangible, assuredly, but nevertheless. What damage is done to the rape victim? Occasionally there is physical injury, but not always. Many times the only damage is emotional distress, loss of dignity, a feeling of violation, etc. Same thing with a molested child - the damage is typically intangible. Does this mean that unless there's a quantifiable physical injury, rape or child molestation shouldn't be criminal? Of course not.

The viewer of child pornography does benefit - through arousal and gratification. They are the exact same benefits the original abuser obtained; just remotely in the viewer's case. But simply put, in both instances the perpetrator necessarily obtained his "benefits" via the abuse of a child.

I'm not saying I don't want them to catch anyone. However you're stating that illegality of possession is a good deterrent and method for convicting the original offenders. I'm merely challenging this because that is obviously not the case. And sinse the numbers don't exist we cannot judge how effective a deterrent illegality of possession is. We are again just assuming. What if its not a good deterrent in the end? If we believe it is we may rest on our laurels thinking its effective enough when we should be looking at other possibilities to find and convict these offenders. This more than anything is why I'm discussing this with you. We both seem to agree on almost all points. I'm just asking, because its hard with a topic like this, if we're being objective and critical enough of the methods we're employing. Just because they are battling something we find morally repugnant, doesn't also mean they shouldn't come under scrutiny. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well let's consider. How are child abusers found? In the vast majority of cases, they are caught when the victim indicates that abuse has occurred - through a claim or otherwise. Unless a victim cooperates by fingering the perpetrator, the police simply cannot act. Even in cases where witnesses come forth, a suspect and "victim" that support each other's denials equals a dead case. But why is this so? It is so because without the victim's cooperation, evidence of the crime like statements and medical examinations cannot be taken. Even injuries consistent with sexual abuse do not make a strong enough case if the victim flatly denies he or she got them from the suspect. Usually it never comes to this, however, because a victim coerced into silence doesn't come forward, and the authorities never become even suspicious of the abuse in the first place. There's no evidence. No reason for suspicion.

Child pornography, however, is another ball of wax. A photograph or video which explicitly documents a child's abuse is direct evidence the police can use, regardless of whether the victim has told anybody or not, and regardless of any denials. Take the freak example of the burglar who found the photos of his own sister. The girl never indicated to anybody that any abuse had taken place, and perhaps never would have. The police would never have known or suspected that this person (and whomever his comrade was) was molesting the girl, ever. However, once the photos were turned in to the police, the witness didn't have to come forward because they proved that a crime had taken place, and when police have such hard evidence, investigation is mandatory.

And that's the deal with child pornography and the police. Independent of whether possession of the material is a crime in itself, it is direct evidence of another crime, and the police have to investigate it. And evidence of a crime in somebody's possession makes the possessor an ipso facto suspect in the investigation. The police must arrest the possessor, execute search warrants against him, and do everything else they must do to find out whether he was a participant in the crime. If it turns out he wasn't, the police must follow the chain of custody as far as they can in an attempt to find the original perpetrators and victims. Often they can't. Sometimes they can.

That's where I think the hangup here is. Police don't simply persue child pornography because they might have a chance to trace an image back to an abuser. They persue child pornography because it is evidence of a crime, and they are required to investigate it.

Now, as to whether time could be spent on better methods; I don't think so, but only because I cannot think of any other method by which police can find abusers that they aren't already using. But don't get the wrong impression. Police must investigate every single criminal case they come upon. There is no "picking and choosing". There has never been an instance (for example) of police deciding to persue a child pornography case over or instead of a seperate victim's allegation. They are bound to investigate both. Likewise, time spent attempting to trace illegal material back to its source is never wasted time. It has worked in the past.

I do not fault you for questioning the methods; there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Checkmite

21st November 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by rockoon

Two links found on the first page of a google search:

Child-Porn Prisoner Set Free (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/k_alexander.html) is the story of a person who possessed virtual computer generated child porn who was sent to jail.

Then there is the story of this Poor Grandmother (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/nets_jail.html) who was emailed child porn and who tried to delete it. She got sentenced to 11 months jail time. The judge, during sentencing, also threatened to send her husband and their 40 year old daughter to jail as well.

I seem to recall asking something like...

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

If you are concerned that this is a real danger, I challenge you to find any case wherein a person has been jailed for merely possessing "child pornography" where the subject of the material is exclusively 16 or 17 years of age (and the person didn't possess photos of younger kids as well). You said you could provide links, so provide them.

Neither of the two links fit this criteria. But I'll play ball anyway.

Child-Porn Prisoner Set Free (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/k_alexander.html) is the story of a person who possessed virtual computer generated child porn who was sent to jail.

No, that's an element of the story. The real story of the article is that the law didn't discriminate between real child pornography and "virtual" child pornography, and so was declared unconstitutional. This is a good thing, because the law was changed to be more specific. That's an example of the self-corrective nature of American law, which is made possible by our system of Checks & Balances(TM). When the law was changed, the offender was no longer an offender, and was therefore released, as he should have been.

Next.

Then there is the story of this Poor Grandmother (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/nets_jail.html) who was emailed child porn and who tried to delete it. She got sentenced to 11 months jail time. The judge, during sentencing, also threatened to send her husband and their 40 year old daughter to jail as well.

Read the article, and look at it from the judge's point of view. I'm reminded of math exercises from my third grade year - word problems, which contained some necessary data and some extraneous and irrelevant information. "You must ignore the irrelevant data and concentrate on the parts of the problem that matter", the teacher told us. Let's excise all the extraneous data and get down to the bare bones, as a judge would see them when comparing a case against the law.

This person downloaded illegal material.

This person did not delete the illegal material.

This person did not notify the police of the illegal material.

As far as the law is concerned, this is all that matters. It adds up to intent to possess. There is no difference at all between the actions of this "poor grandmother" and the actions of a person who really did want to keep the photos.

Now, the "poor grandmother", who spends 8 hours a day on a computer cybersexing in chat rooms claims that "she thought she deleted them". Is this a valid defense? I'll even concede the possibility that such a serial computer user could do something that makes her "think" she deleted something when she really didn't. Can anyone whose computer is found to contain child pornography use the excuse that "I thought I deleted it"? If not, why should it be valid for this person and not others?

The "poor grandmother" received these photos, from a person she knew and met in real life - photos depicting babies being raped - and for some reason just wasn't concerned enough to call the police on this person. She just told the person to 'stop sending them'. So now this poor grandmother, not knowing if her "contact" was actually involved in the production of the material, apparently didn't have enough sympathy for the babies being raped in the photos to even consider calling the police; and I'm supposed to be sympathetic because this person who spends "8 hours a day" on her computer "thought she deleted them" and got in trouble. Really?

No dice. It's an unacceptable excuse. The law cannot make exceptions for old age, nor can it accept "I thought..." as a sufficient defense.

rockoon

21st November 2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

This person downloaded illegal material.
[QUOTE]

Did you bother to read the article?

[QUOTE]
This person did not delete the illegal material.

This person left it in their recycle bin because they didnt know better.

As far as the law is concerned, this is all that matters. It adds up to intent to possess.

I suppose you have intent to possess email spam as well? Intent to possess that article in your internet cache. Intent to posses cookies?

Yawn. You claimed you were a net vet. I am having serious doubts at this point.

A quote from the article: "Hoot contends that when she received the baby-rape photos, she told Limbach to stop sending them."

Was this proven false in court? If she asked not to recieve the material please explain exactly how that is intent to possess. Its not. This is a clear example of guilty until proven innocent.

There is no difference at all between the actions of this "poor grandmother" and the actions of a person who really did want to keep the photos.

Contradicting your previous claim that the person had the intent to posses. Either they had the intent to posses or they didn't have the intent to keep the photos. You can't have it both ways.

Now, the "poor grandmother", who spends 8 hours a day on a computer cybersexing in chat rooms claims that "she thought she deleted them". Is this a valid defense?

Combined with a request not to recieve the material, yes. She took steps to avoid recieving further material and she tried to delete the material she did recieve.

I'll even concede the possibility that such a serial computer user could do something that makes her "think" she deleted something when she really didn't. Can anyone whose computer is found to contain child pornography use the excuse that "I thought I deleted it"? If not, why should it be valid for this person and not others?

You have stated several times on this thread that if a person does accidentally download child porn, that they should delete it immediately. If they fail to do so because of lack of knowledge of how to *completely* delete it.. *THEN ITS A VALID DEFENSE* especialy when they *DIDNT WANT TO RECIEVE IT* to begin with.

The "poor grandmother" received these photos, from a person she knew and met in real life

So if you know someone in real life.. they can send you child porn and get you busted. Good logic.

I'm supposed to be sympathetic because this person who spends "8 hours a day" on her computer "thought she deleted them" and got in trouble. Really?

You don't have to be sympathetic. You can feel whatever the hell you want. However, feeling is not the place where logic resides.

It's an unacceptable excuse. The law cannot make exceptions for old age, nor can it accept "I thought..." as a sufficient defense.

Actualy in almost every other area of the law, "I thought..." is a valid defense as was explained to you in a post about intent and how intent normally is a key factor in criminal cases.

Did they prove she had intent to possess? Funny that the article neglects to mention that. The article does mention that she asked not to recieve the material and that she tried to delete the material. The article does not state any of this was proven false.

"You must ignore the irrelevant data and concentrate on the parts of the problem that matter",

Thats why you focused on her spending her time on internet chat rooms? Thats why you focused on her knowing the person that sent her the material?

So much for ignoring irrelevant data.

Checkmite

22nd November 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by rockoon

This person left it in their recycle bin because they didnt know better.

How have you divined this?

Originally posted by rockoon
I suppose you have intent to possess email spam as well? Intent to possess that article in your internet cache. Intent to posses cookies?

If you are aware of the existence of such material, and have the ability to get rid of it but choose not to, then yes, you have chosen to possess whatever you've left in your inbox, cache, and cookies folder.

Originally posted by rockoon
A quote from the article: "Hoot contends that when she received the baby-rape photos, she told Limbach to stop sending them."

Was this proven false in court? If she asked not to recieve the material please explain exactly how that is intent to possess. Its not. This is a clear example of guilty until proven innocent.

Wrong. That she asked not to receive any more material only means she didn't want to receive any more. She's not on trial for what she didn't receive, she's on trial for what's on her computer.

And it's not "guilty" until proven innocent. The physical evidence in the case clearly outweighed the defendant's denial. She was proven guilty.

Originally posted by rockoon
Contradicting your previous claim that the person had the intent to posses. Either they had the intent to posses or they didn't have the intent to keep the photos. You can't have it both ways.

Look at the qouted section again. There is no difference at all between the actions of this "poor grandmother" and the actions of a person who really did want to keep the photos. Her actions as determined by physical evidence taken from her computer indicate she had intent to possess. There is no way for an investigator to prove whether or not she tried to delete the photos. Thus, she has an unqualifiable claim which contradicts available physical evidence. And although both claims and physical evidence are allowable in court, the physical evidence always outweighs contradictory claims every time. If you're caught on camera robbing a liquor store, it doesn't matter how much you swear you didn't do it.

Originally posted by rockoon
Combined with a request not to recieve the material, yes. She took steps to avoid recieving further material and she tried to delete the material she did recieve.

No, she said she tried to delete the material. She has made an unprovable statement which is contradicted by the physical evidence.

Originally posted by rockoon
You have stated several times on this thread that if a person does accidentally download child porn, that they should delete it immediately. If they fail to do so because of lack of knowledge of how to *completely* delete it.. *THEN ITS A VALID DEFENSE* especialy when they *DIDNT WANT TO RECIEVE IT* to begin with.

I never said that "failure to delete because of lack of knowledge of how to delete it" is a valid defense. It must be deleted, period. Further, the excuse that "I don't know how to delete something" emits a high bullsh*t factor. It's a basic computer skill, one that the "welcome to Windows" tutorial teaches you, along with mouse point-click-dragging, when you first start up your new computer. Somebody who spends eight hours a day on a computer and doesn't know how to "delete" something? Her claim flies in the face of common sense. Even if it did not, alibis have to be supported. If a defendant for murder offers the alibi that "I was at Herb's Tavern when the murder happened", he's got to substantiate that claim. If it can't be proven, the alibi simply doesn't work.

Besides, you assume that the photos were found in the lady's "recycle bin". That's a lovely bit of clairvoyance, and I'd like to know exactly how many mountains of files ended up in this lady's "recycle bin" that she never emptied because she didn't know how. But that doesn't matter. Suppose the files in question were placed in some other folder? How much credibility would her "I though I deleted them" claim have then? Incidentally (although it doesn't matter anyway), her claim that she also "did not want him to send any (more)" photos is also anecdote. There's no way it can be substantiated, can it? Convenient.

This summer there was a highly publicized (here in Ohio) case of a man who went to work and worked nearly his whole shift while there was a baby in the back seat. In the heat, the baby died. The man swore up and down that he "thought" he had dropped the baby off. Was this man then not liable? No, he was very liable.

If the judge gave this woman leniency because she "thought she deleted them", he would have to give every single possessor the same leniency if they use the same unprovable excuse. Get-out-of-jail-free card.

Originally posted by rockoon
So if you know someone in real life.. they can send you child porn and get you busted. Good logic.

Chopping a sentence in half and posting a segment, so it can be taken out of context. There's a word for this, I'm trying to think of it...

Originally posted by rockoon
You don't have to be sympathetic. You can feel whatever the hell you want. However, feeling is not the place where logic resides.

Right. Logic says that when the physical evidence contradicts a person's statement, the physical evidence wins.

Originally posted by rockoon
Actualy in almost every other area of the law, "I thought..." is a valid defense as was explained to you in a post about intent and how intent normally is a key factor in criminal cases.

That's true usually; however, in this case the "I thought" was overruled by physical evidence.

Originally posted by rockoon
Did they prove she had intent to possess? Funny that the article neglects to mention that. The article does mention that she asked not to recieve the material and that she tried to delete the material. The article does not state any of this was proven false.

No, the article does not say that. The article says she contended that she asked not to receive it, and she alleged that she "thought" she deleted it. The article also mentions that she, in fact, did not delete it, and that she also did not inform the authorities that somebody she actually knew was disseminating and possibly involved in making photos of babies being raped.

Originally posted by rockoon
Thats why you focused on her spending her time on internet chat rooms? Thats why you focused on her knowing the person that sent her the material?

So much for ignoring irrelevant data.

I ignored the irrelevant data when I posted the three points that add up to "intent to possess". The woman claims she did not want to possess the photos she received, yet she did everything that a person who did want to possess those photos would do. So, do we simply ignore the physical evidence because she looks like an honest person?

I appreciate, by the way, that your trend toward hyperbole seems to have reversed itself; however, the condescension is still a bit distracting.

rockoon

22nd November 2003, 06:40 PM

Look at the qouted section again. There is no difference at all between the actions of this "poor grandmother" and the actions of a person who really did want to keep the photos.

If she is not of the set [really did want to keep] then she is of the set [really didnt want to keep].

If those of the group [really didn't want to keep] have intent to possess, we are all doomed.

Further, the excuse that "I don't know how to delete something" emits a high bullsh*t factor. It's a basic computer skill, one that the "welcome to Windows" tutorial teaches you, along with mouse point-click-dragging, when you first start up your new computer.

Now you've proven you are new to windows. Do you know what a recycle bin is? How about an internet cache? Or how about the folder most email applications move the messages you delete to? Deleting something under windows does not mean its gone. It quite often means its been moved someplace else. Only when you delete it from that seperate area is it gone, and only then in some cases it is gone. You must have watched a different "welcome to Windows" tutorial than the one I just watched because the one I just watched mentions none of this.

Perhaps your hard drive is full of stuff you thought you deleted? At this point it seems very likely that this is the case since you have not demonstrated a basic understanding of the mechanisms involved. Instead you have demonstrated an incorrect understanding of the word delete.

Somebody who spends eight hours a day on a computer and doesn't know how to "delete" something? Her claim flies in the face of common sense.

At this point, your claim of being a net vet flies in the face of common sense. You've been wrong on many points. You began with the claim that file sharing services dont happen on the internet. Its been downhill from there for you. You have not demonstrated even a basic understand if the mechanisms of the internet or the mechanisms of modern operating system or the software they run.

I hope you are comfortable knowing that this particular judge wont allow you to use the I thought I deleted it defense just because you lack these basic understanding that it wasnt really deleted. If you use outlook express.. all those deleted emails are still there on your hard drive.

[QOUTE]
I ignored the irrelevant data when I posted the three points that add up to "intent to possess". The woman claims she did not want to possess the photos she received, yet she did everything that a person who did want to possess those photos would do.
[/QUOTE]

You do think you are a psychic! Amazing. You know what she did do you?? Is there some other article that tells use what she did? Please give it. Otherwise.. you've made it up.

The only person making assumptions is you. Firstly you've made an assumption about the physical evidence. You've assumed that it wasnt, for example, hidden in her email marked as deleted. This data does not go away until every message ever recieved is marked as deleted. You've assumed that it wasnt, for example, in her recycle bin. You've assumed that it wasnt in her internet cache (where it would be if she uses a web-based email service). And finally, you've assumed they didnt have to use a deleted file recovery program. All these assumptions and more need to be made before you have a point.

Because of this, your point is riddled with assumptions. Hey lets ruin some lives based on assumption shall we? Hey we can even kill a few people over assumptions like they did during the witch hunts.

THe judges words detail what will happen if the material is found on your hard drive after you've selected the delete function of whatever software is being used. The judges words state that its not a defense. Your own demonstrated lack of knowledge indicates that you too would have been sent to jail had somebody sent you unsolicited child porn and then gave the police a tip off.

"but..but..I thought I deleted it!" isnt a defense as you say.. so you yourself are open to being screwed by somebody. Maybe you should keep that email address of yours to yourself.

Checkmite

23rd November 2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by rockoon

If she is not of the set [really did want to keep] then she is of the set [really didnt want to keep].

If those of the group [really didn't want to keep] have intent to possess, we are all doomed.

You're misinterpreting. She alleges that she is not of the set, yet the evidence indicates she was of the set. So how do we know whether she was or wasn't? Which has more weight, the claim that she "thought" she deleted it, or the evidence which says she clearly didn't?

Originally posted by rockoon
At this point, your claim of being a net vet flies in the face of common sense. You've been wrong on many points. You began with the claim that file sharing services dont happen on the internet. Its been downhill from there for you. You have not demonstrated even a basic understand if the mechanisms of the internet or the mechanisms of modern operating system or the software they run.

If it helps, I don't need to demonstrate anything. I'm not the one who has to deal with this stuff. I do know one fact, though: if she would've called the police right after she "thought she deleted it", she wouldn't have been in any trouble. In fact, I seem to recall this being mentioned on my website somewhere (I probably should get around to updating it again). Yeah, the article says it, too.

Originally posted by rockoon
I hope you are comfortable knowing that this particular judge wont allow you to use the I thought I deleted it defense just because you lack these basic understanding that it wasnt really deleted. If you use outlook express.. all those deleted emails are still there on your hard drive.

Not if you use the Disk Cleanup utility. A quick run of Necrofile wouldn't hurt, either. Besides, if I ran across the material, I'd be concerned enough to call the police, thus exempting me from prosecution.

Originally posted by rockoon
You do think you are a psychic! Amazing. You know what she did do you?? Is there some other article that tells use what she did? Please give it. Otherwise.. you've made it up.

The only person making assumptions is you. Firstly you've made an assumption about the physical evidence. You've assumed that it wasnt, for example, hidden in her email marked as deleted. This data does not go away until every message ever recieved is marked as deleted. You've assumed that it wasnt, for example, in her recycle bin. You've assumed that it wasnt in her internet cache (where it would be if she uses a web-based email service). And finally, you've assumed they didnt have to use a deleted file recovery program. All these assumptions and more need to be made before you have a point.

Because of this, your point is riddled with assumptions. Hey lets ruin some lives based on assumption shall we? Hey we can even kill a few people over assumptions like they did during the witch hunts.

First of all, I don't know which is more humorous; that fact that you are being dishonest or the fact that the evidence which proves your dishonesty is just a couple of posts up in the thread.

Yes, I know what she did. The article says in no uncertain terms that 1) the material was on her computer, 2) she didn't delete the material, and 3) she didn't call the police. Those are the only facts I have asserted about this case the whole time, and they are in the article. You are the one who assumed anything about a recycling bin. Remember this?

Originally posted by rockoon

This person left it in their recycle bin because they didnt know better.

This isn't a "maybe", or an hypothetical suggestion. It's an outright declaration. Where did you get this from, if it's not an assumption? The article says nothing about any recycle bin, or internet cache, or deleted emails folder. It says the material was on her computer. My argument is based solely on that fact, while you seem to be hyperextending yourself to throw out every single possibility that would somehow "justify" having the material on her computer. Just because I haven't offered the possibility that it was in her "deleted files" folder doesn't mean I'm unfamiliar with that process.

And I'm not ruining anybody's life. Your trend toward hyperbole has now doubled back and reached a peak in a sequence of non sequiters, arguments from adverse consequences, appeals to emotion, slippery slopes, and diversion into "how much I know" about caches and secure file deletion. The article didn't say anything about those things. It simply said the material was on her computer.

The judge knows whether or not the material was in a cache, deleted items folder, or recycle bin, or not. And he sentenced her. Perhaps a transcript of the trial, or some court records could be used to prove me completely wrong. All you're doing now is attempting to castigate me for not assuming that the files were in a deleted items folder.

Originally posted by rockoon
THe judges words detail what will happen if the material is found on your hard drive after you've selected the delete function of whatever software is being used. The judges words state that its not a defense. Your own demonstrated lack of knowledge indicates that you too would have been sent to jail had somebody sent you unsolicited child porn and then gave the police a tip off.

I've read the article twice over, and I don't see anybody - judge, prosecutor, or defense - saying anything about "selecting delete functions". He did make it clear, though...

From the article

Hoot shook her head in denial as Judge Richard D. Reinbold Jr. told her that she had chosen to view the pictures of adults sexually abusing young children and infants. "Do not shake your head," Reinbold said. "You crossed a line I can't comprehend."

...that he truly believed her "I thought I deleted it" excuse was total balderdash. I wonder why he wasn't convinced.

Originally posted by rockoon
"but..but..I thought I deleted it!" isnt a defense as you say.. so you yourself are open to being screwed by somebody. Maybe you should keep that email address of yours to yourself.

Because I haven't mentioned anything about Deleted Items folders, I must be ignorant of them? Is that not a stretch?